HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:47:47 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Apr8.150238.12500@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>In article <53896@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>>There is a way that seems right unto man,
>>    but the end there of is death. (Proverbs)
>
>Does the path you choose seem right to you? Are you a man?

We preach Christ and Him crucified, not ourselves. (2 Cor. 4)
Yes, I am a man, but I did not create The Way, 
in which I follow - it's God's way.  Jesus Christ, The Son of God, is the Way.

>It seems then that the true, saving faith must be based on something so
>absurd and disagreeable that nobody in their right mind could believe in it.

    In I Cor 1, Paul discusses the wisdom of God and of the world and what
the world is looking for.  He says that God in His wisdom saw fit to
bring about salvation through the foolishness of the cross (Christ 
crucified.) The world in its wisdom, which is different from God's wisdom,
was confounded, because of the simplicity of this "belief in the cross"
approach to God.  Paul says the Jews seek a sign and the Greeks (non-Jews)
seek wisdom, but we (Christians) preach Christ crucified, a stumbling 
block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles (non-Jews.)

Jesus said to Thomas that he (Thomas) believed because he saw, but blessed 
are they who do not see and believe.  

>If you don't follow it, you're dead. If you _do_ follow it, then it has
>become "right unto man", and you're still dead. Oh dear. 

Oh dear?  The term "a way" is not indicative of "The Way."  (Those who
who believe in God's Son shall have eternal life. John 3:16) 

>                                                          Perhaps the time
>would be better spent finding a way to deal with one's impending death.

How do you deal with one's impending death apart from God?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: Books  (Was:Re: Top 10 reasons to believe in Jesus)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:18:36 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <+vvjxqm.rohwerwd@netcom.com>, rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
|> In article <1333@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox) writes:
|> >
|> >You asked for 10 reasons to believe in Jesus. I have to suggest then that
|> >you read a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh Mcdowel.
|> >
|> >There are far more that 10 reasons for believing. Not to mention the best 
|> >reason. It is written that you will not go to heaven except through your
|> >belief in Jesus.....:)
|> >
|> 
|>      Instead of the previously mentioned book, take a look at
|> "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by Episcopal bishop John
|> Shelby Spong.  He shows you why the Bible is filled with errors and
|> contraditions.

I liked Spong's book.  It takes a rather tame view of biblical
criticism.  He is not adverse to bringing in some of his own
exegesis as well.  He lays out only the barest bones of scriptural
criticism, and the structure of the Bible.

More to the point, it isn't that he is showing where all the errors
and contradictions are; he is pointing out that the Bible was
something constructed from many sources, that it is not a unified
text, and that it does not contain a unified picture of theology,
eschatology, or soteriology.  He goes on to say that he does have
faith, and that the Bible is an important part of that faith.  He
seems to indicate that the Bible represents the experience of people
seeking God, and it goes further to indicate that some of scripture
represents protests against other attitudes (Job, Ruth, etc).


Dan
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Radical departure
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:18:05 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: angry young man

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>In article <adams.703026458@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>>>He didn't mention science explicitly, although I for one think that religion
>>>and science will always conflict.  Anyway, one of the areas in which I
>>>don't think you can be thinking clearly is with regards to your homosexuality.
>>>I am somewhat baffled by the homosexual Christians who throw up smoke
>>>screens to try to hide the rather obvious fact that the Bible, your holy
>>>book, is quite clearly anti-homosexual.  I would imagine that Christian
>>>homosexuals must go through some quite agonizing rationalizations in
>>>order to convince themselves that God really does love them too.  This
>>>only compounds the problems resulting from being a member of a homophobic
>>>society.  The solution to me is obvious: junk the damn religion.
>>
>>Oops.  I am happily married, with two children, and one on the way.  I have
>>never had, nor do I wish to have, a homosexual relationship.  You've made
>>a terribly false asumption here.

>I am terribly sorry.  I think I have you confused with another Steve.
>Must not have been thinking clearly.
:-)  No problem....I've done it before...

>>So, now, why am I not thinking clearly?
>>Because I can find room in my heart to accept others as they are,

>No, not at all.  This is actually a sign of clear thinking.
Well, we agree here!

>>and try to open the kingdom of heaven to all sinners?
>But this starts to get quite fuzzy.
Perhaps, but I don't believe so.  Since all of us are 'in bondage to sin
and cannot free ourselves' [Lutheran order of public confession], I cannot
condemn anyone, ie 'shut the gates of the kingdom of heaven'.

Is that clearer?

>>Try again.

>Alright.  Same question.  Do you, as a tolerant Christian, not
>wonder at times why God let that anti-homosexual stuff get into
>the Bible?  Even if it weren't there, I'm sure the bigots would
>find some other justification for their xenophobia, but wouldn't
>the fight be much easier if God had taken a little more care
>in composing the Bible?
Well, since I don't hold the Bible to be inerrant, this isn't a problem for
me.  Although the authors were guided by the Holy Spirit, they were still
men, and as such, colored things.  I look for consistant messages
throughout scripture, especially the NT.

