HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:08:49 GMT

In article <ksand-221192180051@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>...what do you think are the core issues when moral values
>break apart amongst God fearing Christians?
Are moral values ever upheld by God-fearing Christians?
I don't think this is an issue.  Supposedly, Christians
are not better people, just better off.  Is the breaking
of moral values a function of being or not being Christian?

>A good example is 
>the infamout "Donner Party" incident that happened in California
>1846. I could refresh your memory if you are not sure about 
>this incident. Actually, this will lead back to the core issue
>of Christians provided food and shelter, but more about this later.
I've noticed that this issue has been brought up a number of times now.
I'm really kind of wondering now what Jesus means at the Sermon 
on the Mount regarding *and all these things shall be added unto you*.
What things were added unto Paul?  shipwrecks, imprisonment, stonings
and beheading amongst other things.  Speaking of food and drink,
another metaphor comes when he says "whoever drinks the water I give
him will never thirst."  Is there an inconsistency in what he says
or in what we interpret?

Do you feel confused?  I think the point is *that all these things 
will hardly be amongst a God-fearing Christian's primary worries*.
They will or won't happen for the saint.  Why should it matter if
one has Christ?  This sounds scary.  But why should it bother 
anyone?  An addiction to righteousness usually ensues because
that person then has the freedom of mind to pursue said activity.
Death is not a concern either.  Knowing Christ includes a peace and
confidence at heart no matter what happens.  *Lo, I will be with 
you always, until the end of the age.*  On the contrary, *all 
these things* are typically a reason for big worry for anyone
without the peace of knowing Christ to bless them and to sustain them.
For them, LIFE REMAINS ONE BIG RAT RACE.  If neither is your case,
then cheers to you!--whatever floats your boat.  But if you are 
interested, these immediate worries are amongst what the Messiah came 
to deliver us from.

Terence
Lines: 48
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 14:21:41 MST
Newsgroups: alt.censored,talk.religion.misc
From: $stephan@sasb (Stephan Fassmann, Software)
Subject: Re: The Pope on Sex and Heaven, the Full Quote
Organization: BYU


What Do angels do in heaven?


In article <By6spp.Dpt@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
>Subject: Re: The Pope on Sex and Heaven, the Full Quote
>Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:53:49 GMT
>In article <1992Nov19.204201.2387@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>
>>	In the Nov. 23, 1992 issue of Time magazine, on the bottom of
>>page 15, there is a blurb called "Pack some Good Books". It goes:
>>
>>	Heaven may offer the sweetest rewards, but at times they are
>>difficult for mere mortals to imagine. Visiting a parish in Rome this
>>month, Pope John Paul II explained a key difference between heaven and
>>earth: on the far side of the pearly gates, there is no sex. Residents
>>of paradise need no mates, said the Pontiff, because "they are like
>>angels."
>>
>>	I confess that there are a lot of people, myself included,
>>that wouldn't look forward to that kind of Heaven.
>
>   Too bad, because that's how Jesus describes Heaven in Matthew
>22:24-30:
>
>"Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his
>brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.  Now
>there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married
>a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his
>brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
>And last of all the woman died also.  Therefore in the resurrection
>whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.  Jesus
>answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,
>nor the power of God.  For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor
>are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
>
>-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
>Steve Creps, Indiana University
>creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu



_____________________________________________________________________
|Stephan Fassmann  Internet: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu  GEnie: S.FASSMANN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|The Random Acts of Kindness will Continue until Morale Deteriorates|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 23 Nov 92 04:33:40 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <J6qDuB17w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
#bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) writes:
#
#> In article <2Dk2TB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
#> #
#> #There is a material "mind", through which the embodied soul interfaces
#> 
#> Show me this "material mind."
#
#You can see it. But are you willing to undergo the process? Or are you
#too lazy?

You have not shown me anything but words. Neti. Neti.

#> #Although the soul has this capability, in the conditioned state, while
#> 
#> "Show me this "soul."

[More deleted]

#> #Yes, every living organism is operated by a soul within the body of the
#> 
#> Show me these "souls."

[No answer to these questions.]
 
[More deleted]

#> With what authority do you speak? 
#
#On the authority of Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, on the
#authority of the Vedas, and on the authority of our merciful spiritual
#master, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

More words. You have said, Krishna says this, the Vedas say that,
Swami Prabhupada says that, but what do YOU say?

#Sincerely,
#Kalki Dasa
#
#       -------------------------------------------------------
#      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
#      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
#      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
#      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
#      |                                                       |
#      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
#      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
#       -------------------------------------------------------

More words. 

