HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/9/93   God's Promise in 1 John 2:1
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:12:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	My little children,	
	these things write I unto you,
	that ye sin not.
	And if any man sin,
	we have an advocate with the Father,
	Jesus Christ the righteous:

	1 John 2:1
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25119 alt.pagan:14932
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Childhood
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:39:34 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1993Jan9.224709.23520@midway.uchicago.edu>, dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.175717.10011@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>>A truly child-like faith would have no Hell.
> 
> You must be even older than I am. . .  :) 
> Of course parts of childhood are `hellish'. . .

Agreed. By the brass balls of the blazing blue Buddha, a man has to be careful
what he says around here...:)  

But notice the capital "H" on "Hell..."

What I meant was that a child-like faith would not include a doctrine
of Hell analogous to the Christian one, in which an all-knowing, all powerful
being condemns people to eternal torture for disagreeing with him. I find it
hard to imagine that concept arising from the qualities we call "childlike."

A childlike faith might have some rather nightmarish elements to it, though.
I'm obviously speculating, but it's interesting to think what kind of
mythology a child would cook up on its own. My guess is that the concept
of eternal torture with no possiblity of redemption is too frightening
to be appealing to a child. However the child-"ish" parts of a child might
well take a certain vicarious glee in the thought of a being powerful enough
to be above all law, and beyond all obligation, who could punish eternally
without fear of retaliation (n.b. the argument was about a child-ish faith vs.
a child-like one).

> Dano
> 

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An End to All Arguments
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:34:46 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1993Jan6.134204.12312@hsr.no>, barclay@hpa.rf.no (Barclay Stevenson) writes:
> 			 An End to All Arguments
> 			 -----------------------

At last!
  
> God is a good God, God is righteous and God is just. This is the basic
> nature of God (God is love).
> If you do not agree, then your God is just a god.

Well, that sure clears that up. Thanks!

> It is because of the earthly limitations of our brains (and thence pride
> in our hearts) that we can start to argue if God is unjust,
> or doesn't care.

Wait -- if our earthly brains are so limited, how can we be so sure
we're right when we think that God is righteous???  Oh, I hate it
when I get all confused.

> Jesus said that we cannot even understand earthly things, how then could
> he start to explain heavenly things for us.
> 
> Paul explains it like seeing through a glass darkly.
> Don't critisize the view when it's your eyesight that's the problem

D'oh. Ok. You just tell me what to think and I'll think it, then.
You're right. This is so much better...

> Reading some articles here in this group shows that some talk from their
> intellectual understanding of God without knowing him in person.
 
Uh, oh. Could it be the work of....Satan???
 
> Like in this natural world, it's only when you live with a person that
> you really get to know them. So it is when you have the Spirit of Christ
> in you, it's then that you understand and experience that God is good,
> loving, and not willing that any should perish.
>
> But, this can be like explaining what colour is to a blind man.
> The Bible says "Lean not to your own understanding"

I won't! I'll take the Bible literally, pray to an image in my mind that
I'll call "God," get all emotional about how wonderful that image is, and
call the groovy feelings this act of mental masturbation produces 
"the Spirit of Christ."   If I start to doubt my sanity, I'll go to a 
church full of other people who are also doubting their sanity, and
we'll all reassure each other that we're sane, for another week. 

How can people turn down the promise of a life like this?? 

> There is a great chasm between Christians filled with the Holy Spirit and
> unbelievers that cannot be crossed by the bridge of intellect, reasoning, or
> consensus. There is only one bridge, the one already supplied by The Lord and
> Saviour Jesus Christ accomplished through his sacrifice on the cross, and by
> faith you cross it.

Hail to the Fuhrer!

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"Hey, don't shoot the messenger...put that thing down! Hey! Wait! Uh, let's
be reasonable about this! You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses would you?
What? Well, he said that I see `through a glass darkly.' Heh heh... no,
wait!!!"

*BLAM!!!*

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 1/3/92   God's Promise in Hebrews 9: 12
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:48:46 GMT

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>>
>>>	Neither by the blood of goats and calves,
>>>	but by his own blood
>>>	he entered in once into the holy place,
>>>	having obtained eternal redemption for us.
>>
>>	Yet not content to take the blood of his beloved son,
>>	still the god kills thousands by the day:
>>	many not even with the mercy of blood,
>>	but rather through the slow torture of starvation.
>>	If this is what it means to be saved,
>>	perhaps it would be better to risk our own fate.
>
>Again, the invalid pressumption that God is the culprit behind
>all the bad stuff in the world.
>
>God gave us wills of our own.  As it was in the beginning, so
>it is now.  Men are still finding scapegoats for their own
>irresponsibilities.

Your argument: "It is invalid to say that God is responsible for the
bad things in the world.  We have free will, so we are naturally to
blame for our own failings."

In response, I offer: "It is invalid to say that God is responsible
for the good things in the world.  We have free will, so we are
naturally to praise for our own successes."

In addition, I add: Even if God is not the culprit behind all the bad
stuff in the world, then why doesn't he just fix it for us?
Obviously, either he _can't_ or he _won't_; either possibility tends
to smudge his image as benevolvently omnipotent.

And further: Why even bring God into the picture?  Why not just say
that we humans are responsible for all the bad stuff and all the good
stuff in the world, and leave it at that?

-- 
_/_/_/  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,alt.pagan
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 12:22:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.091825.16976@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>That is what some sects teach - certainly. However, even the KJ version
>of the Bible is misinterpreted. An example: One of the 10 commandments
>is "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Now, may sects believe that
>this says that you will only worship "God". They refuse to read what is
>actually there - it does not say that. It only says that "God" will be
>your primary deity - nothing more. It does not, in any way, prohibit the
>worship of other deities.

Exodus 20: 3-5
you shall have no other gods before me.
  You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything
that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or is in the 
water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity
of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me.

Exodus 34:14
for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous,
is a jealous God.

(From The New Oxford Annotated Bible)
I dunno, seems pretty straightforward to me. Other gods are right out.




-- 
Mike Swaim            | "101 Dalmations? Yeah I saw that."
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | "You Did! REALLY? The same film?
Disclamer: I lie      | Let's stop driving! We must get out and jump
up and down and up and down and dance around and around!" Matt and Delerium
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:53:00 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <root.726423512@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
> 
>>In article <root.726333839@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
> [on free will]
> 
>>Is this an illusion?  Perhaps.  In which case I have no choice but to
>>believe in free will... ;-)
> 
> That's Sean's point, and it describes me, too.  Free will appears to be, at
> least somewhat, of an illusion.  But it's one I'll keep for the moment.

If you guys are so free, then explain this: how do you decide to make
a decision? Or do decisions _just happen_? Heh heh... *evil laugh*

As Stephane Mallarme (aka God) put it: a throw of the dice will never abolish
Chance. All thought emits a throw of the dice. 

>  -Steve

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

NOTHING WILL HAVE TAKEN PLACE...
BUT THE PLACE.
- Mallarme
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 13 Jan 1993 00:44:33 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <C0rKHI.36A@phage.cshl.org>, pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
|> In article <1ivb7vINN6if@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan12.102730.21302@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes
|> >>
|> >> Also the 60's weren't so bad.  I mean it gave us the Civil Rights
|> >> and it gave us a conscience.  Before we just treated Blacks
|> >> sub-human and we believed any and everything our govenment told us,
|> >> just like the Soviets...Strange isn't it?
|> >
|> >I'm glad someone said that.   I've noticed how hard some people
|> >have worked in the past five years to turn "the sixties" into
|> >some kind of synonym for Sodom and Gomorrah, in much the same
|> >way that they have managed to pervert the word "liberal".
|> 
|> i was not tryign to pervert the word "liberal". 

Don't worry.   I wasn't suggesting that you were.   I'm just commenting
that when I was a kid, the word had a perfectly respectable meaning
before the spin doctors got to it.

