HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:11:11 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <11515@spark.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
wrote:
> For that matter, the whole myth of sacrifice is nonsense even if he
> died but then came back to life (as Christians would have you believe),
> because sacrifice implies a permanent substantial loss.  Jesus didn't
> give up anything substantial that he didn't know he would regain in
> two days, therefore he didn't make a sacrifice.  Ditto for his dad.

Actually, it's also one of my biggest obstacles to personally accept
Jesus' sacrifice as something profound. If he would have for instance
died for our sins, and actually died, then this mythological aspect
would be much more deep. However, in this case all he did was to
put together a big show, and he didn't even die for the sins, he
just did the physical pain related to dying, and that's IMHO nothing
metaphysical, exactly. We don't even know if most of what he did
on the cross was part of a big theatrical event. Remember, he is a 
God, and if he was able to restore life from death I'm sure he could
have easily blocked off the pain signals, and faked the whole show.

In other words, sorry if this sounded heretical, but it's an important
aspect of the Pauli view of Jesus' mission as a personal saviour, and
already this notion does not work perfectly.

I still believe that when he asked why God has forsaken him before
he died, he really ment it. And that is not exactly how a God should state
things. In other words, he was not in control of the situation, and yes,
I feel sad about all the suffering he had on the cross, but more from
the point of a human that suddenly realized that God will not save him
from the suffering. I hope that such events will never ever happen
in future.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: A Sharp Contrast to the Song of Solomon
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:10:11 GMT

In article <Bxtv5o.Dpz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>>	Well, I'm afraid that much of the Christian Church, for much
>>of its history, would qualify as "anti-Christian" by that definition.
>>Asceticism has been the Party Line for a heck of a long time. Uta
>>Ranke-Heinemann's _Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven_, discusses that
>>whole sordid story as regards the Catholic Church, which seems to
>>think that sexual activity is only for producing children.
>   For the record (and put very simply), the actual Catholic teaching
>is that the purposes of sexual activity are procreation and the
>happiness and unity of the married couple; none of these aspects of
>marriage is to be separated from any sexual act.

So what, in practice, is the difference between saying that sex is only for
procreation, and saying it's for procreation "and the happiness and unity of
the couple"?
--
"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)
From: mcsdc1al@dct.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: JESUS?
Date: 20 Nov 92 12:41:00 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology

Work this out
Jesus spent time with the ESSENES, a lexigram for SENSES

Suppose all Jesus was was a guy who learned to open his third eye and became
aware of his, and our, latent powers

And suppose that maybe, as has been suggested by HISTORIANS, all Jesus was was
a magic mushroom species

Oh wow!
From: jsv@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Julian Visch)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Who wrote the bible?
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:29:29 GMT
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury

Considering the fact that the Bible's time period was well over a hundred years
there can't have been just one person who wrote. In fact the story of Adam & Eve
was before writing had been developed, therefore the story must have been past
down my word of mouth. Which must cause changes to occur which leads one to 
wonder how accurate the story can be, especially as in the time when the bible
was written only men were able to write and therefore it would have a sexist
point of view. 
This raises the question of the apostles, were there only 12 or were there in fact
24 but 12 were female and therefore because of the sexist view at that time they
weren't mentioned.
For anyone to to be able to read the bible properly, one would have to have 
studied the way language was used in that time. But the problem with that is that
one can not tell what information was changed or left out and therefore one has
view the Bible with a great deal of scepticism, to do otherwise would be to
fooling ones self.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 19 Nov 1992 01:07:56 UTC

In article <lgkpg0INNo9n@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>Paul Harvey responded to my posting regarding the issue of Jesus dying.
>>>Yes, Jesus as God did experience mortal death. 
>>Jesus as God experienced mortal death but did not die? How is that
>>possible? How can someone experience death and not die? Is that like
>>seeing a video or something?
>The death which Jesus experienced is the same death which you and I will
>experience. Mortal death is the death of the physical body and the separation
>of the spirit from the physical body. I believe that we have living witneses 
>to this process. We have countless stories of "near death" experiences where
>the spirit did separate from the body, at least for temporarily.
>>>To say that Jesus the man experienced mortal death, but Jesus the God didn't 
>>>is a double talk unless one believes in a split Jesus.
>>But that is exactly what you are saying. Or, to be more precise, you are
>>saying that Jesus the man died but Jesus the god didn't. And this isn't
>>a split Jesus? 
>Read above what I wrote. I never said that Jesus the man died, but Jesus 
>the God didn't. I made exactly the opposite point, that Jesus did die a
>mortal death.
>>If Jesus is not split and Jesus is man and god at the
>>same time and Jesus the man dies, then Jesus the god must also die.
>I agree, Jesus as man and God did suffer a mortal death. However, once again,
>mortal death doesn't mean the death of the spirit.
>>>To me Jesus was more 
>>>together then any other being I have a knowledge of. Jesus *is* one.
>>Makes sense if Jesus was a prophet. If Jesus was a god and a man at the
>>same time, then Jesus as god and man died on the cross. Is there a
>>problem with this logic?
>Not in my logic. Of course you need to understand that we are speaking about
>mortal death. That is, the death of the physical body. The spirit doesn't die.
>This is true for us as well as for Jesus.

OK, let me see if I understand your interpretation. You say that human
beings are composed of two parts. Part 1 is the physical body which is
human and part 2 is the spirit which is God. So when we die, our human
part, the physical body, dies a mortal death, but our spirit lives on as
God. Is that right?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven, so kiss my butt
Reply-To: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 00:41:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.060310.29899@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> In article <mjenkins.721874244@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
> >In <11516@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> >
> >>How do you know?  Suppose God has decided to damn all Christians and
> >>save everybody else.  Or to save all atheists and damn everybody else.
> >
> >Then God would be going directly against his word:
> >
> >"God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that
> >whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting
> >life." John 3:16.
> >
> >Michael
> 
> 
> First of all: "everybody else" isn't mentioned in your quote; secondly,
> the Universalists (inter alia) would argue that >everyone< is going
> to "heaven"; finally, it is unclear that "Christians" have the correct
> relationship in terms of "belives in him" to qualify for "everlasting
> life".
> 
> D.

not '>everyone<'

John 15:5-6
    "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him,
     he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does
     not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and whithers;
     such branches are picked up, thrown in the fire and burned."

as for '"everlasting life"'

John 14:6
    "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
     except through me."

chris

-- 

		Mephistopheles ... ruthless, sleepless, unsmiling,
                concentration on self or humorous, civilised, sensible
                and adaptable 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
Subject: Fundamentalist Secret Society
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:22:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.232050.10789@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes...

Steve Gross says, "The Bible" explains the amazing uniformity of teachings and
doctrine among so-called "born-agains."  Is this reasonable?  Is the Bible so
easily understood, so lacking in ambiguity?

In my opinion, history refutes this explanation for why the "born-again"
movement acts like a denomination, seems like a denomination and teaches a
single doctrine like a denomination but claims to be nondenominational.

Historically, the Bible has be{en understood differently by different groups of
Bible-believers because different verses receive emphasis while others are
largely ignored.  Also, in many cases, the same verses are understoood
differently according to the inspiration or lack thereof of the the reader. 
This has given rise to the factionalization of Christianity into
"denominations."  Therefore, "the Bible" is not sufficient explanation for the
apparent uniformity of teaching among the so-called "born-agains."  There must
be some other explanation.

What could this other explanation be?  Is there a secret society undergirding
the fundamentalist "born-again" movement?  Are "born-agains" really
nondenominational?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 18 Nov 1992 02:16:06 UTC

In article <lgg037INN8an@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>>|If Jesus is the one and only God and Jesus dies on the cross, then God dies
>>|on the cross. Or Jesus isn't the one and only God. Or Jesus doesn't die.
>>Jesus the man died - God did not die.
>>|Then Jesus is only God somewhat "indirectly", thus not *God*.
>>He was God -and clothed himself with humanity, but he didn't cease being God.
>Your explonation of how it is possible that Jesus was both God and man is
>confusing at the very best. The truth is that God the Father didn't die on 
>the cross, but God the Jesus did.

OK, so you're saying that Jesus, the supposed "son" of God died on the
cross, but God did not. Alright, I'll buy that argument, for now.

>Yes, Jesus as God did experience mortal death. 

Jesus as God experienced mortal death but did not die? How is that
possible? How can someone experience death and not die? Is that like
seeing a video or something?

>To say that Jesus the man experienced mortal death, but Jesus the God didn't 
>is a double talk unless one believes in a split Jesus.

But that is exactly what you are saying. Or, to be more precise, you are
saying that Jesus the man died but Jesus the god didn't. And this isn't
a split Jesus? If Jesus is not split and Jesus is man and god at the
same time and Jesus the man dies, then Jesus the god must also die.

>To me Jesus was more 
>together then any other being I have a knowledge of. Jesus *is* one.

Makes sense if Jesus was a prophet. If Jesus was a god and a man at the
same time, then Jesus as god and man died on the cross. Is there a
problem with this logic?

>>Again, I ask for your reasoning for saying Paul created the doctrine and
>>was not just the messenger.  There is no doubt that Paul was a major 
>>player in the NT church.  However, it was well recognized by the other
>>disciples/apostles that Paul was the messenger to the Gentiles as Peter
>>was the messenger to the Jews -Peter, a man rather close to Jesus the Christ,
>>recognized this and that Paul's writings were authoritive (i.e., Scripture.)
>Peter also gave a strong warning about the difficulties associated with Paul's
>teaching, and that many has "wrested" Paul's writing for their destruction.
>2 Peter 3:16
>"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are 
>somethings hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable 
>wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
>I believe that the same problem exist today. Many teach a theology after the
>misunderstood teachings of Paul.

That's what I've been saying. And that's why I have problems with Paul's
"official" history of Jesus.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:39:31 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

[ 46 lines of included text omitted,
  after which he responds to one question: ]

>> Nothing but argument from authority.  If argument from authority 
>> is so important, why does it have such a rotten track record 
>> throughout history?
>
>Tell us, what is this "track record" of which you speak?

The racial movement, whose supporters say "Colored people are
inferior, because we know they are, and if you disagree then you're
just wrong."  Creationism, whose supporters say "It may look like
there's good evidence for evolution, but we know it's all wrong,
because we know what we say is right."  Any movement, in fact, whose
supporters say "You may disagree with us, but debate is useless,
because we're right, and you'll have to do as we say."

Has there ever, in all history, been an example of "argument from
authority" (that is, paying no heed to debate and reasoning) that has
been beneficial in the least?

You seem to be defending your position of arguing from authority.
Instead.  why not provide some physical evidence to support your
claims, as the previous poster requested?

>Sincerely,
>Kalki "My what a fertile brain you have" Dasa

HA!  You just inadvertently succeeded in insulting yourself in a
rather clever way!  My hat's off to you.  :)

>      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |

Don't forget to chant: "Owatta goo Siam, owatta goo Siam..."

-- 
_/_/_/  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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21956 alt.atheism:21965
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:10:31
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Nov23.165449.16849@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: bskendig@netcom.com's message of Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:54:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.165449.16849@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

   kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  The
Kalki-collective-organism is spreading to engulf the net!  Quick, call
the Ghostbusters!!!
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: Just a seasonal observation.
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:56:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.132411.18047@newstand.syr.edu>, dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
|> Christian theists say that God is real.
|> Christian theists teach their young children that Santa-Claus is real.
|> Some of them even go so far as telling their children that the 
|> Easter Bunny is real.
|> Since Christians are the children of God what stories has God told
|> just to see their happy faces.  Can you say heaven or rapture?
|> And what happens when God tells them about the pink invisible unicorns
|> that like to hide in the walls of people's apartments, but can be seen by
|> wolves with x-ray vision during full moon?!  :')

*** Opinion follows ***

"and God said, 'let there be...'"

I haven't heard about God telling us of the existence of
these wonderful creatures, but I am sure that there is a
scientific explanation for them.


-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:31:42 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Nov17.000605.22065@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <30420@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>>God doesn't demand that we obey under the pain of eternal suffering as much
>>as call out to us to come to Him so that we can avoid eternal suffering.
>
>What's the difference between these two?

There is a difference, given that both God and man are free agents.
If this is true, then our suffering may be our own doing and God
is trying to save us from it.  

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21517 alt.atheism:21644
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just a seasonal observation.
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:57:54 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Nov18.132411.18047@newstand.syr.edu>, dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
|> Christian theists say that God is real.
|> Christian theists teach their young children that Santa-Claus is real.
|> Some of them even go so far as telling their children that the 
|> Easter Bunny is real.
|> Since Christians are the children of God what stories has God told
|> just to see their happy faces.  Can you say heaven or rapture?
|> And what happens when God tells them about the pink invisible unicorns
|> that like to hide in the walls of people's apartments, but can be seen by
|> wolves with x-ray vision during full moon?!  :')
At least 2 of us don't tell our kids that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny
is real. I don't want my kids to have to say, well if Santa Claus isn't
real and I can't see him, why should I think that Jesus is real.

Besides there are loads of other ways to get smiles out of them without
having to later say that I'd fibbed to them.

To keep the record straight. Santa Claus was a real person. Sometimes
he's called Saint Nicholas. He did apparently give gifts to the children
in the town where he lived (not all over the world) to celebrate the
birth of Jesus Christ and the gift that God gave to us in Christ.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21806 alt.atheism:21876
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:49:01 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:

>In article <adams.722381228@spssig> >adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>But, if we take the Bible as the basis for the argument, then the statement
>>stands.  Man was the only creature created in God's image and with a soul.
>>
> 
>I see. I always knew god does not mind my vivisections. What the animal
>shows is just an emulation of pain. Is the emulation one of the tricks
>of Lucifer?
Non sequiter.

Of course not.  The abitlity to feel pain has nothing to do with having a
soul.  What do the two have to do with each other?

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21410 sci.skeptic:19820 talk.politics.misc:60756
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:46:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,talk.politics.misc
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Nov18.045408.11657@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>In article <13230@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>#I don't care what you do in private; please give me the same
>#courtesy.  But fascists can't handle that.
>
>Gee Clayton, don't you ever stop to consider that some people don't
>consider being turned down from a Hilton Hotel room because they are
>black/jewish/homosexual not to be a "private" matter?
>
>Do you ever stop to consider that rights conflict, and it is necessary
>to find the appropiate balances?
>
>Nah!

	How COULD he ? 

	The man professes to be a libertarian.

	Bill R.


	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."


-- 
Bill R.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON)
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:50:36 GMT

Kevin Brown writes:

(much amusing stuff deleted)

>Assuming that all individuals have equal valuation, the average number of
>people in a given family that will make it into heaven is:

>    avg_saved = n_aborted + sum ( P (child[i], heaven), i = 1..n_children ) +
>        P (mother, heaven),

>where n_aborted is the number of successful abortions the mother had and
>n_children is the number of actual children the mother had (not counting
>the abortions).

>Now, the average salvation rate is:

>    avg_salvation_rate = avg_saved / (n_aborted + n_children + 1).

>Clearly, as n_aborted approaches infinity, the average salvation rate
>approaches 100%.

This is a very novel point.  To serve the Great Commission, it seems that 
pregnant women should look for the best means "within themselves", so to 
speak!

Neil.