Cheers, Bill

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 14:42:13 GMT

In reference to me Kent Sandvik writes:

>if he wants to be morally correct he should also state that I in my
>private email conversation with him said that I was wrong in some of
>my statements concerning logic (but not the actual intent). Note
>how he's hiding this fact as well, just to do a personal attack that
>is not even related to the discussion topic.

I will first note that I have nowhere claimed that I am morally
correct, despite whatever may be implied above.  It is Mr. Sandvick
that is making claims about personal morality.

Second, I note that despite what is implied above, Mr. Sandvick has
not acknowledged his error of calling the logical inverse the
negation.  On the contrary, in his latest message to me, he reasserts
the folly, though there is a feeble attempt to disguise it by
switching to the language of set theory.

As to being related to the topic: Mr. Sandvick's last argument relied
directly on the claim that he was morally sound.  If this claim is
false the argument fails.  Establishing the truth of this claim is
therefore relevant, unless Mr. Sandvick wishes to present a different
argument.

>Sigh.

Indeed.

>We might still argue for eons if I'm morally correct, but at least
>I'm sound. If you also want to raise your level of Christian and
>moral values, please do something instead of acting like a bitchy
>dog.

Does our "morally sound" poster now employ childish insults?
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
From: king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Qur'an recognizes Bible as inspired(was Jesus is a Prophet..etc)
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:50:07 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <92318.113622RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>No, the Qur'an does not say that the gospels are insprired from God...
>Siddiqui.


YES,  the Qur'an does say the gospels are inspired.  At Sura 9:11
it states,"Such is the true promise which He has made them in the
Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran." (Also see Sura 5:65). 

Jack

Keywords:
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Revised SIQ test
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 02:48:53 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:

> In article <ZZq5TB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
> > As a result, the test has been made even easier, so that those who
> > previously did not know the answers or were unable to understand the
> > questions will now find that this is no barrier to their receiving a
> > perfect grade.
> 
> 	This is true, for, as it turns out ...
> 
> > ...
> 
> > Question 1) What is the soul?
> > A.
> > B.
> > C.
> 
> > Question 2) What is the purpose of human life?
> > A.
> > B.
> > C.
> 
> 
> 	... the choices in the test, by being null, happen to all be
> correct.  There is no way to pick a wrong answer in this test.  So
> I'll take C for #1 and A for #2, and give myself an A.  Fragment of
> pastry.  I'll also give Kalki a B for posting a more meaningful test
> than his first one.  Keep trying!
> 

Test grade: 100% (no spiritual intelligence)

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21929 sci.skeptic:20127 alt.censorship:9019 alt.sex:37349
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:28:47 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Keywords: mindless,politically-correct,use,your,head

In article <1992Nov23.175150.2285@athena.cs.uga.edu> stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton) writes:

>Here in Georgia where the language has developed more than in most places:
>You is singular, Y'ALL is plural! *grin*  Sorry couldn't resist, I've been
>taking so much flack for saying it lately.

And "farm" means "dismiss unwelcome employee."

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
                          Grannies gratified....
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21343 alt.atheism:21471
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Interpretation
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:15:42 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov16.164411.7165@newstand.syr.edu> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>If the Bible or whatever religious text was supposed to be
>interpreted differently from what the words literally sa wouldn't
>the author(s) have included that vital fact in the book?

No, in the same sense that a composer does not include instructions
for the interpretation of his work.  Such interpretations tend to
always have a narrowing, confining effect.  Works of such depth and
magnitude as the great scriptural texts of east were also written
during a time when human consciousness was quite different than it
is today.  There was a deeper sense of the non-literalist meaning
living in the sounds and pictures of the texts.  Our modern disputes
over whether there was a big bang or the world was created in six
days would not have occurred to them, or if it did it would not have
seemed all that important. The Hebrew word, "yom" (day), for example
was imbued through and through with a sense of vast aeons of time.
Only in more recent times, really since the nineteenth century,
has the debate become one of fundamentalist vs. scientific literalism.

So the words _are_ to be taken literally, but not necessarily 
_materially_ literally, but there is vastly more to the words 
than our modern thinking even begins to comprehend.  There is always
this kind of problem when supersensible realities have to be
expressed in earthly human language.

Cordially
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com) 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<1992Nov17.000605.22065@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
	<30462@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:21:07 GMT

I have no idea what train of thought y'all are on now, but it just seems to
me that someone who wants me to die and coordinates things just to make me
stumble and fall, IS evil.  Check out what he tried to do to Job.  And what
Jesus said about him as being a lion trying to tear me apart, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Revised SIQ test
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:59:55 GMT

In article <ZZq5TB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

> As a result, the test has been made even easier, so that those who
> previously did not know the answers or were unable to understand the
> questions will now find that this is no barrier to their receiving a
> perfect grade.

	This is true, for, as it turns out ...

> ...

> Question 1) What is the soul?
> A.
> B.
> C.

> Question 2) What is the purpose of human life?
> A.
> B.
> C.


	... the choices in the test, by being null, happen to all be
correct.  There is no way to pick a wrong answer in this test.  So
I'll take C for #1 and A for #2, and give myself an A.  Fragment of
pastry.  I'll also give Kalki a B for posting a more meaningful test
than his first one.  Keep trying!




-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
  "They say history repeats itself.  But then again, they've said that before."
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 21 Nov 92 14:30:47 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Terence T. Lung (lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
: In article <fVtOfGe@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
: >lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
: >>Where does this business about "godless" hordes from the east come 
: >>from?
: >
: >From the same propagandists that brought you Paulist Christianity, the
: >blond Jesus, the Noble Savages, White Man's burden and a few other
: >brilliant marketing concepts. Wake up and smell the java my good man!
: >The chickens will be coming home to roost!
: 
: OH NO.  Where's the FAQ on "Are there any *true* atheists?"

Don't be daft. The hordes were probably called godless because they
weren't Christians. They certainly had their own gods.

By the way, can anyone confirm whether or not Christians were called
atheists (or some such equivalent) because they did not accept the
Gods of Rome?

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Subject: Just a seasonal observation.
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 13:24:10 EST

Christian theists say that God is real.
Christian theists teach their young children that Santa-Claus is real.
Some of them even go so far as telling their children that the 
Easter Bunny is real.
Since Christians are the children of God what stories has God told
just to see their happy faces.  Can you say heaven or rapture?
And what happens when God tells them about the pink invisible unicorns
that like to hide in the walls of people's apartments, but can be seen by
wolves with x-ray vision during full moon?!  :')
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 15 Nov 92 10:57:32 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

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

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

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

(2) The Inquisition, the Conquista, the Crusades etc. have caused the
death of many millions of people who either believed in no gods,
believed in some other god(s), or believed in the same god as you but
in some different way (ie were heretics).  In many cases they were
given the chance to convert to Christianity (or the "right" version
thereof), but they chose to die for their beliefs (or lack thereof).
By your (il)logic above, this automatically validates their cases.

So I claim that you act in an inconsistent way when you present an
argument for the trustworthiness of the Christian message while not
accepting a similar argument for worshipping Baal, Huitzilopochtli,
Wiracocha, Yahweh (as Judaism would have it) etc., as well as for not
worshipping anything at all.  Or is there a difference between dying
for Jesus and dying for the next god along the street, and if so, what?

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:11:11 GMT

Steve Adams writes

>It has not yet been demonstrated that [animals] are free, moral agents.

Yes (as far as I know), but the old supposition that they are not is
being seriously challenged with regard to some species, yet you speak
here... 

>>No.  Animals are not 'free, moral agents.'

..with obvious confidence. I should think that you would leave the
question open pending credible demonstration, that's all.

--
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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:08:05 GMT

In article <TsRDuB21w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>> >Chant Hare Krishna. This is the method of verification.
>> 
>> Okay, I just did.  Nothing happened except that a cat meowed at me.  I
>> suppose this verifies that Krishna does not exist, unless you want to
>> say that Krishna has been incarnated as Fluffy.
>
>Too bad. Chant more. Krishna's in the cat, but the cat's not Krishna.
>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

Well, the cat just took a dump so Krishna is no longer in the cat.
And I think the cat feels much better because of it.
Why don't you give it a try.

jc
-- 

What we really need to do to bring peace to the middle-east
is to get the Jews together with the Muslims
and teach them to act like good Christians.
From: Steve.Gross@launchpad.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Secret Society
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:29:23 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service


Sorry, there must have been a problem when you posted the note  concerning
my reply to you about the question of Christian denominationalism.  Please
re-post it, or send me the message via e-mail.  

Steve.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu  or
  if that has changed since the system was changed, then try.
Steve.Gross@launchpad.oit.unc.edu


Thanks, I appreciate it.
Steve.Gross
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:10:23 GMT

In article <adams.722209479@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.722198596@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.
>>I'm not sure heaven would be so much fun if I can't have Rover.
>I know of no teaching that says there aren't animals in heaven...ya never
>know what God has hanging around up there...angelic dogs, perhaps?
>But those animals would not be in heaven in the sense that was implied by
>the original poster - through salvation.
And what if I specifically want my somewhat insane pit bull Cujo?
-Ekr
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21727 alt.atheism:21805