HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a prophet?
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:18:45 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <rana.724406867@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana) writes:
|rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|
|>In article <1992Dec04.174615.2084@bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|>|In article <77176@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>||> In article <rana.723431431@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana) writes:
|>||> >Jesus Christ never claimed to be "God" or "son of God". He has
|>|    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>|Note the statement Richard is trying to refute.
|
|>Yes, note it.  The Bible gives us a mandate about worshipping God.
|>We are to worship God, the Creator, and Him alone.  
|
|One one hand you are saying that Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him)
|was God, and Son of God, and on the other hand you are saying we
|are to worship God [Him alone??]. How does God remain ALONE when
|Jesus Christ (PBUH) also is God!!!

The difference here is what is God and what is a person/face of
God.  God is one - Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are
the One God.  They are equal in power, purpose and nature.  They
are not three gods, but the One God.

The point is that concept of person is not to be transferred to
that of God, for he is One as we both agree, but he has revealed
himself to us in three persons or faces.  God's wisdom and abilities
are far beyond that of man - we can't limit him to our understanding.

|>Jesus revealed Him to us, for Jesus was the fulness of God in human
|>form.  He told us to worship God.
|
|The point here remains the same. Are Jesus Christ (PBUH) and God two
|separate entities? or are they the same. If they are separate then 
|there are two Gods. And if they are the same then why did Jesus die?
|It means God is dead!

The are two persons of the One God.  Jesus told us that He, Himself,
testifies of who He is and the Father testifies of who He (Jesus) is
and so we have two who testify, yet they are one.

|[...rest of the article deleted for brevity...]
|
|Most obviously, Jesus Christ was nothing but a messenger of God. 
|His saying, and bible have been corupted to an extent that make
|him "God", "Son of God" etc. etc.

Explain how you know the truth about Jesus and his purpose and yet
it seems that you think the writings of the one's closest to Him 
have been corrupted?  Could it not just as easily be said that
your understanding is corrupted and we have the truth?

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
                          --|--   
Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:16:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.054357.11126@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>> Well, I have been born, grown, etc. and I _still_ say that it would not be a
>> big "sacrifice" to die for just three days.
>I don't think the story relates that J flew out of the sky
>and died for three days. there is alot leading up to that. If
>he felt pain and rejection like othjer humans(I believe he did)
>it makes a _big_ difference. However we can leave it at that
>on this point.

The reason I argue against it is that you seem to think it makes a difference.
You think it matters that Jesus was able to come back after three days.  It
is important to your religion that Jesus felt pain and rejection, true, but it
is also important to your religion that he came back after three days.  If
Jesus did not come back after three days, your religion would be worthless.

If you really think the resurrection made no difference, fine.  But if you
think it did, then you shouldn't reply to criticism by saying "the resurrection
doesn't matter, it was the pain and rejection that mattered".

>> Also, Jesus was not an ordinary human being.  For instance, he had no
>> original sin.  If he wanted to sacrifice himself by being a human, the least
>> he could have done is to not be a special human, but instead take on the same
>> burdens--including original sin--as any other human.  Besides, it's only for
>You obviously don't believe this, but being sinless(or spotless
>and without blemish in the spiritual sense as the yearly sacrificial
>lamb was required in the perennial sacrifice for Israel)was necessary
>for the final sacrifice.

This is non-responsive.

If I argue that X is not Y, and you argue that X is necessary for Z, that
is nonresponsive to the issue of X not being Y.

All that your answer does is say that Jesus can only do one of those two things
Y and Z (understand being human, and be a perfect sacrifice).
--
"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 (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What would you have said?
Date: 11 Dec 92 15:15:53 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Dec10.135738.18707@cs.ucla.edu>, robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
|> pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White) writes:
|> 
|> >In the first century, a Christian stood before a Roman ruler.
|> >He was on trial for his faith and being requested to recant.
|> 
|> Hmmm.  This is strangely reminiscent of the Christian trials of Luther,
|> Galileo, (and countless others, I'm sure), some 1500 odd years later ...
|> Does anybody have any accurate figures concerning how many Christians
|> were killed by Romans (or others), versus how many non-Christians (or
|> even Christians) were killed by Christians, in the last 2,000+ years?
|> My wild guess is that such figures would reflect most unfavorably upon
|> Christians (perhaps by several orders of magnitude), and we really don't
|> have to go back more than 2+ centuries to affirm that; (just ask the
|> Native American Indians).
I don't have any figures. However, you do bring to mind that there can
be a difference between the message and the way it is carried out. 
Just because people foul up, doesn't necessicarily invalidate the message.

The Bible teaches that Christianity is a call to receive eternal life and
a call to become Christ-like. It does not say, that giving your life
to Christ results in immediate perfection. In fact, it says that the
Christian can expect to grow in spirit throughout his life. 
|> 
|> >RR: I will kill you if you don't recant.
|> >C: You cannot, because my life is hidden with Christ in God.
|> 
|> >RR: I will destroy all of your possessions.
|> >C: You cannot, because I have a treasure in heaven which you cannot touch.
|> 
|> >RR: I will kill all of your friends.
|> >C: You cannot, because I have an Unseen Friend whom you cannot touch.
|> 
|> RR: I will kill you, because you are clearly insane, and people will be
|>     able to see this, as far as 2,000 years hence.
|> 
|> <thwack>
|> 
|> C: [no response from the Christian, as his lungs can no longer reach his
|>     vocal cords.]
|> 
|> --
|> rob	(robert@cs.ucla.edu)
|> "just another god-fearing atheist."

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:41:16 GMT


>Hm. Are you a follower of Judaism, by any chance. It certainly appears so,
>from your posting.
I am neither a follower of Judaism nor one of Christianity.  I have my own 
definitions of things, and subscribe to no existing religion.  I also don't give
myself a name in the hopes of justifying myself, while in effect inviting 
ridicule.

>Bill
Matt I.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23669 alt.atheism:23424 alt.slack:3439
From: pashley@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Montykins)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 12 Dec 92 06:16:25 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Dec11.185326.4064@cs.cornell.edu>, rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>
>When was the last time you read Romans 8 and Galatians 5. 

Oh YEAH? When was the last time you read _Remembrance of Things
Past_ and _The Peterr Principle_?

 -Paul "Monty" Ashley
   (Insert cheesy "level on incompetence" joke here)
-- 
All just the opinions of pashley@sdcc13.ucsd.edu.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Defining the kingdom of God
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:59:58 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec16.181416.6878@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> I fear that Mr. Sandvik may be interpreting my argument against his
> claim "there's nothing logical about Christianity" as an argument for
> the truth of Christianity.

I'm trying to revise the picture from another angle, just to 
show the core issue.

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

Christians have over time digged into historical papers to justify
the existance of the miracle maker, and the outcome is meager, if
not missing. There are valid cases to admit that one of the Messiah
figures was named Joshua, and he started a sect called Christianity,
but that's really all. I've never stated that I doubted the historical
validity of the person, but I really doubt any miracles due to
lack of independent and qualified sources.

Also, if Christianic issues would be logically useful, I'm sure
Popper, Heidegger, Nietzche, Russell, Whitehead, et rest would
have used them in their philosophical papers. 

So I would like to know if you have evidence from non-Christians
that support Christianity using logic. This would solve the problem
immediately, and I would silence my opinion(s).
 
> I now assert that Christianity is not absent of logic, contrary to Mr.
> Sandvik's unsupported assessment.  I am not suggesting that the
> presence of logic in Christianity in any way demonstrates its truth.

If you could happily apply logical tools with Christianity, then
I'm sure you have the formulas to explain why one is three, and is
one, and why Jesus died for our sins, but he's still alive. 

As for truth, logic deals with the truth, it's the tool of the
truth, and if presence of logic does not demonstrate its truth,
something must be wrong with the logical conclusions.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec19.012202.25439@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
Date: 19 Dec 1992 06:58:52 UTC

In article <1992Dec19.012202.25439@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> 
billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>: In article <BzFn99.5BA@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>: >>being christian to being pagan.
>: >		 	  ^^^^^
>:>I hate to nitpick,but this is the DUMBEST word in modern spirituality today.
>:>ANd so many (not you) of these 'pagans' are about as true to their 'beliefs'
>: >as the average Christians.  Yeargh.
>So? You expect pagans/Pagans to be any different than the rest of humanity?
>There are pagans who follow various religions - some very devoutly, some about
>as much as the average adherant of the mainline religions. Some are atheists,
>and follow no religion. Some are agnostics, and probably don't worry about
>religion.
>There is a difference between "beliefs" and "tenets/dogma". People usually
>act as they trully believe. They often violate the tenets that they are
>supposed to follow.
>: >Hmm, OK, let me give you *my* definition of pagan:
>: >1) Non-Semitic Religions
>: >	For example: Christianity represents a pagan interpretation of
>: >	the scriptures of Judaism and Islam represents a return from the
>: >	pagan aspects of Christianity towards Semitic ideals;
>: >	(separation of creator and creation, pure monotheism, no
>: >	idolatry).
>: >2) Various Religions of Babylon excluding Judaism
>: >	For example: the Jews in exile in Babylon were exposed to a
>: >	great variety of pagan religions coming from Greece, Persia,
>: >	India and from Mesopotamia itself; yet they kept Judaism alive,
>: >	in its original language, against all odds.
>: >3) Religions prior to conversion to Christianity or Islam
>: >4) Islam
>: >	Christians refered to Moslems as pagans during the Crusades.
>: >	Moslems refered to Christians as idolaters and non-believers.
>: >5) Neo-Pagan religions
>: >	Attempts to rediscover religions lost or nearly lost to
>: >	Christian conversion.
>: >6) Religions that attempt to combine all the world's religions into one.
>: >	For example, Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy.
>: >7) A personal and unique religion or interpretation
>: >8) Misc. Religions that I've missed
>: >See anything you like?
>Hm. Are you a follower of Judaism, by any chance. It certainly appears so,
>from your posting.

Are you asking me, the one who posted the definition? 
Why do you think I am a follower of Judaism? I'm not, by the way, if it's 
of any consequence. As a matter of fact, I'm not a follower. Worlds
above and worlds below, no one in the world like me: I thought-cha
knew?
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:01:27 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Dec15.054331.11993@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >> This is non-responsive.
> In article <1992Dec15.050919.18019@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> >Why?
> 
> Because it answers the wrong question.  I was questioning the inconsistency
> between Jesus lacking sin, unlike humans, even though he was supposedly trying
> to be a human.  You replied he had to be sinless in order to do a second thing
> (be a sacrifice), which even if true does not answer the question of how he
> could be sinless while doing the first thing (be like a human).

Apparantly J wasn't trying to be human, he was human in every
sense of the word(and I'll qualify this time)except original
sin. It would be logically impossible for him to have original sin.
He most certainly could experience humanity without original sin. 
Original sin just says humans are born with a propensity to disobey
God and what god wants of his people. If J was born with this
propensity, he could not qualify to buy back his people through
the eternal sinless(spotless)sacrifice.
> 
> >Why do want him to have original
> >sin?
> 
> Because all other humans (except Mary) have original sin, so if Jesus wants
> to understand what it is like to be a human, he has to have it too.

I don't agree, see above. Mary's sinless nature is questionable,
'cause if Mary was born wothout sin, then she could have been the
perfect one to buy back God's people,there would be no need for J
to be born. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Keywords: Bible--psychology--fundamentalism
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:21:45 GMT

I really enjoy these posts!  Keep 'em coming.  I don't know much about
'academic' psychology, but everything presented seems to make pretty good
sense.

Of course, the Bible clearly states that God's wisdom will appear as
foolishness to "the world", which you would explain as a "cushion" against
such a work as this.  

I would like to present, for your analysis, the reaction of such a mind to
what you have written:

1: What alternative state of mind should I have, and why would it be any better
   than what I have now?  (What is the state of mind of the author?)

2: Where is the supposed harm that this is doing?  I don't see it anywhere in my
   life - in fact, God has changed my life for the better!

3: Given that God does in fact exist, re-write the analysis.

4: Why is presupposing that He does not exist any more credible than
   presupposing that He does?

5: How could Biblical authors write such a cohesive and psychologically
   influential book, separated in time and space as they were?  For that
   matter, given the Old Testament, could -YOU- construct such a masterpiece
   in your life-time, given the education of any one of the Biblical
   authors?  Would -YOU- suffer and die for your careful lie?  What possible
   gain is there?  I think "THE MIND OF THE BIBLE WRITER" is in order...

I think all of these are pertinent and need to be answered...

Expounding on 4:  The human mind seems to exist in a greater state of
"comfort" when there are no loose ends - when questions are answered.
Credibility aside, why should someone choose to reject such a powerful 
"answer" given (2)?


John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: What would you have said?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 09:48:31 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>>The Bible teaches that Christianity is a call to receive eternal life and
>>>a call to become Christ-like. It does not say, that giving your life
>>>to Christ results in immediate perfection. In fact, it says that the
>>>Christian can expect to grow in spirit throughout his life. 
>>Yes, but Christ never killed.  Thus, it is *never* Christ-like to kill, and 
>>thus the statement that Christians kill more than they are killed is a pretty
>>well-pointed critique of Christianity.
>I suppose I am arguing on the wrong side again, but even aside from questions
>about fig trees, many Christian groups believe that Jesus was God, and we all
>know examples of God killing.

I still think that while Jews could easily say God kills, everything from
Jesus never even trying to take a human life to his teaching to 'turn the other
cheek,' when compared to Christianity's killing record is nothing short of
confusing and truly ironic.

>Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Calvin
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 08:44:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.052017.24908@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>
>>separation from God (as held by the true Calvinism - as stated by
>>John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.)
>>I have shown in another thread ("Afterlife theology in Judaism
>>and Christianity") that Calvin's interpretation, that the
>
>Calvin mentioned twice in two sentences? Do I espy a Calvinist?
>Calvin who gleefully supported having his theological enemies
>burned at the stake?

And slowly too!  It took Michael Servetus 30 minutes to die.  But then,
he thought that the Trinity was incomprehensible and needless, so
Calvin was perfectly justified in roasting him.  It wouldn't do
to have people running around denying the obvious Truth of the Trinity.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:50:41 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <41Rk02dr2eI001@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:

[...]

>>> Then why does the LDS church allow a book to be sold under the
>>> title, _MORMON DOCTRINE_, at all the LDS bookstores across the
>>> world, that was written by an apostle.  
>>
>>Because the LDS Church is not in the business of censorship or
>>litigation.
> 
> Oh yeah?  Now I know that you are deceived!  The church leaders have had
> books pulled and burnt because of heretical writings by church members.

I'm curious to know of any litigation initiated by the LDS
Church or book burings conducted or sponsored by it within the
last 30-40 years.  Do you have any data for this?

[...]

> Well, they are, I guess that is there problem.  I reckon the
> missionaries that are returning as homosexuals are violating other
> guidlines set forth as well!
> 
> And don't tell me that they church doesn't have a problem with
> missionaries returning homosexual, because I know them!  And not
> that way for you sarcasitic dudes....   :-)

Yes, I know them to, some of the very close friends.

What does that have to do with censorship, litigation, and book
burnings?

It seems a separate unrelated issue.

Plus, in all the cases I am aware of, the persons in question
either knew they had homosexual tendancies, or were unsure about
their sexual orientation and/or themselves.

The mission field does not produce homosexuals.  It may produce
conditions in which homosexual desires must be dealt with one way
or another, but that is hardly a cause. In most causes it just
makes the person deal with it sooner than if they hadn't served a
mission.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu