HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:52:13 GMT

creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

>In article <adams.725552866@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>Ya know, for a guy with a PhD, you don't know very much, do you?  The word
>>'Catholic' means 'universal.'  All persons who are members of the one,
>>universal church are catholic.  Lutherans are catholic.  So are Orthodox
>>(both Greek & Russian), Episcopalians, etc.  You're being far to
>>provincial, Dr.  The Roman church has no valid claim on sole catholicity.
>
>   Except that all the abovementioned denominations broke off from the
>"Roman church."  If Christ really did give His authority to what is
>now called the Catholic Church, then it seems to me that anyone who
>rejects that authority has left the Church to some degree.  And if the
>Catholic Church does in fact have this authority, then the Church can
>also say who can be called Catholic.
>
>   How catholic, how universal is it, really, to break off into schism
>from the main body of the Church into a separate group?  That sounds
>the opposite of catholic to me.

That all depends.  If a religious body has flawed doctrine and/or
practices, then failure to reform gives schismatics good cause and reason.

Luther conceded every point to the church except for indulgences...they
refused to yield on that for over 100 years.

 -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: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: On faith  (was: ... least common denominator)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:22:02 GMT

In article <ksand-231292161733@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>And now theists would get in stating that agnostics/atheists
>have faith in gravity. And yes, in this case we do know the
>implications of gravity on a human being, and both camps agree
>on this issue. In other words there are many premisses nearly all human
>beings could agree upon, but in the case of religion we don't.
>This clearly shows that religion is a personal attribute, and 
>attempts to streamline it using universal doctrines are always
>doomed to fail, ultimately. 

Yes.  And, the "faith" in gravity is of a totally different
kind than a believer's faith in a deity.  Propositions about
gravity (eg, rate of acceleration, effect of gravitational field
on light, etc.) have been tested repeatedly and have been
found to be correct.  The ability to project current verified
characteristics of gravity into the future may seem like
"faith" to some, but looks like a pretty safe bet to me.

The NT and OT both make propositions about the behavior of
God, such as God's consistency in answering prayer.  These
propositions have been tried by millions (including readers
of this group) and frequently have been found to be incorrect.
Of course, the christian apologist will claim that prayers
may be answered on a "spiritual" plane, or in an
afterlife, but these claims are not testable or
falsifyable.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
       A Lie is still a Lie, even if you believe it.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:02:34 GMT

In article <2716@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>        "... we know that there was what we call 'progressive revelation'
>    in the Bible so that Moses knew a lot more about God, life and reality
>    than was revealed to Abraham, and Paul had a lot more revealed to him
>    than to Moses or David.  The New Testament throws light on the Old
>    Testament and, since the New Testament is the more full revelation of
>    God's multi-faceted truth, we are supposed to see and interpret the Old
>    Testament through the eyes of the New Testament revelation.  Few would
>    disagree with that.

I disagree.  This attitude can help clear up some problems
in Bible interpretation, except there is no indication in the
Bible that this is so.  "Progressive revelation" looks appealing
to Christians, but far less so to Jews.  Frankly, it is rather
insulting to the ancient Hebrews that they were somehow too
simple minded to "understand" the word of their God.

>        "One example of this would be Matthew 1:23, which quotes Isaiah
>    7:14:  'Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son,
>    and they shall call his name Immanuel. ...'  The word in Isaiah 7:14
>    for 'virgin' can just as easily be translated as 'maiden,' which
>    liberal scholars used to discredit the virgin birth of Jesus.  However,
>    when the Holy Spirit caused His penman Matthew to quote that Hebrew
>    verse in Greek, He arranged for Matthew to choose, not the general
>    Greek term for 'maiden' but the very specific Greek word for 'virgin'
>    (parthenos, from which we derive the English word 'parthenogenesis'),
>    which can only mean 'virgin.'  Thus, whatever broader usage God had for
>    Isaiah to choose a general term around 740 B.C. for both that century
>    and the century for the incarnation of Christ, the matter is settled
>    forever that 'virgin,' and not generally 'maiden,' is the
>    interpretation God insists we place upon Jesus' mother and Matthew
>    1:23."

If one already has a pre-conceived notion that christianity is
correct, or at least an improvement on OT Judaism, then 
progressive revelation would explain it.  However, it seems
much more likely (to me, anyway) that the OT authors meant
what they said, and that the NT authors distorted OT writings
(either by using poor translations or attributing "prophetic"
meanings where none was intended) so that the Jesus-cult
could gain adherents among Jew and Gentile alike.
>
>                                from Jay Grimstead
>                                in "The Five Principles of Hermeneutics"
>
>[Reprinted from Crosswinds, published by Coalition on Revival, PO Box A,
> Sunnyvale, CA  94087-0020]



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
       A Lie is still a Lie, even if you believe it.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:10:37 GMT

sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:

>In article <1993Jan1.092719.17208@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>From what I have read in the Bible - Jesus did not say this. He is  
>>supposed to have said "I am the way". That does not deny others as
>>also being valid. He was only claiming that his way was valid.  I
>>would expect, if the people who collated the mythology called the
>>Bible had meant "only", that they would have written it that way.
> 
>Doesn't the rest of the verse go "no man comes to the Father but
>through me?"  Scarcely a ringing endorsement for other ways.

There is a traditional theological position in the Roman Catholic Church that
many good people who did not accept Jesus as the savior are in heaven because
they "came to the Father" through the spiritual Christ, rather than the 
historical one.  This position says that Moses, Abraham, and the other good
people in the Old Testament who followed God *must* have eternal life because
they did what God willed, even though they were not Christian.  This then is
extended to say that "the virtuous pagans", such as the Greek philosophers,
also are in heaven because they served God as best they understood God.  As
C.S. Lewis has Aslan, the Christ figure, say in _The Last Battle_, any good,
no matter whose name it was done in, was noticed by Aslan; and all good people,
no matter if they worshipped the pagan god Tash, would be taken in by Aslan 
at death.  This is very traditional Christian theology, folks, from the very
conservative Roman Catholic Church.  

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
"We are secretly replacing the fine quartz crystals this medicine pouch maker
usually uses with Folgers crystals.  Let's see what happens...."
                                      --DACCrowell
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Kent,hammer, SatanISM
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:38:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.computers
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec28.074524.19057@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, just drieux) wrote:
> ] ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> ] >As we all know NNTP and SMTP are fully described, and we could send
> ] >email and newsentries all around the world. 
 
> I think that Kent is Onto Something Here....

> Everytime that a news Article Fails to Post,
> or a Piece of Email Bounces, or an Email Loop Occurs,
> We Can CLEARLY see the HAND OF SATAN!!!!!

Imagine then if the omnipotent God would create the metaphysical
equivalent protocols of NNTP and SMTP. He can't err, so you should
not have any problems connecting to him, eh... ACK, ACK???

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
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Date: 29 Dec 1992 21:19:30 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <adams.725657689@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
(stuff deleted)
>
>In fact, I'm convinced I deserve hell, and if God judges that's where I
>belong, that is within his will, and I can't argue.  On the other hand, if,
>as promised by the scripture, I do gain heaven, then so be it.

Steve, if you find yourself in hell after you die,
you will argue.  Trust me.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
       A Lie is still a Lie, even if you believe it.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Choosing a Bible translation
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 21 Dec 1992 19:03:24 UTC

In article <1992Dec21.074533.4832@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>somebody writes: (saved w/out header - sorry)
It was I, myself and me:
>>Do
>>you really consider this being strict? What does the Christian
>>Revelations 22:18-19 say again? Or does this not apply to translations
>>of the original Bible languages? Are you really this lax with THE WORD?
>>Is this the essence of Christianity? If it's good enough for King James
>>it's good enough for me? And what has become of that search for the
>>truth? How have you been led astray?
>Personally, I would love to have a perfect translation - but this is not
>possible.  As I said, this is the type of thing that should be scribbled in
>the border if you really care about the discrepancy, which I have done.
>It is not something to ditch a translation over, and yes it is minor.
>Whether it was meant to say "young woman" or "virgin" has absolutely no
>bearing on my relationship with God.

Then you are ignoring the words of Revelations 22:18-19 because to
translate the Hebrew word for "young woman" as "virgin" is to add to the
text.

Rev 22:18(KJV): For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of
the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God
shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (19) And
if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
holy city, and *from* the things which are written in this book.

>My own personal conviction is that IF the Bible is REALLY the word of God, He
>can manage to keep it meaning what He originally meant it to mean.  There is
>no such thing as absolute meaning even given a perfect translation, as the
>_real_ meaning is the form it takes in the reader's head.  Enter the Holy
>Spirit, which will allow a person to believe the truth, even as love would
>dictate.  Don't ask me what that means, I just typed it in a daze as it is
>2am.  

Then your Christianity does not come from the Bible. You have been
possessed of something you call the Holy Spirit which guides your life
and the _real_ meaning, the _absolute_ truth is the form it takes in
your head. Though you are no doubt being quite truthful on your Buddhist
quest, these types of things are generally against the bulk of Christian
dogma.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/1/93   God's Promise in Revelation 3:20
Date: 2 Jan 93 04:23:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Behold,
	I stand at the door, and knock:
	if any man
	hear my voice, and open the door,
	I will come in to him,
	and will sup with him, and he with me.

	Revelation 3:20
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/3/92   God's Promise in Hebrews 9:12
Date: 3 Jan 93 02:56:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Neither by the blood of goats and calves,
	but by his own blood
	he entered in once into the holy place,
	having obtained eternal redemption for us.

	Hebrews 9:12
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: n9140981@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Christian Becker-LHE)
Subject: humour: New Creation story
Organization: Western Washington University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 09:09:07 GMT

Drawing Board- by Charles Spano, Jr.

   And God said: "Let there be light...."
   "Aw, nuts," God complained a moment later.
He surveyed His universe disgustedly. He'd been
at it all week and was tired and hungry.
   "Trouble again, dear?" Ms. God thought
sympathetically. "What is it this time?"
   Moodily, God chewed his lower lip in an
artistic snit before answering. "Too many red
stars and the galaxies are at the wrong angle."
   "That's the third week in a row, isn't it?"
His Mate asked.
   "I know how many times it's been," He said a
trifle sharply.
   "Well, come," She said. "I'll materialize some
nice hot chicken soup. It will make you feel a lot
better."
   "Maybe later. I've got to work on one solar
system. It's almost right."
   "You know you shouldn't create on an empty
stomach. You can try again next week."
   God sighed. "You could be right. But that third
planet..." He looked at that corner of space and
considered. The He changed His mind. And God said:
   "Ahhh, to hell with it."

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_. 
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 09:43:49 GMT

>The Star Trek show's point seems to be that Picard is so motivated by
>the prospect of further torture that his visual perceptions actually
>change. Nevertheless, Picard refuses to say that he sees five lights, 
>even though he apparently does see them. Picard remains defiant even in
>the face of the "treachery" of his own neurons.  

I did not interpret it in that way.  Picard admits, in the final scene,
that he was indeed going to admit to seeing five lights.  Although I
think that it is due to the limitation of the media, and the simplistic
romanticism of the audience, that he did not.


-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs' fourth leader, Fred Franz, RIP
Date: 23 Dec 1992 23:56:38 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

So who is going to take over as the new President?  Will 
the president now be (even more than before) a figurehead, 
with real power being spread around the Governing Body? 
And what about the "non-anointed" members of the GB now? 
Will the new president have to be "anointed"?   

People who watch the JWs have wondered what sort of new 
dynamics the passing of Fred Franz would bring.  Is there
anything 'official' yet?  

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<adams.724896808@spssig>
Date: 21 Dec 1992 09:16:18 UTC

In article <adams.724896808@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>[Hebrew/Greek/English discussion of 'virgin']
>>At least the NRSV has sufficient fidelity to The Word
>>that they are willing to go against what presumably has become the
>>standard Christian practice of adding to The Word.
>They specifically did not change the verse as quoted by Matthew.  It says
>'virgin.'  The NRSV explanation is that since Matthew quoted the LXX
>documents, they should leave his (incorrect) quote alone.

I think this is a split here. The NT references the Septuagint (LXX), so
for the founding Christians, it *was* the OT. Jesus himself may have only
known of the LXX. As a result, one could argue that Christianity is the
Greek versions of both testaments, thus based on the LXX with the
assumption that the LXX, though based on the Hebrew scriptures, is the
only version inspired by the Christian God. Of course this causes a
problem with the claim that the Christian God and the Hebrew God are one
and the same, but presumably one could assume that God's natural language is
Hellenistic Greek and Hebrew was a translation, or any other
pseudo-logic.

On the other side of the fence, we have the tradition of Jerome who was
the first to go back to the Hebrew scriptures for his translation of the
Bible into Latin, the Vulgate, around 400 C.E. The Vulgate became the
official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, so certainly the notion of
basing the OT on the Hebrew is quite traditional also.

>This actually came up at church today.  I visit with the pastor prior to
>services and we chat about things in general.  We spoke about this
>particular verse because I was reading lessons, and this (Isaiah 7:10-17)
>was the OT lesson.  His comments match those of the NRSV (of course!) in
>that Matthew clearly believed that the virgin birth was true, and the exact
>translation of the verse does nothing to deny that fact.  As for propehsy,
>that is another story altogether.

Yes. I suppose the question is, if someone believes something to be true
and later on, it is proved to be false, how does this affect the belief
and the conclusions drawn on that belief? The truth is that the Hebrew
scriptures really do not prophesy Christianity as developed in the NT.
There is a good reason that Christianity was a dud amongst the
Hellenistic Jews. It really has very little in common with Judaism.
However, this does not negate or prove Christianity false, just as the
abuses of Christian history, such as forced conversion do not. But, it
does change the basis. And of course, for a heretic like me, it does add
additional evidence to the notion that there may be some corruption
present in the NT. Perhaps an early salesman was a bit to eager to
change things to match what the Greek and Roman customers were looking
for.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:10:31 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <TORKEL.92Dec25003925@lludd.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> In article <ksand-241292125143@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
>  (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>    >In the case of Christianity I argued that attributes such as good, evil,
>    >trinity, original sin, the holiness of Mary and so on can't be valid
>    >attributes, because we can't even agree upon them.
> 
>   This is irrelevant to the question whether logically valid arguments
> occur in Christianity. Again, provided "logically valid argument" is
> used in its standard sense.
> 
>    >Anyway, if we accept that we could use premisses we can't verify, 
> 
>   The idea that "premisses must be verifiable" has no place in logic.

But my point was that we must at least agree on the premisses, otherwise
my straight line is actually something based on a four-dimensional world,
while yours is based on a plane, and we get into definitions that 
Wittgenstein et rest said that we should ignore. If we can't agree on
the premisses, how could we then agree on the logical conclusions? This
is a very important philosophical dilemma.

Just to show the counter idea, I could define as many logical conclusions
I want about sinning and God based on my own definitions,
where God is a huge automatic state machine and where sin is a pre-defined
state. Now, if someone else says this is bogus, how could they verify
that my logical conclusions are false when I defined the ground rules
and these are based on metaphysical definitions that may or may not
be ever verified?

Or to add this with a Christian example of logic:
Jesus is God, he died for our sins, as a God he could do things we
don't understand, like dying for our sins.

The premisses, Jesus, was he a god or not? We can't show this. Could
a God do things we don't understand? How does one die for one's sins?

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
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/23/92   God's Promise in Psalm 122:6
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:42:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
	they shall prosper that love thee.

	Psalm 122:6