HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
Date: 15 Sep 1992 20:30:14 -0500
Organization: Pro-nbs.acme.fred.org -- San Diego, Ca (619) 571-0152
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In <ksand-140992213648@wintermute.apple.com>
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>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?
>

But here you wind up with the problem of explaining how thebeing that is an
earthworm got to be an earthworm. According to the Vedas, the soul in the
earthworm's body is a soul, originally from the spiritual world, that "sinned"
(I don't like that word too much, but it will have to do) nd came to the
material world, where its first form was human. Having sinned some more in the
human form, it was degraded to the body of an earthworm, which is just one of
several million kinds of bodies it could have received. In the body of the
earthworm it commits no sins, but works off its karma (sin) and
gradually evolves again once more to the human form, where it has a chance
again to go back to the spiritual world or take on more karma (by "sin"). One
of the ways you could get some more karma would be by putting earthworms on
hooks (ouch!) and feeding them to fish, with a view to catching them (again
ouch! for the fish), which is more karma! 

According to the Vedas, God, as the Paramatma, or Supersoul, accompanies the
individual soul, or atma, in every body, including that of the earthworm. So
in this sense, a sage with true spiritual vision will offer respect (worship)
even to an earthworm, understanding that within that slimy little body is a
spark emanating from God (the atma) and an expansion of God Himself (the
Paramatma, or Supersoul). At least the sage won't put the worm on a hook.

Druta Karma

ProLine:  dkarma@pro-nbs
Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.cts.com
UUCP:     crash!pro-nbs!dkarma
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sean: TESTIMONY CALLO
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:04:39 GMT

(Kalki writes)
........The Vedas clearly state that without the mercy of the Lord, no
one can approach Him or please Him.

(Kent Sandvik writes)
KS>I think this is a good example of "East and West, and they will never
KS>meet". I belong to the Western society, where the issue of man
KS>not being in service of any master is one of the key revolutions
KS>in modern time. It is nowadays also part of a person's world
KS>view.
KS>Thus I would never accept a slave-master relationship between
KS>a god and a human. This was the norm 1000 years ago, this is no
KS>longer the social norm.

In article <gate.0TDRqB1w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us> 
kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) writes:
> It is not possible to avoid serving others. Everyone serves someone:
> it is a law of material nature. The laws of nature are controlled by
> God, and therefore everyone is factually His servant, whether the
> servitude is direct (in loving devotion) or indirect (in fear or
> anger).

I think you are confusing the words serve, servant and slavery. I may
serve you tea, but I am not your servant or slave. I may serve Vishnu or
Shiva, but I am neither's servant nor slave. I may serve the betterment
of humankind, but I am not a servant nor slave to humankind. I may serve
the sands of the hourglass, but I am not a servant or slave to those
sands. I may serve dharma, but I am not a servant or slave to dharma.

Granted it is subtle, but do you SEE a difference, do you
PERCEIVE a difference? Serving does not imply absolute serving nor does
it imply servant status nor the institution of slavery. It is important
to realize that if you serve, you do so at your own initiative, if you
become a slave, you do so also at your own initiative. For the most
part, the shackles of slavery have been broken, the Lord has delivered
you FROM slavery, if you cling to the broken shackles, the question is
why? Perhaps it is your own fear that enslaves you? Fear of what? Your
own free will? Fear of having to decide between good and bad? Fear of
original thought, original direction, original dharma, originality?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Mr. Clippingdale's religion
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:48:10 GMT


simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>You can coerce *anything* into a Marxist worldview, for instance.
>If the international proletariat rise up and shout with one voice
>"Marx was a jerk and Marxism is crap" then they've been brainwashed
>by the ruling class oppressors.
>
>This may or may not be true; the point is there's no way of testing
>it. The acceptance of such unfalsifiable dogma *as*objective*truth*
>is qualitatively no different from, and as dangerous to our survival
>as, religion as far as I can see. It's that whole way of thinking
>that bothers me.

Just curious. How do you arrive at objective truth? If you think there
is such a creature, is empirical testing the only way to reach it?

Are there any untestable assertions that deserve the label objective
truth? I know of no test to prove that I have a conscience, yet something
troubles me when I violate standards of behavior I have set for myself.
The quantity and quality of circumstantial evidence would lead me to 
conclude that the existance of a faculty for distinguishing right and 
wrong in my own conduct is objectively true.

How would you propose we rate the validity of an untestable assertion?


Dave Weaver




  

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Various Religions
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:43:45 GMT

In article <BuBxqM.219@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> cfury@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Chris Fury) writes:
>jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:
>>turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:

>The bible is fact.  I believe that, strange stories and all.  You see, 
>evolution is a neat thing and all that, and I'm sure it did play a role of
>some sort, it bothers me that we just *happened* to transform ourselves
>from ameobas.... :)
How can you criticize evolution if you don't understand it. We didn't
evolve from amoebas.
And what do you mean "just happened?" If you were a four headed thinking
baboon, you would be asking the same question.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Brainwashing
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 11:31:03 GMT

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"?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: An addition to the family!
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:21:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.213407.12823@spss.com> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>To the usual suspects here in these groups:
>
>I and my wife Chris are proud to anounce the arrival of Joshua Stephen
>Adams at 7:52 AM on Saturday, Sept. 5,  Joshua weighed in at 8lbs and 14oz,
>and was 20.5 inches long.  Mom and baby are doing fine, and came home this
>morning (Sunday).  Joshua joins Matthew 3 1/2 and Michael 2 in our
>household.
	Congratulations to mom and kid!  Sounds like you folks are going to
have your hands full!  >:-)>
	What a welcome relief from the last 100+ flames I n-keyed my way
through.

>
>So, if I'm lax in responding, never fear, it just means one of my kids
>needs attention!  I'll be away from the office for a week...but hopefully
>not away from the net...
>
> -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

	We look forward to your return to the trenches....
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'



--
   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:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:34:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.715469360@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
> >And I state that our views are based on pre-knowledge obtained by
> >our brains, and that objectivity is a myth. I agree that we can't 
> >state what is right or wrong. While you state you could. And my statements
> >are in contradiction with yours. Which evidently shows that your views
> >are not objective and universal, rather views created by your mind.
 
>   wrong.  absolute truth can exist.  2+2=4 and it is true.  you can
> make statements that contradict this, but this does not necessarily
> mean 2+2=4 isn't objective or universal.  neither you nor i can show
> that god being knowable in the bible and his truths being absolute
> are objectively verifiable according to the same means we can prove 2+2=4.
> so you cannot say that i'm wrong.  i think i'm right and i'm going to
> continue to live based on god existing and his being knowable in the
> bible. 

OK, if you insist that 2 + 2 = 4 implies absolute knowledge (I'm
merely stating it's a common understanding of prime value definitions),
then state the absolute knowledge that Jesus died for our sins.
If you are unable to define a similar statement, then you loose.


>   actually, a universal truth would assert itself as applicable to all,
> eternal and consistent over time.  a universal truth would now have
> to be different for everyone/every culture.  i sought a truth that
> is applicable to all, eternal and consistent over time.  these are
> the characteristics of eternal god.  i found him in jesus.

So is 2 + 2 = 4 different for every culture. Does the Japaneese
assume that 2 + 2 = 5? You can't give us the final evidence that
Jesus is the saviour, as long as only 1/5 of the population of this
planet believes in it. Add to that the problems to convince people
that know that 2 + 2 = 4.

Cheers,
Kent
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christology 101  [was: There are two years left]
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:26:45 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada




Re: the Christology thread...

I realize now that I am guilty of a couple of (more) sins...

1. Coming to a hasty conclusion about Charles Hedrick's position. 

2. Playing free and easy with words that are loaded with meaning for
other people (I plead ignorance here...)

3. Shooting my mouth off with insufficient data.

4. Getting my Christological heresies mixed-up...which wouldn't be so bad,
(considering I'm just starting to learn about the details of this stuff)
except for sins 2 and 3 above. 
 
5. Being a bit of a jerk. <ouch>

I hereby retract all my hasty comments and offer my apologies to Charles 
Hedrick. He knows about 1,000,000 times more about this subject than I do.
I repent myself in dust and ashes. One last comment - there was no offense
or criticism intended in any of my posts. I just mention this because
some of the flames indicated that people felt I was deliberately taking 
shots at Mr. Hedrick.  This was never my intention.  

Thanks to everyone who straightened me out. That's what we're all here for,
eh? To learn....

Sincerely,
Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"When other people are wrong, it is in fact _I_ who am wrong. But when
I am wrong, I alone am to blame."  
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:16039 talk.religion.newage:4305
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: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:43:01 GMT

In article <adams.716310684@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>Okay...but why? Couldn't God waive his own rules?  Especially regarding a
>>price to be paid to himself by himself?  I still don't understand.
>If God had waived the rules, that would have violated justice.  Of course,
>now you'll ask why he didn't wave that one...the point is, that God
>demonstrated mercy and justice, and still followed the rules.  The price
>HAD to be paid somehow by someone.

The phrase "had to" sounds odd applied to an omnipotent God.
--
"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)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15813 sci.skeptic:16042
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 7 Sep 1992 11:07:58 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University

Apostate Pythagoreans!

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


Remember, as Neoplato himself said:  "ONE for all and all for ONE!"
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15872 alt.atheism:16756
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:31:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.235653.4639@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
}
}hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
}>If God created the universe, who created God?
}
}
}This question seems to pop up frequently. Here goes ...
}
}The Bible makes claims that point toward the transcendence of God, that  
}he exists in dimensions apart from our experience. One of those claims is
}of his existence "prior to" or "apart from" the existence of the universe. 
}Since time as we know it originated at the big bang, existence apart from 
}the big bang points to additional dimensions of time. If God is transcendent
}and exists in multiple dimensions of time, then the whole concept of a 
}"begining" becomes absurd. In two dimensions of time, where is the "begining"
}of a plane? In three dimensions, where is the "begining" of a sphere? The 
}whole question "who created God" implies a linear timeline, an invalid
}assumption if transcendence is one of his attributes.

And what makes you think that the universe in total isn't the same?  Your
description appears insufficient.
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Stubborn and Evil.
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:21:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.114545.21803@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Nevertheless, you are hopelessly stubborn, Kent. 
>
 Stubborness is a _good_ quaility in resisting evil, lying, deceitfull
 people who are determined in tearing people down.

 To not resist your type of _evil_, is tantamont to supporting it.

 All that is required for evil to succeed, is for good people _not_ to
 oppose it.

-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: SPIRTUAL HEALING
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00550-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:33:02 GMT




Well there is the spiritual that mystics "do" where diseases are healed
instantly by some mystic force that the mystics has tapped into.

Than there is the Western healings like you see on TV by preachers.

I have seen preachers heal by the power of God--- so I don't doubt
the validity. I would venture to say that the mystic stuff probably
works as well-- but I have yet to see it.


Chris
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:52:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <lavdj8INN4r5@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@xtrek.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan
O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) wrote:
> (Kent "Hacker" Sandvik) writes:
>  
>  I ment that we have an understanding about the Newtonian physics,
>  however we have thousands of Christian splitter groups defining
>  the doctrine of Christianity.
> 
> <devil's advocate mode ON>
> 
> Well, newtonian physics, much like the hebrew bible, is "old hat".
> And certainly there are at least 3,000 physicists positing theories
> about how the universe works and what it is. . .
> 
> <devil's advocate mode OFF>

Well, if I enable my devil's advocate flag (setq *devadvflag* true)
then I would also state that if all religions in the world can't even 
agree on a simple question style "why we are here", they better
pack and leave the scen.

(setq  *devadvflag* false)

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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:55:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <67876@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> In article <ksand-080992173152@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >I do think that trinity can't be really explained with notions
> >from the Gospels, mostly because it was an invention defined long
> >time after gospels were written.

> What about the wrapping up message Jesus gave, you know Matthew 28:18-20,
> to go make disciples and baptized them in THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF
> THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT?

> Note it is THE name, which is singular, and yet there are three.

He didn't say to baptize in the name of the holy trinity, or what. 
Is it mention anywhere in the Gospels (holy trinity?).

> Also, what about when Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended
> on him and the voice from heaven said this is my son.  Note: Holy Spirit,
> Jesus (the Son) and the Father, the voice which spoke and was apart from
> the Holy Spirit of God and the Son of God.  Three again.

Same logical problem again, where do you see the words "Holy trinity"
mentioned. I don't see 'em. Anyway, I don't see a connection between
three entities separately doing things, and suddenly there's a
magical interconnection. It clearly shows that we have three things,
that's sure.

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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:22:50 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <exukjb.151.716250175@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
> 
> This post was too long, interesting, but too long. The real difficulty with 
> the christian god-concept is that it presupposes the moral superiority of a 
> being who can create eternal inferiors over a being who could create beings 
> exactly like himself.

There are problems with Hindu god-concepts also. My aim was to
show that what a Christian understands as god is different from
Hindu concepts.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
> Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
> P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
> Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RKP
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:31:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <gate.876NqB1w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) wrote:
> Everyone serves someone. God serves His devotees by reciprocating with
> them in loving relationships. God also serves those who don't like Him:
> even atheists depend on God to maintain the universal stability so that
> they can pursue their impossible dream of independence from Him.
> Atheists also serve others, if only to earn a living.
> Nobody anywhere in existence is exempt from servitude. Service is the
> eternal function of all living beings.
  
Do you realize that your statement totally depends on the notion
that *your* concept of God is true. It's not even a question if
God exists or not (agnosticism), it's the frontal attack notion
that everyone should worship God.

Anyway, I don't mind if there's such a God helping me, I have not
seen this being helping people in Somalia or Bosnia. However,
I'm quite skeptical about the one-sided notion that service
is a function everyone should obey to. I think it has to do with
my own personal observation that "All men are equal".

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.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:16100 alt.atheism:17077