HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Virginia and Darlene
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:55:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


>>In article <nyikos.727470791@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes [in reference to Publius]:
>>>
>>>Shouldn't that read either "For Anti-Christ and His Kingdom" or
>>>"for the coming triumph of secularism"?  I have seen no more evidence
>>>that Publius is a Christian than I have that    drieux   is a Christian.

Such judgmental attacks are part of the reason Christianity is thought so
poorly of by so many people today. Pat answers, often Bible verses pulled
out of context, waved in people's faces do not bring healing, comfort,
or encouragement.

If I were a non-Christian in search of answers or encouragement, I would
not turn to someone who self-righteously spouts scriptures and then
pretends to have the inside track on whether other people are Christians.
I would turn to someone who exhibits agape love. You can hang a cross 
around hate's neck, but that doesn't make it love, no matter how many
verses you can quote.

I've enjoyed the perspective Publius has provided in this group, and
I look forward to more of what he has to contribute.
-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
*Linda Zinn                         When you point a finger at someone,     *
*au500@cleveland.freenet.edu        you're pointing three back at yourself! *
**********Wanted: Books by E.D.E.N. Southworth; cattail dinnerware***********
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:25:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <4266@master.CNA.TEK.COM> richa@grizzly.CNA.TEK.COM (Grizzly Amber) writes:
>
>Lotsa :-) :-) ;-> :-) here...
>
>Turn it upside down. Imagine the circle is the frame of a
>magnifying glass. Now it's a "piece" symbol.

I hate to say this, but I must be missing something.  If I follow your
lead, you're saying it looks like a woman's genitalia.  

I have a full and functional set of the above myself, and it's never
looked like that to ME. ;-)

Blessings,
Janis 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose ANSWERING ----------> Dana
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date: 21 JAN 93 19:01:23    

In article <2dzq02V533XR01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes...
>>From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
>>>In article <be=C02CO311s01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes...

>>>Brigham taught that Adam was our Father and our God and said that God
>>>revealed it to him.  He was wrong! God didn't reveal that to him and the
>>>LDS church today condemns that doctrine. God was not using him and
>>>according to Deut 13:1-5; 18:22 he is a false prophet.  All propehts
>>>after him are from his line. They are too false!

>>Logically this doesn't follow.  If Brigham was selected by God as a Prophet
>>and then fell, it doesn't prove all subsequent LDS prophets are false as
>>well.  Surely God would be capable of duely inspiring the selection of another
>>true prophet and would not be restrained from doing this based on the last
>>prophet going astray.

>>Also what do you mean by the phrase "from his line?"  Brigham Young did not
>>select the next prophet, he did not even select that person's entry into the
>>quorum of the twelve, and the next prophet was not blood-related to Brigham
>>Young.  So how was John Taylor of Brigham Young's "line?"
> 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                         MY RESPONSE
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                           ADAM IS GOD???
>                          Chris A. Ulachos

So Tony, your response is to post 1700+ lines from another person?  And
none of it ever gets around to directly answering my questions.  Have you
been sitting there waiting for someone to get sufficiently close to this
topic for you to assault all of us with this article, regardless of 
whether it is actually on-target or not?

However I am perfectly willing to accept it as "your" response.  Just like
a Holiday Inn, your responses offer no surprises.

Dana
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: VERIFYING CHRISTIANITY #1
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:36:28 GMT

The entire post was interesting, but it's point is irrelevant.  I do believe
that the Bible was written by people who believed it was the word of God (at
least the new Testament).  People never question the validity of the Iliad 
because other people don't try to use the Iliad as a basis for running 
peoples' lives.  

So the fact that the Bible is authentic is irrelevant.  The only relevant 
question left is whether it is the word of God.  Of that, I have never been 
convinced.  It would take true revelation (not the story of a person's life)
to convince me of that.

Peace,
________________________________________________________________
Matt Ivaliotes	lotus@uiuc.edu	ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
		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
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: The Founding of a Great Nation ...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:18:37 GMT

>Kent responds:
>|Sigh, there's a *difference* between something founded by Christians,
>|and founding a Christian nation. I hope the writer would understand this
>|difference, and it does not hurt to read the constitution, bill of rights
>|and similar papers to figure out how many times the word "Christian"
>|and "Christianity" is mentioned in these papers. 
>|Kent

>Allow me to respond by lifting a section from another posting which recently
>appeared on the subject:
>Myth # 3:  The silence of the Constitution regarding Christianity.
Not a myth.  

>      It is assumed that the United States was never Christian in its basic
>ideals and values because the Constitution does not specifically mention
>Christianity. The myth is shattered when one realizes that it was never the
>purpose of the Constitution to give religious content to the nation. Rather,
>the Constitution was an instrument whereby already existing religious values
>of the nation could be protected and perpetuated. 
Provide substantiation.  Below is hardly enough.

>The Constitution is not
>devoid of Christian references, however. It is interesting to note that the
>Constitution acknowledges Sunday as a day of rest: "If any bill shall not be
>returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall
>have been presented to him, the same shall be a law. . ." (Article I, section
>7).
Custom.  They were raised in Christian society.  That does not mean they wished 
to have the future nation enforce Christian beliefs.  I could much more easily
(and accurately) argues that Sundays were excepted as a way to easily agree 
upon a day off for the President.  Nothing more.

>Moreover, there is a direct reference to the Lord Jesus Christ in the
>Constitution: "DONE in convention by the unanimous consent of the States
>present, the seventeenth of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand
>seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of
>America the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our
>Names."
Again, convention.  The year of our Lord is how all British documents are dated
as well.  Saying that this makes America a Christian nation would be similar to
calling the Soviet Union (past tense) a Christian nation because it used the
numbering system in arriving at 1917 as the date for the Revolution.  Silly.

>If anyone is interested, drop me an E-mail and I will forward it.
Heard it again and again.  I keep listening, but it never gets any more 
convincing.
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
NextMail to: 				mci41087@sumter
Bitnet mail to:				IVALIOTE@uiucvmd
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.all-worlds
From: chavis@thumper..bellcore.com (Dennis Chavis)
Subject: Re: EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (THE GOD)
Reply-To: chavis@thumper.UUCP (Dennis Chavis)
Organization: Bellcore MRE
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:43:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.062418.26795@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>irfan@maxwell.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan) writes:
>>A HEAVY BLOW ON THE HEAD OF ATHEISTS, 
>>NATURALISTS AND MATERIALISTS
>
>Ow!  ("Oh, I'm sorry, this is Abuse.  Arguments are two doors down.")
>
>
>And if we show the fourth to be absurd, does this likewise mean that
>the answer must be one of the first three?
>
>Why is it that the more devout someone is, the more that person seems
>to have lost any semblance of proper logic and debating skills?  Or,
>in this case, to have lost all tact?  I mean, really!  Do you honestly
>think atheists are all that evil?  Doesn't it even occur to you that
>we might have actually thought through what we believe?
>
>-- 
>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
>/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
>  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
> /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau



I am not an atheist but I agree with you 100%.
I am more along the lines of unsure.

Dennis

IMHO that guy is a clown

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.slack,alt.discordia,alt.pagan,alt.cascade
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Getting to know God was God is NOT Allah was Islam at a Glance
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fYaK67C@quack.sac.ca.us> <C16J3J.EHw@panix.com>
Date: 21 Jan 1993 19:40:22 UTC

>>>>>>>YHWH create men and women in his own image. Allah is both sexless 
>>>>>>>and has no image.
>>>>>>So you mean YHWH is both male and female???? Which part is male and 
>>>>>>which is female??? (:-).. just wondering..)...
>>>>>Last I heard YHWH was male and termed "Father".
>>>>Remainder of excellent cross-theological exchange deleted.
>>>God is not male.  God does not have a penis.
>>Does God have an omphalos?
>The Incarnate Son of God, Who *is* God, did (also had a penis, I assume.)
>Yours, in the Communication of Attibutes,

Why do you assume that "Incarnate Son of God", (that's Jesus as you
claim, correct?) was male? Is Jesus a male or female name? Krishna who
was Shiva incarnate (maybe) was both male and female at the same time,
why couldn't your God do something similar? Is your God not as creative?
How do you know that Jesus didn't have a yoni with an unusually large
clitoris or is that what you mean by "Attibutes?" And why is *your*
religion so patri-centric? Are women only fields to sow your seed
upon? If your God is male, then there must be a corresponding Goddess
who is female. Where is she? Our Lady of Guadalupe?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christian pro-choice
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:20:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

In article <4Z8sXB1w165w@topcat>, topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com
(Tom Albrecht) wrote:
> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
> > >Is there anyone on here who is pro-choice who has neither had an abortion,
> > >paid for one, or encouraged someone else to have one?

> > Here!  Here!  I certainly belong to that category, as well as most of
> > other New Hampshire residents.

> It's easy to be pro-choice when you don't have 4000 babies a year being
> killed at the abortuary down the street, or when you've never come
> face-to-face with the reality of the abortion decision.
> 
> To be pro-choice and Christian is simply to be confused.

Well, fortunately we are free to be either confused or not confused
in democratic countries, in other words the person is free to select
their actions. I sometimes wonder why some Christians don't accept the 
free choice of abortion, but at the same time they push for the free
choice of freedom from sin (accepting Jesus). You can't have both,
either you have to accept that humans have the right to make choices
or then you might as well destroy the concept of free will.

This is real confusion.

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27716 alt.pagan:15948 alt.folklore.urban:35051
From: dhammers@pacific.urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Hammerslag)
Subject: Re: Basics of Islam
Reply-To: dhammers@pacific.urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Hammerslag)
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Urbana Design Center
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 17:17:57 GMT


--
In article <1993Jan14.155335.23619@kth.se>, d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi)
writes:
| In article <1993Jan13.220315.21446@urbana.mcd.mot.com>,
dhammers@pacific.urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Hammerslag) writes:
| |> 
| |> I notice that you neglect to mention Christ's great commission given at
the
| |> end of Matthew's Gospel:  "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
| |> baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
| |> Spirit."
| 
| Jesus (pbuh) must have meant the 12 *nations* of Israel, i.e. the twelve 
| tribes of Israel = the Jewish people, with the word nation.
| Otherwise it would be contradicting with Matt 15:24 and Matt 10:5-6.
|
| |> We also find Christ commanding, at the open in of the book of Acts,
"...you
| |> will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the
| |>ends of the earth."
| |> 
| 
| This must still be referring to the Jews all over the world as it otherwise
| would be contradicting the above verses...
| 
| Btw which verse is this????

First, specifically on Matt 15:24, where Jesus is dealing with a Canaanite
woman, you should note that Christ does in fact grant her request.  I am not
quick to ascribe Jesus' conversation with an individual as a blanket statement.
It could very well be that Jesus was challenging the woman. 

More generally, I do not see a contradiction with Christ giving his disciples 
different missions at different times.  I certainly can understand employing 
different strategies after the resurrection. 

Paul states very clearly in Romans (1:16) that the gospel is "the power of
God for the salvation of everyone who believes:  first for the Jew then for
the Gentile."

The Acts reference is 1:8, but surely you know that reading a verse here and 
a verse there is not the way to find out what the Bible has to say.  (Imagine
trying to read anyother book that way!)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hammerslag (dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com)
   "...there ain't nobody so bad that the Lord can't save 'em ain't
        nobody so good they don't need God's love..." -- Mullins 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27564 alt.pagan:15865 alt.folklore.urban:34827
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:13:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.001241.19660@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz> comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen) writes:
>gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>
>>It is sort of neat that the peace symbol is an upside down rune from
>>norse mythology.  The rune, (picture a peace symbol upside down)
>>represents the horns of an elk.  It's the "defence" rune, I believe.
>>[He said, being too lazy to go across the room and look it up...]
>
>I don't know what you think runes were, but they were in fact letters,
>representing sounds, not concepts (such as defence).  Nor were they pictures
>of creatures.  Some were derived from Roman letters (such as the rune for
>F), others made up.  They were originally notched into the 90-degree edge of a
>block of wood rather than on a flat surface (though later they were carved
>onto flat surfaces -- the famous runestones of Scandinavia -- which
>controlled their geometric shapes.  Later generations that could not read
>them may well have infused the, to them, mysterious shapes with ideographic
>meanings and reinterpreted them as pictures, but certainly there was no such
>intention on the part of the inventors.  Their invention was stimulated by
>Roman writing, amongst the then-pagan proto-Norse.

Runes were indeed invested with mystical proprties -- read your Norse
mythology.  These have continued down to today, where people seem to
like using them for divining and such.  They were (the Asatru on the net
can correct me here) first given to humanity by Odin, who was bound to
Yggdrasil, as a means of communicating AND DIVINING.   

The Hebrew alephbeth also is treated similarly; there are mysticisms and
concepts associated with letters in just about every alphabet known to
humanity.  Even the Roman alphabet is not exempt -- why does "X" stand
for the unknown so much?

Blessings,
Janis  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Norman Conquest)
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:22:10 GMT


Earlier, I wrote about the OT Law and the prescription of stoning, saying
"there are several places where this punishment is recommended for crimes
that are no more than trivial".

In reply, David Kaufmann writes: 

> How do you know they're trivial? By what standards is this determined?
>
> The penal code of any system of jurisprudence undoubtedly contains penalties
> that don't seem to fit the crime - to an outsider.  But I would think one
> should understand the philosophy and context of the entire legal system
> before criticizing a part of it.

On March 31, 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella signed an order giving three months
for all practicing Jews to leave Spain.  Being ethnically Jewish itself was
not a sin, but being a practicing Jew was "the greatest, most perilous, and
most contagious of crimes."  (Martin Marty, _Pilgrims in Their Own Land_,
pages 16-20.)

My initial reaction to this would be to say that it was horribly unjust;
however, I am judging that by my own standards.

I assume that, since you believe it is inappropriate for me to judge past
societies by my standards, you do not condemn the Spanish government for
evicting the Jews.

If, however, you DO believe that the Spanish government was wrong in their
treatment of the Jews, I ask "by what standards is this determined?"

 *

If Mr Kaufmann wishes to defend the extremely harsh OT rules as a product
of their time and culture, I cannot really argue him out of moral relativism.
However, the exact same position can be used to defend virtually any action
of any government, regardless of how immoral we believe it to be.  To be
consistent, Mr Kaufmann can no longer dispute the laws of any past society,
because those laws will be consistent with "the philosophy and context of the
entire legal system".

Whether he is willing to accept this consequence of moral relativism I cannot
say.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27705 alt.slack:3966 alt.peeves:19670 alt.discordia:800
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.slack,alt.peeves,alt.discordia
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:24:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1993Jan25.162226.17380@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>Who am I
>to try to disturb that?  Whatever makes you happy, so be it.

Indeed, who are you and why did you just try to disturb it by answering the
guy.

Why on earth would you reply to a person to tell him why you stopped replying
to him? Are you co-dependent on him?

Dan


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: isc30108@nusunix1.nus.sg (AMBAT SASI S/O PALISSERY P)
Subject: Re: EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (THE GOD)
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:23:11 GMT

proof that the egg came 1st.
2 possibilities 
1. chicken came 1st
2. egg came 1st.

1. chicken must come from an egg cause chickens are not born
alive. hence 1 is false. therefore 2 is proven.

nope, doesn't make sense to me either.

to prove anything in such a fashion, one should idealy be able
to list exhaustively all possibilities each hopefully
independent of the other.  i am glad though that somE thought has
been involved in ur choice of religion. 

sasi.
keep trying, good luck and God be with u.
From: twf2@po.CWRU.Edu (Todd W. Flyr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 22 Jan 1993 05:28:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Hello, I'm new to this sig in the sense of a posting but I have
read a lot of the messages.

There are a lot of answers to your question and it is a very
valid one.  The first point I would make is that I am LDS and
therefore my answer will reflect what my understanding of 
divine truths are.  I also know that stating my belief will
probably attract the attention of others, I don't think I mind
or I would have sent e-mail.

The first answer is that there is not an exact answer.  I 
feel logically that an understanding of God comes mostly by
faith.  If there were no turmoil on this planet of ours, then
why would anyone try to find something better in the first
place.

The second answer, and I think you will see these are related,
part of the reason you are here on the earth is to be tested,
to learn the difference between good and evil and to choose
to good.  The deeper point is that God understands that 
difference, and we, being his children are learning by 
experience. We are in a non-ideal situation, where things
are not necessarily just, and the allure of evil are the
louder shoutings while the good is a gentle whisper.
The goal is to find that which is good and live it.
By doing this, the evil can be overcome.  There's more 
to it than this, but this is a basic overview.

Additional insight comes from and understanding unique
to LDS belief that we lived with God before we were born,
were taught and understood the why's and what's of this
life and agreed to come here.  The reason is best simply
explained by the analogy of parents in an earthly family.
They cannot protect their child children indefinitely,but must let them go out on
their own in order for them to truly become adults.

I hope that is a helpful answer--feel free to ask me
to elaborate on any topic if necessary.

	Todd
-- 
  "say a prayer for us so we don't lose our way"
				
Todd W. Flyr   twf2@po.cwru.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc