HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The Pope on Sex and Heaven, the Full Quote
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:43:40 GMT

creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>
>   Too bad, because that's how Jesus describes Heaven in Matthew
>22:24-30:
>
>....  For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor
>are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

There's nothing said in there about sex, is there?  Sounds to me like
Heaven is the perfect realization of the "Free Love' movement of the
sixties: have sex with whomever you like, whenever you like; no need
to worry about marriage!

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:16:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.045607.11737@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>Where does this business about "godless" hordes from the east come 
>from?  "godless" sure sounds like "atheist" in a nutshell.

It is common practice for religious bigots (like many medieval Christians) to
call "godless" people who do believe in God, but are of a different religion.
--
"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: 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: Wed, 18 Nov 92 15:35:33 GMT

In the following article, posted by Kent Sandvik,

>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:

>> 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.

>Things like these should be handled by private email, and not wasting
>bandwidth to silly flame wars between two individuals. I do think
>t.r.m readers would appreciate if we took this offline, and I will 
>do so. If Mr. Skinner is prepared to continue with his sneak attacks
>on me, instead of dealing with issues, please send me an email. 

Mr. Sandvik fails to address the following paragraph from my above
post, in which I state the reason his "moral soundness" is now the
subject of public scrutiny:

#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.

I do not wish to incite a war of flames, although Mr. Sandvik has
certainly fired the first shot with his insults.  I simply object
to his latest argument in this thread.  Since Mr. Sandvik has
essentially requested that his moral soundness not be the subject
of further public scrutiny, I think I can safely assume he withdraws
the argument that relied on it.  If that is the case, I see no need
to continue.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21944 alt.atheism:21958
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:45:44 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) writes:
>> 
>> Show me this "material mind."
>
>You can see it. But are you willing to undergo the process? Or are you
>too lazy?

I'm not at all lazy, but I don't want to go through a "process".  Just
show me the Mind of which you speak.

>> 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.

Can you provide verification of your authorization in writing, signed
by Krishna and Prabhupada, and also verifiable documentarion
indicating that they know what they're talking about?

Oh, what's that you say?  Krishna can't sign anything because he's
only imaginary?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: the Deteriorata
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 19 Nov 1992 02:28:42 UTC

I found this in alt.pagan, I thought some of you might like it here
also:

In article <2B09D3AB.22370@news.service.uci.edu> 
cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>Finally found it!  I knew I had it around somewhere!
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>				===========
>				Deteriorata
>				===========
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Go placidly amid the noise and waste,
>And remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
>Avoid quiet and passive persons unless you are in need of sleep.
>Rotate your tires.
>Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself,
>And heed well their advice, even though they be turkeys.
>Know what to kiss and when.
>Consider that two wrongs never make a right,
>But that three lefts do.
>Wherever possible put people on "HOLD".
>Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment,
>And despite the changing fortunes of time,
>There is always a big future in computer maintenance.
>Remember the Pueblo.
>Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate.
>Know yourself.  If you need help, call the FBI.
>Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
>Especially with those persons closest to you;
>That lemon on your left for instance.
>Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls,
>Would scarcely get your feet wet.
>Fall not in love therefore; it will stick to your face.
>Carefully surrender the things of youth: birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan,
>And let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
>Hire people with hooks.
>For a good time, call 606-4311.
>Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog
>Is finally getting enough cheese;
>And reflect that whatever fortunes may be your lot,
>It could only be worse in Milwaukee.
>You are a fluke of the Universe.
>You have no right to be here, and whether you can hear it or not,
>The Universe is laughing behind your back.
>Therefore make peace with your God whatever you conceive him to be,
>Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin.
>With all its hopes, dreams, promises and urban renewal,
>The world continues to deteriorate.
>Give up.
>
>>From the National Lampoon Radio Dinner album.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: God not omnipotent since He cain't LIE was Going to Heaven
Organization: doG still barking, coyote howls, fox says yelp!
	<mjenkins.721874244@cunews> <1992Nov16.004514.9549@cs.yale.edu>
	<mjenkins.721875575@cunews>
Date: 17 Nov 1992 01:34:26 UTC

In article <mjenkins.721875575@cunews> 
mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>In <1992Nov16.004514.9549@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>that God said it. Besides, what makes you think that God wasn't just
>>flat out lying?
>If God was flat-out lying, then we may as well just nuke ourselves
>right now.

Woah, talk about holding up a secular image of the transcendent.

>Good grief! If God was lying about that, then we obviously can't trust
>him with anything...specifically his comment about Satan being "the
>father of lies."

Trust is not the issue, get it? Do you trust Luke 14:26? Learn from dogma,
but please do not become dogmatic. Teacher says "Follow me and be Free." Do
you know what that means?

>Come on....God is incapable of lying. It completely goes against his
>perfect nature.
>Michael

Ah, that doesn't make sense. I assume you would also say that God is
incapable of evil? So, Satan is the source of lies and evil and other bad
things, thus Dualism. Jesus the Lord of Light versus Satan the Lord of Dark.
My how easy it is to lose sight of monotheism.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: world, public
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:19:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.055933.7571@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>As far as I can tell, most of them [atheistic barbaric destroyers]
>weren't atheists at all. Can you
>come up with a single example besides communists?
Let's depart from generalizations of people groups and focus on individuals.
Who were those guys beating Rodney King?  Who were those guys beating the
truck driver during the LA riots?

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Fingerprint of God
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:54:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.011821.11366@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>What do y'all think of Hugh Ross' _Fingerprint of God_?
>Has anyone been able to cast doubt on the findings presented in this
>book?
What findings?
-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."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven (Handmaid's Tale)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:02:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.193245.14722@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.162456.17316@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
: >In article <76790001@teecs.UUCP> to@teecs.UUCP (Norman To) writes:

: : Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?

: Doesn't matter to me.  I'm already in heaven -- heaven on Earth!  If
: you want to see what the Christian realization of the "perfect world"
: might be, read _The Handmaid's Tale_ by Margaret Atwood.  Then try to
: tell me that what we have today _isn't_ heaven.

> Since the description of the Christian sect in the book, is very
> loosly described, it can not be a perfect match for any of the 
> current sects.

> It would have to be a Fundametalist hard right-wing Group, who hate
> women, love power for power's sake, and feel that they are America's
> only hope. Since by definition, this excludes all real Christians,
> even (fundamentalist Christians), then calling the world of that
> book a Christian realization of the "perfect world" is a bit far-fetched.

	It may not be "true Christianity" by your definition, but it
would be the sort of thing that some would _label_ Christianity. And
according to your definition of Christianity, there would have to be
an awful lot of fake Christianity on the loose, judging from what some
call Christianity.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21880 alt.atheism:21908
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 04:37:35 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

> Where in the Bible does it say that animals do not have souls?
> For that matter, where in the Bible does it say that humans
> DO have souls, and where is the nature of the soul described?

The nature of the soul is thoroughly described in Bhagavad-gita and many
other Vedic scriptures. The fact that humans (animals and plants too)
have souls is also stated in the Vedas.

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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: bfc@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bryan Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:55:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Fingerprint of God
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc

In talk.religion.misc, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

    What do y'all think of Hugh Ross' _Fingerprint of God_?

    Has anyone been able to cast doubt on the findings presented in this
    book?


What findings?  All he does is basically say "Here's how I've been able
to reconcile what's in the bible with scientific discovery."  So what.
All kinds of babble can be reconciled with reality if you try hard
enough.  It still doesn't mean the bible has any credibility as a source
of knowledge about objective reality.

Kind of like when people thought that they absolutely had to believe in
a flat, stationary earth because of what's in the bible.  When it became
obvious that the earth was a ball moving through space, there was
probably someone who came along and wrote a book about how the bible
so clearly harmonizes with that reality.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21889 alt.atheism:21915
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 23 Nov 92 09:44:21 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <cLwmuB14w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> 
>> Where in the Bible does it say that animals do not have souls?
>> For that matter, where in the Bible does it say that humans
>> DO have souls, and where is the nature of the soul described?
> 
> The nature of the soul is thoroughly described in Bhagavad-gita and many
> other Vedic scriptures. The fact that humans (animals and plants too)
> have souls is also stated in the Vedas.

   Don't forget viruses.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"

PS - say hello to your tapeworm for me
From: king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:53:52 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


>
>Than the Qur'an?  Possibly in some respects (though not in others: it
>is my firm understanding that a book which is full of atrocious crimes
>done with the approval of the supposedly just and loving deity, if not
>directly ordered by it, has an infinitely low moral code; and this is
>true of the Bible, but not of the Qur'an).


The Bible, and for that matter the BoM, deal a lot with the
history of its people of which warfare was an integral part.
The Quran does not. However, its depiction of a loving God tormenting
unbelievers for all eternity is chilling, and much more graphic
than the bible. But some of your criticism of the OT accounts
appear to show your  lack of knowledge of the various covenants
the God made with the nation of Isreal.  

>>If you were going
>>to make up a religion, would you portray the heroes as larger than
>>life?  For example, David's affair with Bathsheba.  David was a great
>>man, yet the Bible pulls no punches about his weaknesses.

>Actually, David's sending Uriah to his death was not a weakness, it
>was a crime, and the fact that David wasn't punished for it (never
>mind that his newborn son was) is just one of the scores of reasons
>for which I maintain that as a moral guide the Bible is not worth its
>weight in straw.  So much about immorality being condemned, and all
>that sort of drivel.

You still didn't really address the issue raised above,e.g, no other
ancient document is so criticle of the main players.  As far as David's
son, 1.) Do you think David suffered from that loss?, 2.) What do you
suppose happened to David's son after he died?

>
>>ez Josephus.  Sez Tacitus.  Sez many Roman imperial officials.  Sez
>>historical evidence.


>Sez what?  That there was someone called Yeshua who was the illegitimate
>son of a joiner called Yosef?  No doubt.  Both were rather common names.
>That said Yeshua was a bum, a preacher, and was ultimately crucified?
>Why not, after all?  Maybe he did.

Great.  At least we got you to admit he existed.  Let's assume for
a minute he is not the Son of God, but just a man.  At the very least
you have to admit he had a profound impact.  The calanders are based
on his birth, and one third of the world claims to be one of his
followers.  Can you name any other histrical figure who has had that
kind of impact.  Not bad for an illegitimate bum.

Jack


Keywords: 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 23:33:44 GMT

I hate to cut in here, but you might be interested in my $.02:

(Paul Harvey) writes:

>OK, OK, I'm just trying to figure out your conception of the meaning of
>Jesus. Now, it seems to me that this is what you are saying:
>
>Item#1: Human Being
>	Part 1: Human Body
>	Part 2: Human Spirit
>	At Human death, the Human Body dies but the Human Spirit lives
>	and does something, what?
>
>Item#2: Jesus
>	Part 1: Human Body
>	Part 2: God Spirit
>	At Jesus death, the Human Body dies but the God Spirit lives and
>	does something, what?
>
>Some more questions:
>1. Jesus does not seem to be 100% human since he lacks a human spirit.

Jesus was fully man in bodily experience, and fully God in Spirit.

>2. Is God only God Spirit or are there other parts of God?

The one Spirit has a plurality which is above our complete comprehension.

>3. What is the difference between Human Spirit and God Spirit?

The human spirit is a creation (child) of the Spirit.



My best (though probably flawed) understanding:

When a person is created, they are given a spirit and a body to house it
while on earth.  This spirit has God-like qualities - in His image - in
that it has a will.  The will of a person is what makes them do things.
By nature, this will does things in order to cater to its housing (the body).
When the body dies, the spirit is able to co-exist with God if its will
coincides with God's will.  Because Lucifer decided to defy God, he and other
fallen angels try to make situations where the person will go against the
will of God, mostly by making it appealing to the body.  All men fall prey to
this temptation throughout their lives.  When the body dies, the spirit (with
a will that does not coincide with God's) cannot coexist with God's spirit.

Jesus was God, so he had a human body with God's Spirit in it.  He was
tempted in every way that we are tempted, but He was able to overcome every
temptation because of His perfect Spirit.  The earthly penalty for going
against God's will is physical death.  This death could not hold Jesus
because His will was God's will.

God is willing to erase the will of our spirit and replace it with the will
of his Spirit.  He will do so as a free gift for whoever asks.  Jesus made
this possible by paving the way, and we can follow Him by believing in our
spirits that He conquered death and asking Him to give us His Spirit.  This
means that our spirit becomes submissive to His Spirit, which comes to live
in the body as well.  Once a person asks God's Spirit in to them, they will
not lose it.  Their will might often take over control, but the presence of
God's will refines the person while they are alive to the degree that they
let Him.

When this person dies, they can coexist with God because of the presence of
His Spirit.  Their communion with God in this state will depend on the
purity of their spirit's submission to God's Spirit while on earth.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:13:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.234344.18993@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.003030.9401@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>2) The proposition that the disciples gave their lives for the proposition
>>that Jesus died and was resurrected. Clearly Paul believed this,
>>but as I say, he was in no position to know. 
>Certainly he was.  Christ appeared to him.  
The most you can say is that Paul BELIEVED that Jesus had appeared
to him. Since the truth of the NT narrative is what we are
debating here, it is mere begging the question for you to assume it
to be true.

Do you have a real argument to propose?

>>Whether or not Peter
>>was in fact teaching this is at best debatable.
>Read I Peter and see for  yourself.
Whether Peter wrote "1 Peter" is in itself debatable.
-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."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:57:46 GMT


Richard.
   I think we've taken this thread past the point of usefulness. I gather from your
comments that you believe the following 5 propositions.

1) Abortion is wrong from conception
2) The Bible supports #1
3) The best (primary) support of 2 is the verse in Jeremiah
4) This verse
     a) does not involve the act of abortion (ie. Jeremiah wasn't aborted)
     b) has nothing to say about conception [you agreed with this statement
         earlier in the discussion]

Apparently, you see no logical problems with simultaneously holding all four
beliefs. To me, the illogic is so blatant that I really don't see any point in
continuing the discusiion. 

Til The Next Topic,
Charlie Board (who as always speaks only for himself)