HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose ANSWERING ----> Willard Smith (Rabbits DO! Chew Cud)
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:10:56 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <73dP02yR32D=01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE) writes:

>I originally made the statement that Joseph Smith prophesied
>about six foot men living on the moon dressed like Quakers,
>and that Brigham Young prophesied that the sun was actually
>inhabitant by men. In defense of these remarks, Willard took

You're a riot, Tony!  None of these speculations are in Mormon
scripture, which they would be if they were purported to come
from God.  Can you imagine what it would be like if every
fancy you ever voiced could be jumped on by some nut case
and attributed to God?  Poor prophets!  

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/21/93   God's Promise in Titus 2:13
Date: 21 Jan 93 06:07:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Looking for that blessed hope,
	and the glorious appearing
	of the great God
	and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

	Titus 2:13
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: God's contract with man through Jesus Christ
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 06:19:05 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada



Here is the simplest way to receive salvation!!

Go to God and ask for mercy for all the sins that you have committed throughout
your life.    Then ask God to take you in, via Christ, i.e. admit that Christ
is YOUR Saviour!

From then on, all the sins that you commit should be forgiven PROVIDED you take
it to prayer.

And that simply is God contract and formula for salvation.

Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969, Redhill, Surrey, England, UK
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Daniel's Prophecy and the 360 day year (was Re: Length of years)
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:30:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <ofM98r200YUoQpymEL@andrew.cmu.edu> st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes:
|.....
|For all these reasons and more, it seems most straightforward to just
|count calendar years when dealing with prophetic years (and I believe 
|he and I agree that the "seventy weeks" of Daniel represent seventy 
|weeks of years.)  If you start in 457 BC when the decree was given
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|to restore and build Jerusalem, the last week ends in 34AD because
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|there is no zero year.

What is your historical justification for 457 B.C.?

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Art Johnson)
Subject: Re: Praise Melkor, Lord of the Void!
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 01:42:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.234619.67247@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>  
pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF) writes:
> Any co-worshippers? Or just Christians and vulgar Atheists?
>
     Hey, wait a minute! Isn't this guy Melkor now called Morgoth, and  
wasn't he dragged away in chains beyond the edge of the Uttermost West?  
Who let him out? :-)
 
> -- 
> ---
> Thus spake Kalmoth the Dreaded, Bane of the Forests of Gnoy.

Arthur Johnson
johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:19:12 GMT

In article <C1BvE3.FqD@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.201857.10192@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>Both groups accepted the Torah.  As you pointed out, Jesus was quick to
>>>point out when the Jewish leadership, both Pharisee and Saducee were leading
>>>the sheep away from God.  If homosexual sex were acceptable, then why didn't
>>>Jesus correct their teaching, or say, "Ye have heard that it hath been
>>>said, thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, but I
>>>say unto you....."  He did not.  And His apostles also agreed with the Torah
>>>that such acts were sinful.  
>>What a completely bogus argument: "But there are also many other things
>>that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose
>>that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
>This is certainly no more bogus than.  "Jesus never homosexuality."
Should there be a word there?

>If the sayings of Christ are so plentiful that John described them as he 
>does above, then it is very possible that Jesus addressed the issue.  
Quite true. But I don't remember Jesus saying that "You may eat
chocolate". Do you assume that that is ok or not?

>And it is not a bogus argument.  Jesus said, "Think not that I am come
>to destroy the law...."
As I remember, the law said that adulterers should be stoned.
Do you stone adulterers, Mr. Pitts?
The argument that you obey the law unless Jesus told you precisely
not to strikes me as absurd. I can provide numerous examples, if
you would like.

>  The law specifically condemned male homosexual acts.
It did NOT. It said "you shall not lie down with a man the lying
down of a woman." What that exactly means is anyone's guess.

>Also, the word porneia had a wide range of meaning by that time.  The
>gospels may not record Jesus specifically discussing homosexuality, but
>he did speak of sexual immorality in more general terms.
But since we don't know that porneia includes homosexuality, you're
begging the question.

>>What his apostles believed is most certainly in doubt. We know what
>>Paul seemed to have believed, but Paul wasn't there to hear Jesus
>>speak. 
>Not before the resurrection.  But he did hear Jesus speak, as many others have
>since the resurrection.
So Paul says, true. But I don't remember him saying "Jesus says don't
be gay." Do you?
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27702 alt.pagan:15943 alt.folklore.urban:35011
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:03:33 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

In article <1k466iINN4ed@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> cspot@cats.ucsc.edu (Christopher Edward Hilker) writes:
>
>u0d05@keele.ac.uk (PG Herzberg) writes:
>
>>theory three: Apparently it is semaphore. If you split it up into
>>three component parts you get 0,| and Y(inverted) the O stands for
>>whole and the other two are semaphore for  N and D (ie total Nuclear
>>Disarmament). (This sounds very silly I know but it wasn't me who
>>dreamed it up).
>
>This is the theory I have heard. The corrolary to this theory is that
>an inverted peace symbol represents unilateral disarmament (U-D).
>
>C.
>
>-- 
>hilker!chris (cspot@cats.ucsc.edu)
>


I heard at one point that the peace symbol represents defiance against
the reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  The peace
symbol can be viewed as the cross of Christ, turned upsidedown with
the arms of the cross broken.

I missed Theory 1 and 2, so I don't know if I rehashed the same 
theory.  Does anybody out there know it's exact origins?


Sincerely,


Brian Ceccarelli
----------------
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: VERIFYING CHRISTIANITY #1
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:37:35 GMT

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>What are your ways for proving or checking as to whether a document is true or
>not?

Well, speaking for myself, I check it against other sources, against other 
things I have learned, against reason, and against that which I currently 
observe around me.  The BIble satisfies none of the above.  Case dismissed.

   _________________________________________________________________________  
   Matt Ivaliotes	   lotus@uiuc.edu	ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
   a.k.a. Lotus		   Bitnet mail to: 	IVALIOTE@uiucvmd
			   NeXTMail to: 	mci41087@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu

   As much as I speak, I don't speak for C.C.S.O.  Aren't they lucky?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.all-worlds
From: falcao@felix.metaphor.com (Ronnie Falcao)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.slack,alt.discordia,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Birthing men...
Date: 29 Jan 93 02:39:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Metaphor Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA

In article <1993Jan21.034131.19299@wam.umd.edu> bast@wam.umd.edu (Jaguar) writes:
>
>theoreticaly, it is possible for a man to carry a child.
>It seems one day a woman who had a hysterectomy fond herself pregnant.
>The fetus has attached to her bowel.....
>Do not recall if the article stated that she carried it to term or not.

As I recall, an otherwise-normal, healthy baby was delivered.
It was the first recorded case of a successful extra-uterine
pregnancy.  And you can believe it was in *all* the tabloids.

	- Ronnie

falcao@metaphor.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:24:24 GMT

In article <C1F46s.5DI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>   Let me ask you a question: can _men_ be priests (i.e. as defined by
>the Catholic Church)?  My guess is that you will say no, because you
>don't accept the Catholic Church as God's Church, nor do you even
>believe in God (as I have taken from other of your posts -- correct me
>if I'm wrong).  In this case, according to what you believe, why does
>it even matter that women cannot be priests, when not even men can be?
>   It can't be because of this hierarchical authority, because one
>is not forced to remain in the Church if one cannot accept it.

But that is exactly the reason: because of the hierarchial authority.

>Or one
>can even ignore it in most cases with impunity (if one ignores any
>spiritual effects of this).  Besides, if one cannot accept it, and
>that it is God's will, then why would one _want_ to remain in a church
>whose teachings one believes to be false?

Several possibilities.  The most obvious is that someone thinks only a _few_
church teachings are false.  If there are enough true teachings remaining, that
person might still wish to remain part of the church.  Another obvious reason
might be social pressures for church membership.  And another reason is that
the great influence of the church gives its authority some effects outside its
own realm.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: Re: JESUS DIED AND IS RISEN (Re: Jesus Has Died)
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:09:50 GMT


My computer is going to the shop for repair...but I shall return!
Frank
-- 
Frank
....
"Forever, O LORD, your word is settled in heaven."  PSALM 119:89
"The entirety of Your word is truth."  PSALM 119:160
From: krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Re: Length of years (was Re: ***MoJ: Proof 1: The Amazing Prophecy***)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:11:38 GMT


Steven Timm <st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> Those who wish to make the prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 fit
> the Messiahship of Jesus often make it much harder on themselves than
> necessary by believing that (1) the 70'th week is pushed off to some far
> space near the end of time and (2) the 69 weeks (or 70) should end at the
> Cross.
> 
> The phrase "in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and
> oblation to cease" (vs. 26) refers to Jesus' death on the cross in the
> middle of the 70th week, AD31, the 70th week of years actually ends in AD34,
> at which point Peter receives the vision to send the gospel to the Gentiles.

I'm sorry, but this is getting sillier and sillier.

When Daniel says "He shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease," isn't
it obvious that it's referring to the destruction of the Temple (which should
be rebuilt bb,a)?  How on earth do you think that "causing the sacrifice and
oblation to cease" refers to JC's death?

The reason that you don't WANT to believe that the "ceasing of the sacrifice
and oblation" refers to the destruction of the Temple is that the destruction
didn't happen until 70AD, which destroys the whole silly theory.

Dov

 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:43:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Note Followup-To line.

In article <1jpmv9INN272@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni 
     (Randy garrett) writes:

}: }Science cannot prove anything!  That's right!  All it can do
}: }is disprove things.
}
}Hmm, if you can't prove anything, how can you disprove anything?

You might want to check out your local bookstore or library in the
philosophy of science section.  Find things written by Karl Popper,
and you'll have your question more than adequately answered...

}: }Evolution is not "just a theory."  It is a fact.  It has been
}: }observed, it has been duplicated in the laboratory, and the
}: }evidence is astoundingly consistent.
}
}Your "Evolution is not "just a theory."  It is a fact."
}statement would seem to be in disagreement with your statement:
}
}"Science cannot prove anything!"

The most parsimonious explanation for your statements here is that
you're not using the same definition of "fact" that is being used by
the person to whom you're responding.  I suspect (although my evidence
at this point is somewhat sketchy) that that person is using the word
in the same fashion that scientists use it.

}Could you reconcile the two?  Also, if we mean by evolution
}the changing of one species into another, then evolution 
}has certainly NOT been observed, other than, arguable, in the
}fossil record and certainly not in the laboratory.  

According to the standard definition of species (which you used in a
section I deleted below), speciation has been observed in the wild.
The organisms in question were plants, however, and the parent and
daughter species don't look much different.  You wouldn't likely be
terribly impressed, but your statement is nonetheless false.

}Randy G.

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cfb@bnr.ca (Charles F. Board)
Subject: Re: THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS and Contradictions (?)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:59:32 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <1993Jan27.225051.24662@news.ysu.edu>, af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
|> 
|> Eric,
|> 
|> Do you realize that I was the one debating Tim O'Neil and Mr. Board? They
|> posted; I replied. I will continue to reply because there are NO 
|> CONTRADICTIONS in the NT regarding the resurrection of Jesus. If you read
|> my posts in the series _Re: JESUS DIED AND IS RISEN_, you'll relaize this.
|> 
|> Please be very careful how much time you spend in constructing your posts.
|> Mainly, by fully examining what the word "contradiction" means...any Webster's
|> dictionary should do...this should save you some time with the obvious one
|> that can be answered simply. (ones).
|> 
|> I apologize for misspelling your name. From this point on, I'll refer to you 
|> as Eric. I've been wanting someone to discuss with me the alleged contradic-
|> tions, but Tim O'Neil has stopped and so has Mr. Board - it is a busy time of
|> year. I look forward to this debate. Thank you.

Actually, I stated up front that I really didn't care to discuss "contradictions" -
but would rather discuss the more inclusive subject of "the gospels as evidence". I
dropped out of the discussion because you didn't seem interested in that angle. 
It's not that I don't believe there are contradictions (there are several), it's just
that I've learned from experience (Hi, Richard Pitts) that there's no point arguing
with someone who refuses to even hear your argument. And I really see *no* point in
having a discussion with someone who actually takes Josh McDowell seriously. 

have a nice day 

|> 
|> Frank
|> -- 
|> Frank
|> ....
|> "Forever, O LORD, your word is settled in heaven."  PSALM 119:89
|> "The entirety of Your word is truth."  PSALM 119:160
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27132 alt.atheism:26705 alt.pagan:15671
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: In need of a label...
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:20:07 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

In article <1993Jan19.031126.43622@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> 
jws5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JUSTIN WINSLOW SOLONYNKA) writes:
>Labels are dangerous when they are given to others without
>consent.  But I'm having trouble giving _myself_ one.

Here's one I found in the office this morning:

                              Bei Beanstandungen
                               bitte einsenden
                                      --
                           If there are complaints
                                please return
                                      --
                           Veuillez renvoyer en cas
                               de reclamations
                                      --
                                   4221 FA


mathew
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Small Historical Question here
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:15:09 GMT

jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill) writes:
] 
]       The United States was founded by Christians, as a Christian Nation
]                                Jim Burrill                       
] 				10/23/92
] 
]     History shows us that Pilgrims were in search of Religious Freedom when
] they came to the new world. King James was king of England.

ok, 

So which were the RealChristians[tm]????

The Puritans? The Pilgrims? The COE????

ciao
drieux


ps: we all know that the Dutch Reform, and those 
Misguided Lutherans were in league with the Papists....
And WE all KNOW who's side they are ON....



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
From: arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:25:40 GMT

In <1jpmv9INN272@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:

>: }Evolution is not "just a theory."  It is a fact.  It has been
>: }observed, it has been duplicated in the laboratory, and the
>: }evidence is astoundingly consistent.

>Your "Evolution is not "just a theory."  It is a fact."
>statement would seem to be in disagreement with your statement:

>"Science cannot prove anything!"

Wait, kids!  Evolution is both a fact AND a theory(dessert topping and floor
wax!)  Evolution is a fact.  The fossil record clearly shows that later fossils
are very different from earlier fossils.  Microevolution is an observed fact.
	Evolution is a theory.  How does it happen?  I think when we talk about
evolution(the theory), we're actually talking about evolutionary processes like
natural selection and punctuated equilibrium.  We ain't too sure how evolution
happens, but we can be sure that it does.

joel d. arandia
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:38:08 GMT

In article <C16pC4.J4x@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In article <C168ut.HIr@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
>(Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>
>>but I do know that the Jewish leadership knew that homosexual acts were
>>sins.  Jesus did not specifically mention the topic in the record we
>>have inthe gospels.  But he does condemn "porneia" the general term
>>for homosexuality.
>
>Uh, Paul? _porneia_ is NOT "the general term for homosexuality" -- it
>is a generic term for sexual immorality,

oops.  I just realized what I did wrong.  I meant to say sexual immorality
instead of homosexuality.  "general term for homosexuality" doesn't make
much sense.
sorry 

>You are quite correct that Jesus NEVER addresses the issue.  He does
>mention Sodom -- coming down on the side of interpretation that sees
>the sin thereof as being the rejection and ill-treatment of the angels,
>the messengers, of God (i.e., not a sexual sin, but one of hospitality.)

Jude also describes that they were sinful in that they desired "strange
flesh."  

>As to what the "Jewish leadership knew" -- are you using "know" in the
>"Biblical sense?"  Yes, that's a joke - but why, exactly, am I to take
>as determinative any opinions of the "Jewish leadership" (do you mean
>the Pharisees? the Sadducees? who?), despite Jesus' frequent controvery
>with same?

Both groups accepted the Torah.  As you pointed out, Jesus was quick to
point out when the Jewish leadership, both Pharisee and Saducee were leading
the sheep away from God.  If homosexual sex were acceptable, then why didn't
Jesus correct their teaching, or say, "Ye have heard that it hath been
said, thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, but I
say unto you....."  He did not.  And His apostles also agreed with the Torah
that such acts were sinful.  

Part of the reason that Jesus came into the world, died, and rose again,
is so that we can be free from such sins.  Sundar Singh wrote that many
people have been forgiven of their sins, but have not been saved from their
sins.  In Christ, we have the power to overcome any sin.  None is too
great for Him.

Link Hudson.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27252 talk.abortion:57344