HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why Jews Hate Proselytizing
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 21:21:28 GMT

In article <1gg4rbINNhh3@crcnis1.unl.edu> e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:
>bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes, in part:
>>                                                           As the
>>concept of God in Judaism is one of a loving God, ......
>
>     Since when?  As I read the Old Testament, the god shows a lot
>     more cruelty, vindictiveness, and vanity than love.

It's actually loving cruelty, loving vindictiveness, and loving vanity
that you're seeing.  Admittedly, it can be difficult to tell the difference
between the loving variety of these qualities, and the other variety.
It becomes much easier to see the distinction once you've had your foreskin
removed.  Biologists are still at a loss to explain this odd phenomenon.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 18 Dec 92 07:00:33 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec18.011838.16329@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:

>>  I am sorry if you thought that I was comparing your brillent posts with
>>  those of tony's, no really, I have much more respect for you than that.
>>  If you really think that you have been insulted, I apoligise, I wouldn't
>>  want your feelings to get hurt.
>
>If you need to apologize, ok, accepted, but I assure you, words
>from the net do not hurt my feelings. Take Care.
>BTW, I like Tony. I think he is very sincere. I like you too,
>although you can be trying at times.
>I feel Tony gets frustrated and uses caps to make a point:-)
>
>barry--

Yes Barry, when I use CAPS, it is to stress that word as you would stress
particular words when you speak.  I just do it so the reader will read
and stress the words as I would have had I been speaking to them in
person.  It certainly is not meant in an offensive manner.

-tony
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:46:32 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Dec17.184855.23641@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|In article <78448@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>|>What is there about either Jesus the Christ or the Father that you
|>|>don't want to be like or even know?  What does it require of you
|>|>to let go of?
|>|My intellect.
|>In all sincerity, isn't it a little presumptious to think that one's own
|>understanding of understanding is the best one out there?
|
|Why not?  You seem to do it.

I don't claim the understanding I have as my own, but believe that it 
is of God.  He has promised to come and make his home with us, if we love
him and keep his commandments.

I don't look to myself for salvation nor spiritual understanding,
but to the Lord - it is his and he has given me and all those who
believe a glimpse of it.

|>Do you think there is any other level of wisdom or understanding in the
|>universe today?
|
|I haven't seen any so far.

Is your answer "no"?  Is what mortal man has achieved on his own the
supreme level or as he continues to achieve will that be supreme?

|>Also, on my first question above, what is there, if anything, about Jesus 
|>or the Father that you don't want to be like or even know?
|
|It's contrary to reason.

It is contrary to man's pride and self proclaimed and appointed knowledge,
but it is not contrary to those who believe.  We were told long ago,
even at the very beginning, that the cross is foolishness to those who have 
knowledge as their goal.  Even the early sermons had people who sneered at 
the concept of the resurrection, but some believed and some intellectuals 
wanted to here more.

|Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
|      The truth is still the truth even if you choose to ignore it.

Agreed.

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 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23721 alt.atheism:23509 alt.slack:3455 alt.discordia:574
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack,alt.discordia
Subject: Re: Book: Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls, B. Thiering
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 04:07:36 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:

> gseidman@math14.math.umbc.edu (gseidman@math14.math.umbc.edu) writes:
> >In article <Byy3F7.6vs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dennis@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Thomas
> >>In <fWjkDQe@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> >>>Interested in the historical Jesus?
> >>I want the Beer Commercial Jesus!
> >There is a song, by Peter and Lou Berryman, entitled "Are You Drinking
> >with me Jesus?"... I just thought you should know.
> 
> Not to mention the Janis Joplin classic a capella, "Oh Lord Won't You Buy
> Me A Mercedes Benz", whose second verse goes something like (apologies to
> Janis wherever she is)
> 
> O Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town,
> I'm counting on you Lord, please don't let me down,
> Prove that you love me and by the next round,
> O Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town.
> 
> But my personal favourite was a ditty very popular down here about ten years
> ago entitled "The devil is my friend" - if anyone could point me at the sourc
> I'd be obliged ...
> 
> -- 
> Internet: pete@extro.su.oz.au             UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!p
>                        I am a big pond in a small fish.


The song, "The Devil Is My Friend" is from the Jazz Butcher's "Bloody" 
Nonsense" album.

Pope Charles   Subgenius Pope Of Houston       "Bobmas" not Xmas!

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,rec.humor
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
            <schnitzi.724097538@eola.cs.ucf.edu> <Bz46pM.5sy@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:53:01 GMT

In article <Bz46pM.5sy@acsu.buffalo.edu> 
  v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:

>Uh-oh.  I sense a "Why Beer is better than God" posting.

A pleasure.  

		TOP 10 REASONS WHY BEER IS BETTER THAN GOD

10. You don't have to wait for Sunday morning to worship beer

 9. If you don't like your beer you can switch to another one and
    don't have to worry about going to hell.

 8. Less filling!

 7. Combine beer and STTNG and you have a really cool drinking game.
    Combine God and STTNG you have....

	If Picard drinks tea			smite the Sodomites
	If it is identified as Earl Grey	part the Red Sea
	If he says "Make it so"			turn water into wine

 6. After lots of beer you feel like having mad, passionate sex.
    After lots of God you don't.

 5. Too much beer makes you sick (sorry, that's from the "Why beer
    is exactly the same as God" list)

 4. Beer comes in easy to carry twelve packs.

 3. Beer is advertised on television by semi-clad blonde beauties.  
    God is advertised by semi-bald overweight evangelists.

 2. Very, very few wars in the world are caused by two countries
    disagreeing about beer.

 1. You can go around door to door offering to discuss beer with
    people and handing out free samples and no one gets pissed off.


Okay, let's be fair about this.

		TOP 5 REASONS WHY GOD IS BETTER THAN BEER

5. You don't need an ID

4. You can pray all evening and still be okay to drive home. 

3. You can get Bibles for free in motel rooms.  Beer costs about
   6 bucks for a 12 pack.

2. It's cool to mention God at your wedding.

1. God gave us "The Song of Solomon".  Beer gave us "The Bud Bowl"

:-)

C Frog 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:42:37 GMT

In article <ksand-161292200324@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
> If I understood this correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong)
> Jesus was human in every sense of the word, but he didn't have 
> the fault of the original sin. So he wasn't human in every sense.

You're right. In every sense except... 
He fulfilled the rest later.
> 
> BTW, he wasn't even married, neither had children, so how could
> he experience that important part of life? Neither (based on
> the NT texts) did he ever fell in love with a women/man, another
> pretty basic human interaction. Finally he wasn't even sired
> by a man (born by a virgin), another pretty human attribute.

There are more, but as I stated in my last message to Ken A. He
indeed fulfilled all of that with his death on the cross in
taking on the whole weight of sin from those past and present
who ever lived. And the sticky part is seperation from the Father.
> 
> These are the things that makes me question that he was human 
> in every sense. Actually, he was quite human, but the God-like
> part is the one I'm skeptical about.
> 
Nothing wrong with being skeptical. I am sure you heard all
the explanations. I can read the word(bible)many times, but one
time something I have been over many times in the past hits me!
Why didn't I see that before? Well, that's often how it goes.

barry--
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God etc
Date: 13 Dec 1992 18:15:12 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: talk
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

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?


My response:
     That depends on what you mean by "religion"!  Most religion started as a 
way to suck up to the god(s).  And most religion still is primarily that.
     The notion that the essence of religion is a moral code is wrong.  The 
moral code is something that just gets tacked on to the supernatural ideas, with
their gods, prophets, saints, ceremonies, rites, miracles, and general 
hocus-pocus.
.
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:22:02 GMT

: In article <BzFn99.5BA@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 

: >>being christian to being pagan.
: >		 	  ^^^^^
: >I hate to nitpick, but this is the DUMBEST word in modern spirituality today.
: >ANd so many (not you) of these 'pagans' are about as true to their 'beliefs'
: >as the average Christians.  Yeargh.

So? You expect pagans/Pagans to be any different than the rest of humanity?
There are pagans who follow various religions - some very devoutly, some about
as much as the average adherant of the mainline religions. Some are atheists,
and follow no religion. Some are agnostics, and probably don't worry about
religion.

There is a difference between "beliefs" and "tenets/dogma". People usually
act as they trully believe. They often violate the tenets that they are
supposed to follow.

: >Hmm, OK, let me give you *my* definition of pagan:
: >1) Non-Semitic Religions
: >	For example: Christianity represents a pagan interpretation of
: >	the scriptures of Judaism and Islam represents a return from the
: >	pagan aspects of Christianity towards Semitic ideals;
: >	(separation of creator and creation, pure monotheism, no
: >	idolatry).
: >2) Various Religions of Babylon excluding Judaism
: >	For example: the Jews in exile in Babylon were exposed to a
: >	great variety of pagan religions coming from Greece, Persia,
: >	India and from Mesopotamia itself; yet they kept Judaism alive,
: >	in its original language, against all odds.
: >3) Religions prior to conversion to Christianity or Islam
: >4) Islam
: >	Christians refered to Moslems as pagans during the Crusades.
: >	Moslems refered to Christians as idolaters and non-believers.
: >5) Neo-Pagan religions
: >	Attempts to rediscover religions lost or nearly lost to
: >	Christian conversion.
: >6) Religions that attempt to combine all the world's religions into one.
: >	For example, Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy.
: >7) A personal and unique religion or interpretation
: >8) Misc. Religions that I've missed
: >
: >See anything you like?

Hm. Are you a follower of Judaism, by any chance. It certainly appears so,
from your posting.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23821 alt.atheism:23635
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Answering John Muehlhausen's questions. (was Re: THE MIND OF...etc.)
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:39:54 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <1992Dec14.192145.18552@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> I would like to present, for your analysis, the reaction of such a mind to
>> what you have written:
>> 
>> 5: How could Biblical authors write such a cohesive and psychologically
>>    influential book, separated in time and space as they were?  
>
>It is a BUNCH of books, not one. It was only assembled into one
>book in the fourth century (fifth)?  The books were SELECTED for their
>doctrinal coherence. Books that didn't fit the prevailing dogma of the
>time were left out.  It is more surprising that there is such internal
>dissonance in the Bible, considering the book was assembled by what 
>amounted to a form of censorship (to put it harshly). 

The OT canon was closed around 100AD.  At least for the Jews.  Roman
Catholics use I & II Macabees, plus others.  Protestants use the Jewish
canon.  As for the New Testament...yes the canon was closed around that
time, though it fluctuated quite a bit.  For example, the 'Pastor (or
Shepherd) of Hermas' was included in many collections, but didn't make the
canon.

Someone will correct my mistakes...I'm sure!

 -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: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: In response to Jack Carroll on Hinduism?
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:46:27 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec11.064046.1446@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.220454.27100@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
>>A meat eating, destined for hell Hindu
>
>	I thought that the great Hindu forbidden food was beef :-)

The great one, maybe, but by no means the only one.  Eating any kind
of meat a transgression (a deed which creates demerit -- negative karma),
and is punished by being eaten by predators in many subsequent rebirths.

>	And what is the Hindu Hell? I thought you get reincarnated a
>lot. :-)

Yes, and in particular you may be reincarnated in one of the various hells,
which are bloody unpleasant places to be in.

-- 
 `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
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Defining the kingdom of God
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 18:14:16 GMT

I fear that Mr. Sandvik may be interpreting my argument against his
claim "there's nothing logical about Christianity" as an argument for
the truth of Christianity.

Earlier I wrote how silly I feel Mr. Sandvik's charge, "the only
evidence for Jesus comes from believers," sounds in a different
context.  At that time he interpreted my argument to be an attempt to
assert the truth of Christianity.  For reasons I do not understand, my
repeated clarifications fell on deaf ears.

I now assert that Christianity is not absent of logic, contrary to Mr.
Sandvik's unsupported assessment.  I am not suggesting that the
presence of logic in Christianity in any way demonstrates its truth.


                                   Gregg Skinner


P.S.  I feel we are due a retraction from Mr. Sandvik.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:37:53 GMT

young.u.huh (young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com) wrote:
: You can continue to sin out of your own weakness
: but always be forgiven when you admit your guilt.

NO NO NO.  You're supposed to come up with clever answers, not give the real
one!
-- 
Mike A. McAngus	(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) 

Like I really need another time-consuming hobby.
This Posting Exploits Illiterates.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Satan Persecutes Mormons
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:19:36 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

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.

Apparently not!

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
From: Bill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because(30 words max):
Date: 14 Dec 1992 20:05:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: o231-13.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

Peace.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: 12/18/92   God's Promise in Luke 1: 79
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 21:14:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.102725.4568@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>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.

[1 Peter 2:19-25 deleted]

By saying this, do you mean to imply that the suffering in Somalia (Bosnia,
etc.) is insignificant, in either your eyes or God's?  I assume not but
perhaps you should clarify.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Reasoning about God
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:49:45 GMT

==================================================
> However, today the devil is binding people to believe in no higher being
> so that it would be hard to reach them.

Superstitious drivel. A total lack of evidence is what leads people to doubt
the existence of both deities and devils.

> But God is working a new thing, and is raising up saints who are willing
> to risk all for Him and are ready to take back what Satan has stolen.

Oh boy. It gets better, too.

> I rebuke Satan in the name of Jesus and I bind that demon that has
> you so lost. My brother, the Lord is going to deliver you from pride and
> haughtness. God is calling you right now.
> Submit to God and resist the devil. All that Satan has been telling you
> is a lie. God loved you when you first heard about Him and never stopped.
===================================================

Wow! A cross-net exorcism!  You saw it here first, folks!
(Would you believe this guy goes to _Cornell_!  Must
be on some sort of TV evangelist scholarship.)

Brian /-|-\
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Date: 12 Dec 92 13:15:41 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <fWuOHKc@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> In article <adams.724125297@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>Just out of curiosity -- what is the source of your confidence?
>>Good question.  If I say from myself, that denies that there is more to it
>>than that, and I believe there is.  That confidene comes from God, through
>>the Holy Spirt.
>>I suspect that the atheist response to that is that it does come from me,
>>and me alone, and I just won't take credit for it.
> 
> Aha! The perfect chance to present my Zen Koan [J. ko,public + an,matter]:
> 
> "Worlds above and worlds below, no *ONE* in the world like me!"

[...other koans deleted, in the true Zen spirit...:) ]

Why do I get the feeling you were just waiting for a chance like that? :)

> Of course your confidence comes from God, through the Holy Spirit. 
> But, these are after all metaphors. For what? 
> 
> Final Koan: Does saying this, even loudly, make it true?
 
I am speechless. (except for that statement..oh, and this one, and the one 
following this one. This one, too, but you already knew that, from reading
the previous one. There'll be one more, by the way. Nope, not this one, 
the one before. This one, and the immediately preceding one, are extras,
tossed in to make the third one false. This one just slipped in, I dunno
how.)
 
Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Don't say it, okay? Just don't say it. -- Usenet Survival Guide
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Subject: Re: In response to Jack Carroll on Hinduism?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:06:32 GMT

In article <12041@hogg.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.064046.1446@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec10.220454.27100@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
> >>A meat eating, destined for hell Hindu
> >
> >	I thought that the great Hindu forbidden food was beef :-)
> 
> The great one, maybe, but by no means the only one.  Eating any kind
> of meat a transgression (a deed which creates demerit -- negative karma),

The concepts of negative karma, good karma, bad karma etc are
really alien to Vedic/Vedantic beliefs. They were (probably)
brought in to keep the average person interested/lead a "moral"
life.

> Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)

RKP