People who want to present an edited version of reality have to start
by removing meaning from words, which they do by misusing them over
and over.

|>                                               the last time
|> i thought about the sixties was a PBS special awhile ago that
|> was VERY interesting. the soundtrack was a long Grateful Dead
|> jam and it documented a certain march on washington. maybe the
|> soundtrack added to it but it certainly seemed pretty somber to me.
|> i am not saying it was a bad time, only that it was a hard time.

Well, you raise a good point.   Press stories and documentary films
often give a highly distorted view of reality by focussing on what
is sensational, what is photogenic, and what they happen to have in 
the film library.

We all lived through the sixties, and we were all affected by it,
but we didn't all fry our brains out, we didn't all march on Washington,
and we certainly didn't all listen to the Grateful Dead.

jon. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: "What does science tell us about God?" (Time Magazine)
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
	<zlsiida.662@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> <1993Jan7.230228.13040@digi.lonestar.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:28:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.230228.13040@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
> As for the absence of a divine being, does Buddhism deny the existence of
> God or the Gods or does it simply not deal with the subject?

	Basically, Buddha considered the question irrelevant.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                      "What is 'The Cat in the Hat', anyway?"  "A Korean dish?"
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose; ANSWERING ------> Willard
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:17:12 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <0dB202s=30N.01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>>In that case, I'm sure they would be anxious for you to divulge
>>their names in support of your cause so we could check you out
>>on this, and perhaps add their voices to yours.
>
>Perhaps this would prove nothing except that they would get a million
>emails from you guys criticizing them for doubting the "ONE true CHURCH".
>I'll let them speak for themselves.  Either way, it proves nothing.
>

I certainly wouldn't send them any nasty mail and I don't
hold with this "One True Church" talk anyhow.  It's just that
I have my skepticism about your effectiveness as a converter
of Mormons to protestantism.  If they came forward, it would
at least give us some evidence that you were not exaggerating.
You see, your style is so nasty that it is hard for me to
see how anyone could be attracted to your preaching.

I've met lots of Mormons who have become agnostic, but very few
that have become protestants.  Oh, I know a few that changed
religions because of marriage, but these were never and are
not now serious about religion anyway.  I have met two or
three who "found Jesus" the way you are talking about it,
but none of them were raised Mormons, and I suspect they
joined the Mormon Church the same way the "found Jesus"
moving from one new religion to another and not finding
a stable home.  I would indeed be enlightening to hear from 
your converts about their background in the LDS
church, and how religious they were before and after.  I think
we have only one example of an ex-Mormon here on the net, and
if I recall correctly, he was a Mormon in name only, and was
not a serious Mormon.  

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WHEN does human life BEGIN?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 21:10:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


[lengthy quotes omitted--go back to #66273 if you'd like to read
them]

Throughout the Bible, the beginning of life is associated with the
first breath. Likewise, the end of life is associated with
the last breath. Simple. If that doesn't fit people's theology or
denominational dogma, oh well.

I don't understand why the anti-choice proponents don't take their
emotionally driven views all the way to their logical (?) conclusion and
fight to make condoms, diaphragms, spermicical preprations, etc.
illegal. Or why they don't send people inflammatory photo postcards
depicting dead sperms or eggs.

The bottom line is that the government has NO right to legislate to women
what they can do with their bodies. And the vicious "rescue" groups that
harrass women at abortion clinics and hospitals in the name of God do Him
a great disservice. Brings to mind the good ol' days of the Spanish
Inquisition!

By the way, for those of you who believe there is no God, it's your
privilege. But kindly refrain (most of you probably won't, but it makes
me feel better to say it) from lumping all Christians together into a
mindless herd. Christianity cannot be judged by the behavior of its
adherents, because people are simply people. People become Christians
as a result of what Christ accomplished, not (as many denominations
proclaim) what they themselves manage to accomplish. Sometimes we succeed
in doing good and sometimes we don't. Sometimes we're compassionate and
loving, and sometimes we're cruel and fearful. Just like athiests, just
like Muslims, just like any labeled group of people with common beliefs.

And for the Christian readers of this newsgroup, can we keep in mind that
God's very essence is love and that we are instructed to love? 
I Corinthians 13 outlines how....again, simple (though not always easy!).

Linda Zinn
au500@cleveland.freenet.edu
 
--
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Straight talk on free will. Only for the brave.
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:19:59 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Free will. Do we got it or not? If we have to ask the question...
 
In article <1993Jan9.231653.24399@midway.uchicago.edu>, dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) writes:
>  
>>So here it is, the Last Word on free will: It doesn't exist! So forget it!
>>If you think you have free will, that's your delusion.
>> 
>>If you want to know why you don't have free will, it's because the "you"
>>that you think has free will is an illusory product of a self-referential
>>thought trap, like the speaker in "This sentence is false."
>>
>>A human being is not an _actor_ but an _event_. 
>>
>>Please note that this is not an argument for any kind of materialistic 
>>determinism. I am not trying to deny that people make choices. We do. 
>>But the "we" that makes choices is an _event_ that is necessarily
>>beyond the reach of our choices. 
>>
>>In simple terms: _it is impossible to not be spontaneous_. Paul Harvey
>>advocates: "Just do it."  Well, it is impossible to _not_ "just do it."
>>You just try and not be spontaneous some time!
> 
> Please note that the vehemence of your assertion is insufficient
> for its proof. You maintain the non-existence of free will and
> provide no reason other than a self-referential one, which of course,
> is EXACTLY what you offer by way of proof! Egads!

Well, the vehement remark was a suggestion, not an assertion. 
My reason is not self-referential -- I am citing the self-referential
nature of consciousness as the reason why the notion of free will is 
misguided. It's based on an inaccurate understanding of consciousness.
As for proof, well, I'm not advocating a theory, I'm trying to 
get you to look at how your mind works to see for yourself if free will
adequately accounts for your own experience. 

But before we go on -- please define what _you_ mean by free will. 
I'm bitching about free will based on what Steve Adams told me about it.
You might have something different in mind.

> Are you in a box you cannot see out of? Throw off those blinders, those
> chains of slavery! Argh, help! I'm being spontaneous!

You're starting to spontaneously sound like Paul Harvey...:)

> Human beings ARE actors! (and of course, events too).

By the Jesus, Mary and Joseph...I'll concede this point. We are actors --
but consciousness is not the source of decision, although it may be a
trigger. Consciousness is just another spontaneous output of the brain. 
So are decisions. But consciousness is not an output which outputs things
itself. Unless I'm some kind of mutant. 
 
> Dano
> (Sorry, Sean, I couldn't resist :)

No, no...it's good that you do this. I think you misunderstand me, but 
challenges like this keep me from getting caught up in my own rhetoric.
They force me to examine the business again and spot my own sloppinesses
of thought and observation, which is what this is all about, eh?

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
 
Man is condemned to freedom. - Sartre (?)
Date: Thursday, 7 January 1993 18:05:37 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.16R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Proselytization (was: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <79251@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)  wrote:
# 
# In article <fXwN2t9@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
# >Judaism does not reject other religions or Gods. The LORD of the Hebrews
# >is the only LORD - of the *Hebrews*. Judaism is not a conversion religion
# >and there is no after death penalty or reward.
# 
# I think the Jews did convert people - they still do today.

  It's a question of who's ringing the doorbell.  When was the
  last time two guys in kippot & long beards came around bugging
  you to put on tefillin?  Judaism *accepts* (and in fact welcomes)
  converts, but joining the tribe isn't easy; there's certainly
  no recruiting effort.

# If there is no after death penalty or reward, why did Job say that
# he would see God in his flesh?  To you or in Judaism, is there
# a life after death?  God is the God of the Living not of the
# dead.

  Good question.  He wasn't Jewish, so who can say?  Judaism
  recognizes that death isn't necesssarily the end (after all,
  the One who created the universe certainly can manage a little
  detail like that).  The teaching is that *all* good people,
  Jew and Gentile alike, have a place in the World to Come.
  Details, however, are left to the Implementor.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/7/93   God's Promise in Romans 8:34
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:08:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Who is he that condemneth?
	It is Christ that died,
	yea rather,
	that is risen again,
	who is even at the right hand of God,
	who also maketh intercession for us.

	Romans 8:34
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc