HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsimon@atlas.nafb.trw.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Free Will and Evil
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:17:10 PST
News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to soc.religion.christian

>>>So spend eternity in hell.  That'll teach God!
> 
> When I first read this comment I had two conflicting responses. One was a
> sympathetic one to Dan for a sense of frustration . . .

I appreciate your sympathy.  However, my comment "spend eternity in hell,
that will show God" did not spring from frustration and it
was not an emotional response, but rather an attempt to show the
ridiculousness of rejecting God on the basis of disagreements.
For instance, some people say "How can God do . . . If that's what He's
like, then I don't want any part of Him!"  So they go to hell, as if that
somehow proves a point.  It's like standing in a crosswalk when a semi is
coming towards you because after all, YOU have the right of way!

Perhaps you don't like comparing God to semi.  How about comparing
Him to a "consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29)?

Some people reject God because they had bad experiences with Xians.
The comment "spend eternity in hell - that will show them" would hopefully
show them the riduculousness of their rejection.  Like the man
who commits suicide to try to make his girlfriend feel guilty.

> Now, the other response I had to "So spend eternity in hell" was
> something like: "Uh oh, this doesn't seem to be a very helpful remark." I
> felt that for a couple of reasons. First, this won't sway anyone who
> doesn't believe in God . . .
> Second, and I think this is more important, the only force that "So spend
> eternity in hell" could have, IMHO, is a negative one. I mean, it *might*
> scare someone into believing God (though surely not Martin and Mike - nor
> me for that matter). But that raises two questions in my mind:
> 1. Does belief based on fear really work in the long run? (I personally
> don't think so).
> 2. Aren't there many more positive reasons to believe in God? 

Many people I know were originally motivated to believe by fear.  They later
deepened their belief with other more "noble" motives.  So I think that
fear does work in the long run.

- Dan Simon -
From: ggrieve@cbnewsi.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: British Israelites
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:23:41 GMT

Michael,

	What I find impo(r)tant (item 7 !) is the covenant made with the
patriarchs in old testament times. It is clear that Abraham was promised
descendents and that they would never be without a king, after David's
time.

	This is what the British Israelites teach today. Herbert W. Armstrong
("Plain Truth Magazine") is probably the best known organization, but it is
based on a long tradition and there are other exponents.

	Briefly, the northern kingdom of Israel was dispersed in ~700BC and
went on to populate Europe. When Jerusalem was captured by Nebuchadrezzar
the kingdom was destroyed there, but Zedekiah's daughters were taken by the
prophet Jeremiah along with the royal regalia, eventually to Ireland.

	The present British Royal family is descended from them and the
coronation ceremony has a lot of features in common with the ancient Israel's
practices. The one relic which remains is the stone of destiny/stone of Scone
in Westminster abbey. The ceremony includes references to Zadok, a priest in
Israel.

	That's the theory. It has its critics. If you want to look at the
evidence for it, I may be able to help.

	You certainly have an interesting project!

regards,
Greig Grieve
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal/New Age Religion (Was: Santeria and animal-sacrifice)
Date: 13 Nov 92 05:35:12 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

>> Just as anyone can point to the fundamentalist quacks (like the Bakkers et
>> al) it is easy to look into pagan and new age religion and find aspects that

Pleasssssssssssse!  Stop throwing the term fundamentalist around soooooooo
loosely!  Bakker was NOT (never was, isn't now, and I suspect never will be)
even close to being a fundamentalist.  Don't go using the term fundamentalist
for every person who is a religious zealot or pretends to be.

And by the way, some of us fundamentalists actually adhere more toward
libertarian political philosophy, though I'm sure this nation would be
much better off if everyone were sanctified, born-again Christians.

mc

[Fundamentalist is one of those words that currently has no very
precise definition.  This is irritating to people who are part of the
movement that originally coined the term.  The protest is noted, but
please don't feel too upset at readers who use the term as it is
commonly used.  --clh]
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Santerria
Date: 11 Nov 92 08:03:17 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln

er@oscar.bellcore.com (Elizabeth Romanov) writes:

>to religious practice.  Granted, this is an unusual religion and an uncommon
>practice, but that in no way affects the rights of the religious community

Actually, as a point of information, Santeria is _widely_ practiced in the
Caribbean, Central America, and among communities of people from those
areas who have settled in the U.S.  It's something of an amalgamation of
"voodoo" and Roman Catholic practices.  Just an informational footnote.

--
paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ .......... 
 .. . .  . . . university of nebraska - lincoln .  . . .. . .  .. . . . . . . .
 .     .    .  .   .     .   .  .    .   .  .   .    .   .  grace .   .    .  . 
   .         .       .      .        .        .      .        .   happens .
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The pope and Galileo
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:57:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <Nov.11.03.03.02.1992.15171@geneva.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:

>Where the problems came from was that Galileo was totally convinced,
>conclusive evidence or not.  His character was such that he could get
>pretty vehement about propagating and defending his ideas.

From what  I once heard in a history of science class, Galileo's
character was probably a major culprit in this saga.  Your
reference to his being vehement with his ideas is probably an
understatement.  The man was very good at arguing his points and
was not satisfied just to win, he had to squash his opponent and
damage his ego.  One of his previous victims had been a Jesuit.
Jesuit's stuck together and the pope at the time was a Jesuit.  Thus
Galileo had made some *powerful* enemies.  Combine this with the
Catholic Church's desire to control people's belief in every aspect 
of their lives at that time and you have a recipe for trouble.  
Copernicus had no trouble with the church earlier, but his
personality was not nearly as abrasive as was Galileo's.

BTW, I also understand that in Galileo's time they didn't think of
themselves as the center of the universe but the bottom of the
universe.  This earth was the lowest possible place, special because
it was the worst, not the most important part of the cosmos.

(Ironically science has come almost full circle.  In general
relativity it doesn't matter what you consider the center.  The
earth will work quite as well as the sun, with perhaps a bit more
complication in calculations.)
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Free Will and Evil
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:24:33 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <Nov.4.00.30.24.1992.973@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
DSIMON@thor.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON) says:
>
>I could never rape and murder a baby.  Does that mean I don't have
>free will?  Jesus could not sin.  Does that mean He doesn't have free will?

Sheesh, try not to be too self-righteous in proclaiming that sin is
beneath you. The whole point of Jesus having free will and not sinning
because it was his nature was in response to the ones who claimed that
we can't have free will and not have suffering. They then asserted
that Jesus had free will, but could not sin. I think this is a
contradiction on their part. I mean, if Adam and Eve had been like
Jesus, we wouldn't be worrying about much at all, would we? And yet
they claim we can't have free will and yet escape suffering.

>So spend eternity in hell.  That'll teach God!

If god tosses me in hell for not accepting the non-evidence I've
received thus far, and for not giving in and just blindly believing,
I'll prefer hell! You haven't even proven that the mere idea of an
all-powerful, all-good god can fit in with the universe as it is!
We haven't even gotten to the point where you can prove that such a
god, if possible, exists...and since you're falling back and judging
me to hell, we probably won't make any further progress.

Martin Schulte
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Door-to-Door evangel.
Date: 13 Nov 92 10:13:47 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

>Note the context to Mat 23:15.  Jesus is describing the Pharisees as
>blind guides. ... before trying to convert people, we should be sure that we
>understand the Gospel well enough that we're really helping them.

REXLEX responds:

>I think this is dangerous theology.  ... Some of the best witnessing is done 
>by new converts because they're too naive ...
>... Maybe the Lord has been trying to have us do it, but we're too
>high and mighty.

I agree with REXLEX: I don't want to suggest that people should be shy
about witnessing because there are things they don't understand.  But
I do think we should be alert to the dangers.  For example, when I
teach kids, I avoid teaching views that I hold but which I know are
speculative.  I think it's always fine for people to describe what God
means to them, and there's a core of the Gospel which I hope every
Christian will know.  Perhaps it's unreasonable to expect people to
know which things they believe are part of this core and which are
not.  The danger with a new convert is not that they'll show their
enthusiasm at the cost of some sophistication.  That's just fine.
Rather, what I am concerned about is when they spend half their time
describing some bizarre theory that their pastor has pulled out of
thin air, and which they don't have enough perspective to evaluate.  I
realize that it may be hard to implement my suggestion, such in the
nature of the case the people I'm concerned about don't know what they
don't know.
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Power
Date: 9 Nov 92 05:56:04 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

dxf12@po.cwru.edu (Douglas Fowler) writes:

>     The main place we need to look is our schools.  Right now, some school
>district are actively teaching things such as self-actualization and the
>like that put the person first, instead of the Spirit inside him/her.  Indeed,
>a poster on misc.kids noted that in some schools, an amorality is being taught
>the children, in which they tell them to decide for themselves whether things
>like robbery, murder, etc. are wrong. 

There are parents, including some Christians, who think that this is, in
fact, an appropriate way to teach children:  who might rephrase it as
"You are the one responsible for being good or being evil; no one can
make that decision for you." 

How do you intend to deal with such people?  

The alternative to teaching them that they must decide for themselves
would seem to be teaching them The Answer to moral questions.  This is
not controversial when you're thinking about robbery and murder; but
what are you going to say about harder topics (abortion, military
service, sexuality, wealth, obediance to authority, etc.)?

Who gets to decide which answer is The Answer?  God, you may say, but
which of His human interpreters gets to make the decision?

Public school is somewhat coercive; it's hard to get your child out if
you don't have money.  This makes it a dangerous place to push your
moral or religious agenda, because you are harnassing State power to
force people to listen to your ideas.  This is bound to be resented.

I'm not a parent yet, but I plan to be.  I think I'd prefer teachers to
say "Decide for yourselves" so that I could help my kids work their way
through those decisions, rather than impose a moral teaching that might
be very alien to mine.  (I note, for example, that my state Republican
party would like to teach them that our religion is evil--this is in the
state platform.)

>Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu 

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu

[I would suggest that it's correct to teach people that they are
responsible for making decisions, but that it is also important to
give information and guidance on which such decisions can be based.
Some of the material is intended for example to protect kids from
abuse by making it clear that they adults don't have the right to use
them sexually, and to help youth resist peer pressure.  It seems to me
that the problem is when an emphasis on the student's responsibility
isn't coupled with guidance on the consequences of choices, and a good
grounding in what the human race has learned about morals.  In a
public school (US terminology) environment, it's not appropriate for
this to be exclusively Christian, but I think if we put our minds to
it we could come up with a way to present some of the major approaches
to morals in a manner that is constitutional.  --clh]
From: U38098@uicvm.uic.edu (Man Sang Tam)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Mature Christian Characteristics???
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:09:56 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

I am currently responsible for one of the fellowship meetings this month.
The topic that we are going to discuss is Christian characteristics.  I
have decided that Bible Study will be the best format for the fellowship's
need now.  The problem is that I don't know which bible verses to use.
If you have any thing in mind, please let me know.  You can also include
some of the major characteristics that you think a mature Christian should
have.  I will greatly appreciate your ideas on this topic, and if you
want to know the result of the Bible Study, please let me know.  Thank You.
From: caw@gtech.com (Christopher A. White)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ECSTACY
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:29:06 GMT
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich, RI

In article <Nov.8.00.48.43.1992.8517@geneva.rutgers.edu> twiggs_te@mike.lrc.edu writes:
>researched it, and there is no evidence of the drug doing any physical harm
>to humans. 

Yet...

Every drug does a physical alteration to body chemistry. Food does. Asprin
does. XTC does. The more severe the alteration, the more likelihood of 
damage. Any time you move outside the body's normal operating parameters,
you are doing some kind of damage. Cocaine only activates the adrenal
glands of the body - the drug itself does nothing to induce the feeling
that you get; yet, the harmful effects of the drug are well doccumented.

You must realize the limits of medical technology. Discoveries take time
and money, and there is never enough of either.

As another example, take steroids, or, more specifically, HGH (human 
growth hormone). It is a hormone found naturally in the body, so what
could be more harmless? The effects and dangers are well doccumented, 
including 'Roid Rage', an aggressive, violent temperment that develops
*after* a period of use.

Then, of course, there is addiction. XTC, if not physically addictive,
is most definitely psychologically addictive. Addiction gives someone
else control over you. The more severe the addiction, and the more
people addicted, the more powerful the control.

>If everyone were to experience this unifying feeling, I truly,
>honestly believe that world peace could be made much easier.  I mean, it's
>impossible to have a bad or evil thought while under the influence of this
>pill.  I wish I could describe this feeling clearly to all of you.

Or any other thoughts, for that matter. Could you do your job under that 
pill? Could you recite the alphabet? Did you even care? If you want to 
get a good picture of what you feel (and have the resource to do it), take
the pill and then a) read a book/do your taxes, b) get an EEG done, and c)
take a reaction time test. Every drug is different, and will affect one
or more of these (or others).

There is no such thing as casual use of a drug. Never has been, never will 
be. Look at the evidence and the psychology behind addiction and you will
come to the same conclusion yourself. When we're all on XTC, who's going to
farm?

Again, the strongest thing I can say is that the body has a set of parameters,
both physical and emotional, that it was designed to operate within. When
you exceed them, you do damage. Period.


Topher
-- 
 Christopher A. White                    | 
 caw@gtech.com                           | Free will is largely overrated. 
 GTech Corporation, West Greenwich, RI   | 
 The opinions expressed are mine alone   |           - Topher
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The first sin?
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:30:42 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <Nov.8.00.44.23.1992.8441@geneva.rutgers.edu> tartaris@hsi.com (Bob Tartaris) writes:
>In article <Nov.4.00.29.54.1992.954@geneva.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>>In article <Nov.1.00.32.20.1992.22626@geneva.rutgers.edu> debre@cs.sun.ac.za (Etienne de Bruin) writes:
>>
>>   What would you say was the first sin ever done by a human.
>>   I am referring to the sin Adam and Eve committed in Eden.
>>
>>It was disobedience.  Sexual sin was not possible to Adam; there was
>
>I think it actually went beyond disobedience.  Through their disobedience
>they were trying to be like God maybe even to be a god.  They had been 
>convinced by Satan that they too could be omniscient, omnipotent, etc.


One version I've heard points out that the tree in the Garden was the
tree of the knowledge of good *and* evil.  Adam and Eve already had 
knowledge of good, but until the Fall, they had no experience of evil.
But by taking the fruit, they would gain for themselves direct knowledge 
of evil.  

And here's where the lie comes in: "And ye shall be as gods".  There is
a recurring temptation in human history to place oneself above good and
evil, and the tempter offered it to our forebears.  By knowing both 
good and evil, they would be "liberated".

Supposedly.

---
Richard Chonak, norris@athena.mit.edu
From: ircolman@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca ("Ian Colman")
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Trivia
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:15:11 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

I was hoping somebody could help me with the following question:

Who was the only disciple of Jesus to die a natural death?


Any help would be appreciated. Please e-mail to ircolman@descartes.uwaterloo.ca.


Thanks in advance.

Ian Colman
From: conan@beirut.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The pope and Galileo
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:56:42 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

Our moderator writes:

>[I've been holding back on postings on this topic, but it appears I'm
>not going to get what I'm looking for, so I guess I'll have to let
>peoople say what they know.  

I was at a theological library and meant to look up some of
the details but forgot :-(.

However, the Galileo case has one major difference from other
such cases:  all the records are freely available to scholars.  It
is my understanding that when Napoleon captured Rome and took Pope
Pius VII into captivity, he also stole the sealed files on Galileo
from the archives.  His price (or that of the succeeding French
government) for returning them was that they be made available to
scholars.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: Kevin@ccc.amdahl.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ECSTACY
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:48:05 GMT
Organization: silicon valley


     The life we live each day is the reality.  What you experience through
drug is only temporary.  How long do you think you can live in a world like
that?  Forever?  Let's say that your answer is YES, forever.  Then you also 
have to rely on drug forever.  This is how one can become a drug addict.  
I know the real world is full of hatred, and evil.  But don't forget the love
and the rightousness that you often overlook.  If there is no darkness, how
can one see light?  If there is no evil, how can one distinguish good.  
Remember that the good and the evil all come from within ourselves.  You can
live in a perfect world and be perfect all your life.  But what happen if 
one day you are confronted with evil?  What will you do?  
     I think the real world that we live in presents to us a priceless 
lesson of life.  If you don't suffer, you won't understand those who suffer.
If you are never sad, you will not understand sadness.  Regardless of your
surounding environment, the person that you will become is the primary, the utmost important goal in the journey of life.  Don't be a coward and hide 
yourself from the reality through those drugs.  It may not physically harm
you, but it will spiritually weaken you, it will psychologically destroy
your will, your determination.  Soon you will find yourself defeated at 
the footstep of destruction.  It will be too late then.  FIGHT WHILE YOU 
STILL POSSESS THE STRENGTH THAT GOD GIVES TO EVERY PERSON.
From: dwjurkat@mailbox.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Bored in Eternity...
Date: 13 Nov 92 07:17:43 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

Just exactly what do you do when you're in heaven?  Eternity is rather long.