HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov18.174903.5209@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 19 Nov 1992 02:10:44 UTC

In article <1992Nov18.174903.5209@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>Peter White writes
>>Let's say that your house was on fire.
>Well, it obviously _isn't_ on fire...
>>I could come up, bang on the door
>>and with great concern for your well being, say, "Hey! Your house is burning
>>get out of there quick."
>..and if the loony at the door doesn't stop yelling and pounding,
>I'm going to call the police. 
>>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. 
>I'm glad to hear that. I lead a relatively happy, successful life.
>The suffering I experience isn't too terribly awful and it keeps
>things interesting (How bland a life without suffering!). Do I
>understand correctly that God will leave me in my present state if I
>choose to ignore his call? That's all I could ask for. 

I think a better analogy would be if The Christian God set your house on 
fire and then your choices are to convert to Christianity and burn and 
go to Heaven or not convert and burn and go to Hell. And, of course, if
you are a witch, then you won't burn at all.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:07:14 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

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:
>>
>>>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: [Jn 3:16]
>
>Sorry, but I don't think you've made the point against Mr. Derzhanski.
>
>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".

Actually, the reason he didn't make a point against me is that we were
tuned on completely different waves.  This discussion had been started
by a poster who asked which religion gave the easiest access to
heaven, meaning, presumably, its own heaven, whatever that is.  Note
that the question is already problematic.  Heaven?  Not all religions
have heavens to boot.  Judaism has none.  The Greek religion has none.
These religions don't promise to get you to any such place as heaven.
The Aztec religion has at least two heavens, and whether you'll get to
one of them, an which one, depends on the circumstances of your birth
as well as on your behaviour.  Buddhism is full of heavens, but you
are warned that you don't really want to go there, the real thing is
nirvana, not heaven.  So it might make sense to ask whether Islam or
Christianity provide you an easier access to their respective heavens
than Buddhism does to nirvana.  I'm not prepared to answer that.

But a number of posters decided, for some reason, that what was
seeked was access specifically to the Christian heaven.  Obviously no
religion other than Christianity can take you there.  Except the
question becomes a trifle meaningless then.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:22:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: oboe.gvg.tek.com

In article <1567@tecsun1.tec.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill
Riggs) wrote:
> 
> 
> IS Fundi-bashing essentially more in line with
> 	Christianity than gay-bashing? ....How WOULD Jesus
> 	handle this situation, anyway (the Crucifixion gives you
> 	a clue?
> 

Great response, Bill. In this age of "enlightenment" some people get all
worked up over so-called gay-bashing, yet they think nothing of displaying
the most vehement anti-Christian bigotry themselves. I guess they don't see
the inconsistency.

Chuck Petch
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21542 alt.atheism:21662
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just a seasonal observation.
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:43:01 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>In article <adams.722186101@spssig>
>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>I have taught my children from the beginning that
>>there is no such thing as Santa Claus.  My 3-year old happily tells anyone
>>who cares that he is just 'a man in a suit playing make-pretend.'  And he
>>knows that Christmas is "God's birthday".
> 
>He knows or he knows that it is supposed to? So you tell your children that
>there is a god and not that that you believe that there is a god?

Yep.  I tell him there is a God.  The issue wasn't about God existing or
not, but about 'christian theists' teching their children about Santa in
contradiction to belief.  I said I didn't do that, as one example to show
the fallacy of that person's argument.

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:53:47 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <11555@scott.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
wrote:
> I'll skip the obvious response about the meaning of "believing in
> atheism" and move to the real point: Just as being an atheist is
> incompatible with having following a religion, many religions are
> incompatible with one another.  Therefore you don't necessarily
> maximise your chances by following several of them simultaneously.
> Maybe each of the gods you worship will damn you for _also_ having
> worshipped the other one(s), and you'll end up in hell.

I guess that would be a problem, however if you look at the maximizing
issue the possible God has to agree that if the individual followed
his/her doctrines 100%, there has to be a really good reason why
this person is not allowed to enter this 'heaven'.  What if we
are dealing with a person with multiple personalities? :-).

> >However in this case it's futile, because correct me if I'm wrong but
> >atheism does not believe in an afterlife and heaven.
> 
> Atheism doesn't believe in anything, and specifically is not very well
> compatible with belief in afterlife and heaven.  But as a mental
> exercise it is interesting to imagine a deity which favours those and
> only those who don't believe in it, or in any other deities.

It would be a very cruel joke indeed to have a God that only accepts
people that don't believe in him. Would be a good Philip K. Dick
story line.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21820 alt.atheism:21880
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:46:30 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <adams.722458007@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>>In article <adams.722381228@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>> 
>>>>In article <adams.722198596@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>> <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>I just wonder:  can an animal sin?  (I mean animals aside from humans)
>>>>> No.  Animals are not 'free, moral agents.'
>>>>> 
>>>>>>The reason I ask this is because homosexuality exists among other animals just
>>>>>>as it does with humans.   Are these animals sinning as well?   Will they also
>>>>>>go to hell even though they have no concept of this human insanity we call
>>>>>>religion (to our present knowledge )?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  -Steve
>>>>
>>>>How do YOU know that?  Prove it.
>>>>
>>>>Sue
>>> 
>>> Being as the existence of heaven and hell are unprovable, that particular
>>> part is certainly unprovable.
>>> 
>>> Being as the existence of the soul is unprovable, that too makes the above
>>> unprovable.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>  -Steve
>>> --
>>
>>But that is just YOUR opinion and belief.  Those of us who are not Christians
>>think otherwise.
>>
>>Sue
> 
> I am answering this from talk.religion.misc.  What did you expect?  I
> respect your view...you don't have to agree with me...it's a free country.
> And I want it to stay that way...
> 

But you are totally missing MY point.  You made a Declarative Statement as
if it were a TOTAL truth.  You did not say IMHO, you said it as if it were
an absolute fact.  That's what I was objecting to.

Sue

>  -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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State, A Myth
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:48:17 GMT

In <1992Nov13.182152.15930@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

>In article <kmr4.183.721609701@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.721601879@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>>> 	How much would it cost to get your soul out of hell, if you raped 
>>>>the Pope?
>>>
>>>It doesn't take a Catholic to give the answer: Nothing, if you repent.
>>
>>
>>	So, I can rape all the women and young girls I want- I can kill as 
>>many people as I want, as brutally as I want to- I can steal all that I want,
>>And, I only have to honestly repent before I die to go to heaven- and yet, 
>>if I was a honorable native american, who's culture never even heard of 
>>Jesus, I would go to hell?
>>
>>	So, when can I sign up and start the killing and raping?
>>
>>( Hey, I think I understand why so many Christians kill! )

>In the life between death and a new birth you will see your
>deeds in a different light.  Having received the forgiveness
>of Christ, your debt to the world for doing them is forgiven,
>but there will remain the ghastly imperfection that your
>violence has impressed upon your soul.  This you will strive
>to correct by creating, with divine help, the conditions
>in your next incarnation under which you can correct these
>imperfections.

This "next incarnation" business appeals to me.  However,
while it is taught by many religions, is not an integral part
of Christianity.  Of course, it is compatible with it, unless
one takes literally the passage in the book of _Hebrews_ where
it is said that it is given to man to die but once, and then
comes the Judgment.  

>  You will also have to face those whom you
>did wrong, and the interchange between you and them will be
>difficult, unless out of insight the new encounter can lead
>to an act of forgiveness.

[...]

>A time will come, however, when there are no more chances to
>return to earth to do what must be done.  This will be due to
>the deterioration of the earth itself. At this time, you will
>be what you have become and will have to carry that onwards.
>This will be the last Judgement.

These last two paragraphs I've saved, taken together, are puzzling.  If Gerry 
believes the new incarnations are on earth, how are we supposed to come
together with, much less recognize, the people whom we wronged in this
life?  If there are some special conditions ("I saw a new heaven and a
new earth, for the old had passed away."--something like this is in the
book of Revelations) that arise on the earth to make all this possible,
why should the "new earth" wear out?

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:34:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.191455.13885@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>find that many anti-christ scholars of new Testament literature would 
>What is an "anti-Christ scholar????"

A scholar who is against Christ would be an anti-christ scholar.  Some 
scholars are not believers, and come up with theories that go against
Christian beliefs.  But there are some out there who almost malevolently
and irrationally try to tear down the Christian faith using their position.

>>agree that Peter probably wrote I Peter, and certainly that Paul wrote most of
>>the material attributed to him.
>Most people agree about Paul. I have not hears such agreement about 1 Peter.

Peter didn't write as much, and there is less information about him, while
Paul is a more contraversial figure.  It is natural that information about
Paul would be more commonly known to non-scholars like us.

>> This document has undergone great scrutiny
>>as other documents have, and if, for example, if you look at lists in
>>Eusebius, you will see that it was not even among the debatable books
>>because of the surity people had of its authorship.

>I'm really not interested in Eusebius's opinion. He's a church historian
>and therefore not a real reliable source for this sort of thing.

Well, if you are going to discount any source you don't like we'll run
out of evidence.  Most people in the first few centuries who were 
concerned enough to write about the NT cannon were Christians.  Some
other books were debated because the authroship was questionable (II Peter
was in one of the lists.)  I Peter was an accepted book.  

If you are going to look at the cannon historically, it is a good idea to
look at church historians.  Bishops, like Eusebius, had good reason
to evaluate which books were authentic, and authorship was one of the most
important issues.

Eusebius quotes many bishops and historians from the centuries before him,
and so his book is not just his opinion.  

What other historical sources would you consider to be reliable?

Link Hudson.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Why I am not the property of Jesus (was: Re: Reconciling OT with NT)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:04:49 GMT

Subject: Re: Why I am not the property of Jesus (was: Re: Reconciling OT with NT)

In article <5851@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>I would be a Christian still today if it were not for the writings of Paul
>of Tarsus...           ^^^^^?

When were you a Christian?

Did people know you as being Christian because
(a) you were catholic
(b) you went to church regularly
(c) you claimed to be
(d) you went through all of the motions
(e) some of the above
(f) all of the above
(g) none of the above

Terence

ps

Does John 13:35 fit in here somewhere?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 23:50:01 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>Under any reasonable definition of morally sound, most people are morally
>sound.  The default assumption, then, is that someone is; they may freely
>argue based on it, and it is up to you to prove them wrong, not the reverse.

I certainly agree (with that latter sentence -- the first is
debatable, but no matter).  Mr. Sandvik's claim that he is morally
sound is not unreasonable, though rather bold, and the burden of proof
is in this instance best borne by the skeptic.  For precisely this
reason my first words were a refutation by counter-example,

     I must question the accuracy of [Mr. Sandvik's claim].  In my
     opinion a morally sound man acknowledges an error when it is
     pointed out to him.  From Kent we have not received any
     acknowledgement of the logical mistakes made in earlier
     discussions.

(That was almost a week ago, so it is understandable that some may not
remember these words.)

From this one can glean that I think a morally sound person
acknowledges errors, and in at least one instance Mr. Sandvik has not
done so.  The two relevant responses are,

  -- explain why moral soundness does not include acknowledging
     errors, or
  -- refute the charge.

Mr. Sandvik chose the latter (and also wrote many unrelated things,
such as the unkind words "bitchy dog"), which was unfortunate, as his
errors in logic (e.g. calling ~p -> q the inverse) and refusal to
acknowledge are a matter of public record.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Secret Society
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:45:09 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <20NOV199216553744@acad3.alaska.edu> ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>Are fundamentalist so-called "born-again" Christians really nondenominational? 

I've not heard that fundamentalist were nondenominational.  There are several
denominations (or churches therein) that would be considered fundamentalist.

>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?  Who decides what

The Bible - it is the written source of our teachings and it is profitable
for doctrine, correction, and encouragement.

>publishers, speakers and authors are approved?  Who decides what religious
>denominations will be persecuted as "cults?"  Why do so many fundamentalists

The teachings of Christ - one is determine a cult by one's approach to God
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

>themselves manifest the same zeal or fanaticism they fault others for?  Could
>these people be dupes of some secret "church?"

We are in Christ's universal church and a local (denominational or non-
denominational) church body.

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

To my knowledge, this is not an issue or concern.  If you think it is, could 
you explain?

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21805 alt.atheism:21875
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:46:47 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>In article <adams.722381228@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> 
>>>In article <adams.722198596@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>> <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>>I just wonder:  can an animal sin?  (I mean animals aside from humans)
>>>> No.  Animals are not 'free, moral agents.'
>>>> 
>>>>>The reason I ask this is because homosexuality exists among other animals just
>>>>>as it does with humans.   Are these animals sinning as well?   Will they also
>>>>>go to hell even though they have no concept of this human insanity we call
>>>>>religion (to our present knowledge )?
>>>> 
>>>> Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.
>>>> 
>>>>  -Steve
>>>
>>>How do YOU know that?  Prove it.
>>>
>>>Sue
>> 
>> Being as the existence of heaven and hell are unprovable, that particular
>> part is certainly unprovable.
>> 
>> Being as the existence of the soul is unprovable, that too makes the above
>> unprovable.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>  -Steve
>> --
>
>But that is just YOUR opinion and belief.  Those of us who are not Christians
>think otherwise.
>
>Sue

I am answering this from talk.religion.misc.  What did you expect?  I
respect your view...you don't have to agree with me...it's a free country.
And I want it to stay that way...

 -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
From: king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Animals have souls (was Fundamentalist Nightmare)
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:51:12 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.




sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>>Where in the Bible does it say that animals do not have souls?
>>For that matter, where in the Bible does it say that humans
>>DO have souls, and where is the nature of the soul described?

Kalki Dasa responds:

>The nature of the soul is thoroughly described in Bhagavad-gita and many
>other Vedic scriptures. The fact that humans (animals and plants too)
>have souls is also stated in the Vedas.

Sure, both animals and men have souls.  At Gen 1:20 it states, "Let
the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls (heb, nephesh)." At
Gen 2:7 it reads, "God proceeded to form the man out of the dust and blow
into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living
soul (nephesh).

I should add, that the Bhagavad-gita's concept of "soul" is quit 
different from the Bible's.  First, they must have the breath of 
life (heb, ruach; greek, pneuma -- often translated "spirit").
Plants hardly fit that definition.  By the same token, the trans-
migration of souls is totally unbiblical.


Jack

Keywords:
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:59:35 GMT

In <1992Nov16.004514.9549@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>that God said it. Besides, what makes you think that God wasn't just
>flat out lying?

If God was flat-out lying, then we may as well just nuke ourselves
right now.

Good grief! If God was lying about that, then we obviously can't trust
him with anything...specifically his comment about Satan being "the
father of lies."

Come on....God is incapable of lying. It completely goes against his
perfect nature.

Michael