Note well that the Levitical Laws do not apply to Gentiles.  Our original
rules are laid out in the Noahide Covenant, which goverened all humanity.

>Once again, my apologies for the case of mistaken identity.
Don't worry about it...
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:10:37 GMT
	<1992Apr10.193012.6932@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <adams.703020573@spssig>
	<1992Apr12.205812.12909@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>On this issue I am also not convinced that gay Christians are right
>either.

I too have the feeling that there's something wrong about gay
Christians, in that they're Christian.  As far as I'm concerned,
there's nothing wrong with being gay.  However, I cannot see why
someone who was gay would choose to be a Christian, considering how
badly Christians treat gays.  Then again, I also fail to see why
someone who was straight would choose to be a Christian, so I'm not
really qualified to discuss the issue, especially since I'm both
straight and non-Christian.  Besides, religion is a choice; it's up to
each person to individually decide whether or not Christianity is
compatible with their sexual preferences, and you can always change
your religion (I did).  Changing your sexual preferences isn't quite
so easy.
--
You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics.  But not
much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority
ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient
book written by ignorant nomads as a guide.  -- Doug Graham (dgraham@bnr.ca)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:51:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.062939.8905@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.041703.10698@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>Here's a prediction:  What is "right" or
>>"wrong" is relative to every person and there are no absolutes when it comes
>>to a relationship with God.
>>Is this what I will hear?  It is what I have heard so far.
>
>It's not what's been said.

Please enlighten me as to what _has_ been said then.

New prediction:  Gay people are made that way by God and have just as much
right to a fulfilling sexual relationship as any straight person, because the
Bible has been misread in this area.

Let me remind you that this is the same line of thought that almost _all_
Christian based cults take:  "The Bible is correct as far as it has been
correctly translated..."  Of course they mean "We will listen to what the
Bible has to say as long as it does not conflict with our own interests..."
Let me just say that this is a _very_ dangerous way to live your Christian
life; where does it end?  There are absolutes, they have been set down by God,
and he protects his word (if he didn't what's the use of giving ti in the
first place?)

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Secrecy (was Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM'))
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:57:02 GMT

I think you've misunderstood me.  I don't have any opinion about
Mormon practices.  I was simply talking about their need
for secrecy and that this need feeds into the needs of malfeasants
to reveal what is there, and that this should not be surprising.
Were there no secrets, they'd be no taboo around their revelation.
It would be a non-issue.  Right now, exaggerations and outright
falsehoods can be used against Mormons because of this secrecy.

My feelings are that the "secrets" of Masons, fraternities and
sororities, or the pledges to such secrecy, are silly, and the bond
that gets created as a result of holding such secrets is illusory.  But
that's just my opinion.  I don't claim that they don't have a right to
such secrets, but that I'd never choose to become a part of such an
organization, because I don't respect that.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 22:48:46 GMT

Lets get one thing straight right now:

The Mormon Jesus is _not_ God.  They are two separate entities.
While one might need to believe in Jesus to get into heaven,
one also needs to _do_ many things, like knowing the endowment
incantation to get into heaven, having a "sacred name", being
buried in one's holy underwear, etc, etc, etc.  It is _clearly_
a "saved by works" religion.

John M.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:35:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.203923.4959@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>If that makes me a stumbling block (Greek _skandalon_) to you, well
>I had years of practice of effacing myself so as not to cause weaker 
>brethren (like you?) to stumble -- and I found in that role that far
>worse sins flourished in my silence and avoidance of offense to those
>whose doubts I was attempting to accomodate.

Very well put.  "By the book" Christians seem to have a hard time
dealing with choices when there are only 2 'wrong' choices to
pick from.  Its easy to point and say, "look, your choice caused
problems".  No kidding, but the other choice causes more...

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:11:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <GOEHRING.92Apr14153441@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>If the same people who were defending homosexuality also said that
>>sex with more than one partner was OK, then the chances of convincing
>>them of anything at all about morality would be slim to none.
>
>What is immoral about sex (heterosexual or homosexual) involving more
>than one partner?  I have seen no conclusive evidence that promiscuity
>is inherently immoral; merely that it requires a greater deal of care
>and caution in choosing partners.

This once again relies on God's plan as defined by the Bible. He set down the
plan for intercourse (with both positive and negative reinforcement), so we
believe it to be the best course of action for our lives.  We are to "become
one person" with our physical mate (provided we choose to have one). 

John M.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:14:43 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <adams.701966671@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Your thesis is broken on one point - Jesus refers constantly to the
> >scriptures of the Old Testament as his basis.
 
>   There are a number of verses in the Bible where Christ modifies the Old
> Testament Law.  In some cases He strengthens is, in others He discards it.
> Look at the verses on divorce, and the verses on clean foods as examples of
> this.   While the Law is the basis for Christ's teachings, He Himself says
> that the most important things we can do are love God and love our
> neighbor.  His comment is that everything in the Law hangs on these two.

In other words (deleting the twisted meanings in the sentences below) he
does not throw out the law of the Old Testament as a useless doctrine. I.e. this
is what we have talked about all the time, Paul is the person who created
the concept of the new Covenant, not Jesus. It would also imply that
*real* Christians should follow the laws of the Old Testament. And 
'real' Christians don't do this.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:34:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.195057.22575@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.184321.2604@morrow.stanford.edu> charlie@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel, Jr.) writes:
>>At this time, I'm attempting to locate the book the judge cited in his
>>opinion.  I have asked several Jehovah's Witnesses and they've not
>>heard of it.  So, where did it come from?

If all else fails, write to the legal department of the Watchtower Society
in Brooklyn.   They'll have it.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:28:51 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>If you'd care to speculate on what values the JWs hold that would
>prompt the judge to take such a stance, that might be useful.
>Certainly more useful than your last attempt to make the judge look
>foolish and extreme.

	Indeed I have thought. We don't teach children to lie, steal, rape,
	loot and terrorize like many others do. That is not natural, its 
	extraordinaire. Judge was, perhaps, worried how these children could
	survive in the world. 

>>>As a generalization, (and I would speculate an a particular in the
>>>case he was judging) he seemed to feel that the Jehovah's Witnesses
>>>are an authoritarian religion.  

>Is there any doubt that they are?  Seriously, are there even any JWs
>who wouldn't agree that the Jehovah's Witnesses are an authoritarian
>religion?

	I don't comment on this, but we're _authorized_ religion: We've such
	rights as any other religion in the States. This decisions is a good 
	example what it means in practice - principles are forgotten.

	I know, Walter, that you're sensitive to this subject, but I think you 
	are overreacting.
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christian vs Christian
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:45:16 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Mar30.163006.19795@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> 	You brought a good point here (I guessed you would bring it sooner or
> 	later). No, we want that everyone is saved - including you, Walter. 
> 	AND, as you said yourself, GOD is the one, who kills. Don't we agree 
> 	that HE is the right person to choose, who is to be killed and who is
> 	to have an eternal life ?

Oh gee, is this what the world needs, another barbaric butcher God?

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mmcalees@cs16.UVic.CA (Michael McAleese)
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith
Organization: The Forgotten Legions of... umm... uhh...
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 20:44:52 GMT

In article <18138@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>2.  Creation in six days?  The theory of relativity makes this all
>very relative.  If a clock in orbit goes one second slower than a 
>clock on earth in the course of one year in orbit, and if a man
>travelling in space, a couple parsecs away ages one year while his
>friends on earth pass away in the same course of a thousand years
>on earth, why can't six days a heavenly distance away be recorded
>as four billion years on this planet?

   Hmm.  Actually what the theory of relativity (no wait, I'm on t.r.m.,
THEORY of RELATIVITY as propounded by EINSTEIN...:-) says is that by 
travelling close to the speed of light time slows down for you as measured
by an observer.  Distance has nothing to do with it.  Still you could use
time tricks in the argument quite successfully - how about saying that 
since the sun hadn't been created, and since the concept of a 'day' is
defined in terms of a sun, all the creation myth means when it speaks of
things happening day by day is that there was some order to it.

-- 
*     mmcalees@csr.UVic.CA (Michael McAleese) : I speak only for me...       *
  "Man can believe the impossible, but never the improbable." - Oscar Wilde
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:56:58 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr9.222250.17500@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.202238.10209@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>I _do_ love people right where they are at, but I still desire a _change_ for
>>the better in their lives!  Just exactly where are you coming from?  It is
>>quite clear in the NT that Christians are to reach others for Christ.
>
>Let's start with you.  It's bad enough that you seem to have developed
>a sex phobia of your own, but I figure that's your life--you're entitled
>to do whatever you want.  But you insist on shoving this same personal
>phobia down other people's throats to the point that you insist the
>idea of someone else having sex outside of the missionary position is
>somehow sinful and wrong.  People like you give celibates a bad name.

Am I shoving this down your throat or is it what the Bible clearly says but
you don't want to believe it...  Also I would not call giving up sex for
better things of the Spirit "sex phobia".  I am not scared by sex - in fact
if I were not Christian I would be all over it in a second.  I am also not
slamming "normal" sex in marriage as some have thought.

>How DARE you make the claim that my relationship with my lover
>involves idols, or placing sex above other matters!  What evidence
>do you have for this other than that deranged kernel of self-deception
>which has managed to distort a God-given healthy respect for a person's
>sexuality into something repugnant and to be avoided at all costs?

I'll tell you the evidence that I have.  The very fact that you personalized
my broad statements to _your_ relationship with _your_ lover is evidence that
I hit a sore spot, especially since you are irate about it!  I NEVER said
ANYTHING about YOUR relationship!!! I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO YOU ARE!

>I recommend therapy.  Once you get this plank out of the way, you'll be
>in a much better position to have a mature relationship with Christ and
>the rest of the human race at the same time.

ditto


All this in response to a something that was totally non-sexual which is
quoted above:  Reaching people for Christ.


John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc