HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 06:13:30 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

[lot of stuff]

> WHAT is the power of the holy name? WHAT positive effect? And why?

Direct contact with God. Don't argue. Either do it or not.


> >       -------------------------------------------------------
> >      |  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)            |
> >       -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Is chanting this what you mean by "chanting Hare Krishna"?

Yes.

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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Nov15.064219.19630@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> 
	<fVlq0LG@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Nov18.045607.11737@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:21:40 GMT

lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:

>>>Which religion did Attila belong to?

>Where does this business about "godless" hordes from the east come 
>from?  "godless" sure sounds like "atheist" in a nutshell.

The Huns weren't atheists.  They were polytheists who were specially
devoted to the God of War.  (Surprised?)  Attila himself carried a
sword called the "Sword of Mars," which supposedly gave him divine
powers and made his armies invincible.

The part about godless hordes probably came from people who didn't
like him.  After all, he didn't worship their God, so he must have
been godless.  Attila was a great conqueror, but unfortunately he
didn't know how to get good press.  That was his downfall.


Keith
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: Mon, 23 Nov 92 00:48:24 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.233344.5841@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>I hate to cut in here, but you might be interested in my $.02:
>
>Welcome back John. You know, this is gonna sound insulting but in the
>past I thought you were a good example of an authentic person leading an
>inauthentic life, but here in this post you seem to be joining the land
>of the living. (As if *I* would know such things.) Welcome back and keep
>thinking.

You know, you are right.  God is changing that, however.  "An authentic
person leading an inauthentic life" - couldn't have said it better...

If you were to ask me what I thought about any number of issues which I have
gone off on in the past I think you would be suprised at the response you
would now get (ie. homosexuality, mormonism, etc.)

For a person to _truly implement_ just two commands into their _actual
day-to-day life_ is quite a feat, but one which I am attempting.

They are love God and love others.  I am learning how to love others by how
God is loving me, and the fruit of this is more convincing than a billion
words (which is why I have not been engaging in the stream of words - t.r.m.)

Don't look for me to become a super-frequent poster once again, because time
and priorities do not permit.

>>>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.

>Interesting. You're becoming metaphorical aren't you? The transcendent
>is of course transcendent of number and quantity. Is this what you are
>saying?

I am saying that the Spirit is above our understanding, and we would know
nothing about Him were it not for Him informing us of His nature.

>>>3. What is the difference between Human Spirit and God Spirit?
>>The human spirit is a creation (child) of the Spirit.

>Is it a creation or is it an aspect, a part?

Are you a part of your mother and father, or something new brought forth by
them?  We are not parts of the Spirit, because we can (and do) make willful
decisions apart from the Spirit.  In order to verify this, we notice that
human wills clash, and if we were all part of the Spirit, this would not be
the case.  As a side note, human wills do not clash very much if they are
submissive to the Spirit.  I witnessed this first hand this summer.

>>My best (though probably flawed) understanding:
>
>Why would your understanding be flawed? Who is the judge of such things?
>And, though I might not entirely agree with your understanding, I hope
>you understand that I have my own you see, it certainly seems plausable.

Well, if ones understanding is to change then the old one must have been
found faulty, and who am I to say that my understanding will not be further
refined?

John M.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Secret Society
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:42:15 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <20NOV199216553744@acad3.alaska.edu> ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>Are fundamentalist so-called "born-again" Christians really nondenominational? 
>The reason I ask, it has occurred to me that there could be a secret society
>serving the functions of a denomination among these people.  Otherwise, how do
>we account for the great uniformity of teachings among them?  

I think that one of the reasons we see uniforminty in the trends that
fundamentalist types follow is because of the Christian media. When a
particular set of beliefs becomes popular, you hear the subject being
covered on everything from Christian radio talk shows, to the 700 club,
to Chritian publications. This is one of the factors involved in the
popularizing of a particular dogma, for example "spiritual warfare."

>Who decides what
>publishers, speakers and authors are approved?  

There actually are some organizations that act as conservative christian
"think tanks" that have memberships including a great many of the leaders
of significant Christian organizations. One of these that bears looking
at is the Coalition on Revival located in Sunnyvale California. The COR
is very active in promoting the reconstructionist agenda, though they
softpeddle it for the press. This agenda is right out of the "Handmaiden's
Tale": basing the law in this country on the bible, persecution (and some
even advocate execution) of gays, and so forth.

>Who decides what religious denominations will be persecuted as "cults?" 

I think that a lot of this is just a matter of popular momentum in
the fundamentalist community, though radio, books, and to a lesser effect
TV has had an impact. Radio talk show host Bob Larson, for example, has
almost single handedly kept the "Satanic hysteria" scare alive, and has
capitalized on it quite nicely. If you want to hear Christina bigotry at
its worse, tune into his show "Talk Back with Bob Larson."

>Why do so many fundamentalists themselves manifest the same zeal or 
>fanaticism they fault others for?  

I think that is part of the phenomenon of turning your brain off and
letting others do your thinking for you. Its not limited to Christianity
by a long shot.

>Could these people be dupes of some secret "church?"

Dupes yes. Secret no.

>Are fundamentalist so-called "born-again" Christians really 
>nondenominational? 

No, they are the members of many denominations.

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven (Handmaid's Tale)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:07:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.190208.22968@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.193245.14722@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:

>> 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.

 There is a difference between what outsiders (Gentiles/Heathen/Muslims)
 would lable Christianity and what Christians would lable the ideas
 of Christ. Since the power-based mysiogny of the book is based
 only on the idea of some contructed cult, to call that world the
 " Christian realization of the "perfect world" " is extreme.

 It doesn't match anyone idea of Heaven, (well maybe close to a Muslim's
 view of Paridaise). but not any Christians, or thinking person.

 It would take an extermly biased person to think that any books would 
 paints an exterme catastophe as the outcome of situations that the
 author is arguing against as being realistic. Consider the books of 
 Ayn Rand, or _The White Plague_ by Herbert. or .... or ...

 Most works of fiction which depict an unpleasent world future, would
 not be described by any streach of the imgination as being representive
 of the groups described in the book.

-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:14:44 GMT

In article <Bxu7M9.MM1@acsu.buffalo.edu> bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>At best, it can only categorize these guys in a light similar to the
>>truck bombers of the Marine barricades in 1982.  
>
>	Not precisely. The suicide truck bombers were willing
>to give their lives for what they believed in. They had no way
>of knowing whether or not there was truthful backing for their beliefs.
I don't know about this.  Then again, it's too late to interview 
these guys.

>	However, if the apostles were preaching a lie, they would
>have known it; since they were the ones that were bearing testimony
>to the resurrection of Jesus. 
It's a bit too late to interview these guys too.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:19:21 GMT

In article <nyikos.722049541@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>1.  God does not perceive time as we do.  All times are equally present
>to him.  [William James calls this the "block-universe" view.]

This doesn't actually solve any of the paradoxes.  Every one still applies;
you just rephrase them in terms of when God's manifestations in the physical
world happen.
--
"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: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Keywords: mindless,politically-correct,use,your,head
Date: 20 Nov 92 12:31:56 GMT
Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc16.superbowl.und.ac.za

In article <1992Nov10.102536.16682@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.094726.21497@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>
>>I may happen to find the use of the plural "they" awkward (particularly when
>>used with singular forms within the same sentence) but if this were to
>>become an accepted use--fine.  Right now, it is still considered gramatically
>>incorrect, and therefore, I find it rather awkward to use when writing.
>---------------------------
>If someone came up to you and hit you, would you hit them back?
>(Gee, works fine to me; isn't even awkward.)
>
Huh?

Why would you want to hit more people that hit you in the first place?  It 
may not be `awkward' to you, but it's grammatically incorrect, and when it 
comes to _hitting_ downright rude.


o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
| David Spurrett, Department of Philosophy |  `I have seen the truth, and |
| University of Natal, Durban              |   it makes no sense.'        |
| email: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za      |              - OFFICIAL!     |
o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
From: lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:56:07 GMT

In article <fVlq0LG@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Which religion did Attila belong to?
>
>I doubt he was an atheist. Probably a tribal religion or perhaps he was
>the tribal war God. Sound familiar? Attila's exploits pale in comparison
>to what the Christians did to the Americas and to what Hitler did in the
>name of Jesus.

Where does this business about "godless" hordes from the east come 
from?  "godless" sure sounds like "atheist" in a nutshell.

>>Worshipping or not, morality seems to at least have a quasi-chance
>>at quasi-limiting that law of the wild.
>
>What if the religious morals are worse than the "law of the wild?" For
>example, Luke 14:26?

I dunno know.  I think the the "law of the wild" is worse.  For example,
Judges Chp 19?

Terence
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 21 Nov 1992 00:03:13 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual




I just want to prevent possible misunderstanding in my previous response. 

>The Greek word for "one" that you are having such a problem with is:
>
>"HEIS"  =  One in Unity.  For example, one room has three aspects, height,
>           width and length.  While each of these three aspects are
>           separate, the height fills the whole room, the width fills the
>           whole room, and the length fills the whole room.  They are all
>           three, the whole room separately, yet there is only ONE room.

Thank you for the information. Now, for your information, the prophet
Joseph Smith thought this understanding over 150 years ago.


	Note: my response above referred only to the defination of the Greek 
	      word, heis, and not to Anthony's explanation.

With brotherly love,

		Frank

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 10:52:35 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov22.182414.1@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au>,
eda673fsys@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au wrote:
> If you had understood about the trinity, then this claim is not so difficult
> to grasp.  If you read John 10:27-33, you will see that Jesus Himself claims
> to be God and the Son of God.  The trinity doctrine is quite simple if you
> are willing to upon up yourself to see and comprehend what our finite mind 
> understands.  God is one being or person with three seperate and distinct
> personalities, namely God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
> This purality is indicated in the Old Testament as well.  In Genesis 1:26, 
> God said "let us .....".  To further prove that Jesus is God, look at
> John 1:1.  This to me was quite clear on Jesus and His Lordship.  "In the 
> beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was
> God."

Sorry, but I'm always interested to know how persons that believing in the
trinity concept both state that their mind is finite compared with God, and

at the same time they know how trinity works.

We either have a situation where
a) Human beings with limited minds don't understand anything at all
concerning the holy trinity
or
b) the trinity concept is clearly understandable as a doctrine for
finite minds

I guess there's also this grey area where trinity is not understandable,
however one could explain it :-). 

Just to do a comparison, how would this sound: "I don't know how
to get to Kansas, however I do know how to drive there".

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:26:19 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov23.192847.16830@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> 
> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Nov23.172155.15183@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
> >>As a result of his participation in this thread, the case that Mr.
> >>Sandvik recognized his error is more compelling than when we began.
> >>He wrote, "...he should also state that I in my private email
> >>conversation with him said that I was wrong in some of my statements
> >>concerning logic."  It follows that he had recognized his error.
> 
> >Now I am more puzzled.  The above quote certainly sounds like acknowledgement.
> 
> If what was written were true, that would surely be the case.  What he
> wrote wasn't true, however, which left me wondering what he meant.  I
> had hoped he would make things clear for us.  Alas, I fear the
> indirect statement above is all we shall ever see.  Very well, then.
> I will not further refute Mr. Sandvik's claim of moral soundness.

Hear hear! Finally there's agreement that I told that I erred. I'm
yet again morally sound :-). Anyway, back to something more meaningful.
Concerning definitions of moral, how do we for instance compare
issues dealing with moral based on ancient tribe system concepts,
and moral based on high tech issues. Just a comparison, how could
we define Judeo-Christian moral in a virtual reality cyberspace
environment?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Subject: Re: Sugar Daddy
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:54:41 GMT

In article <9oZeuB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:


>Atheism was invented by God
>as a means of keeping away
>those who only love Him
>for His money.

Religion was invented by a shrewd leader
as a means of keeping control over
his hapless followers.

In any case your logic is flawed once again Kalki.  How can an atheist
love something for its money that does not exist.  How can that
non-existent entity have any money?

-Bill

P.S.  I'm really looking forward to you serialization of Dr. Thompsons
proof.  And to your response to my request for your theory of origins
and your evidence/proof of that theory.  But these are topics for
another newsgroup.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: God as phallic symbol
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<30464@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> <1992Nov18.180626.14843@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 1992 02:03:15 UTC

In article <1992Nov18.180626.14843@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>God is a very wonderful person. I'm glad that we can know him because
>>of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 
>From the way the fundamentalists say the universe is set up, as
>far as I can tell, God is not a wonderful person at all. Seems to
>me that if God exists, he's kind of a dick, actually.

I think the technical term would be phallus or perhaps Phallus.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc