HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Biblical Reasons for Believing in the "Deity" of Christ.
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:38:04 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr9.012030.16618@serval.net.wsu.edu> wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:

>    TOP 10 BIBLICAL "REASONS" FOR BELIEVING IN THE "DEITY" OF CHRIST
>    ---------------2nd Edition---Revised and Emphasized-------------


  I'm sorry, even in this second time through, *I* still do not see
where Jesus should be worshipped as God. What I see you doing though
is to show that Jesus always looked to his Beloved God for worship, 
and that we too should be looking towards our Beloved God for worship
just as Jesus did. 

  But I saw nothing that gave me reason to believe in the "deity" of 
Jesus.


	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:15:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.193615.10592@wam.umd.edu> reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston) writes:
>upon "belief."  Certain things are facts, and these things take place whether
>or not one believes in them.  If one doesn't believe in the tennents of
>Christianity, then THEY AREN'T TRUE.

Excuse me?

Many of the tenets of Christianity are such that they are also true or false
irrelevant of one's belief.  If Jesus really was resurrected, that's a fact,
and it is true whether or not you _believe_ he was resurrected.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 1 of 2)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:45:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.214231.15186@infonode.ingr.com>, tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
> 
>  B'. Mormons claim that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is 
>      translated correctly.

So who determines when it is translated correctly? Joseph S. jr?
His translations are not accepted as official, only annotations.
I'm waiting for a good rationalization of why JS jr's translations
of the portions he worked on are Not canon. :-)

> 
>  A'. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the creator of the world and
>      that he is the God of the Old Testament.

What happened to the 2nd testament(nt)?

Jesus is also Lucifer's brother(LDS). JS jr has helped blur
what Christianity is and means, and how the Christian salvation
is attained(yes, no secret temple blah blah). As for JS jr's
questionable practices in the occult even after his visions and
church establishment, I wonder what spirit was guiding him.
Now, I understand that some net.LDS are like lawyers in a court.
If I don't get my wording exact, it will be a point of diversion
from the subject, but I can live with that.

I do wish the LDS would identify themselves as Josephites.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:03:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.145521.26368@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
>>>>I'm not saying that there are no religions that advance the cause of lying,
>>>>stealing, etc.  I am saying, you are not answering the question.  ...
>>>	The religions of the Great Babylon, The False Religion. 
>>But what _are_ they?  Don't they have names?
>	Yes they have, in fact there are thousands of them. That is the reason,
>	why I don't list them.

So name some of them.  Name ten or so, if you don't want to bother naming
thousands.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: Project EOS - North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:14:16 GMT

>>I think it is purely a type of sin which can be overcome just like 
>>any sinful action.
>
>Homosexuality is not an action. By the way, do you usually have
>reasons for what you believe, or do you just believe things more or
>less at random?


This comment was only an opinion that I voiced. Notice I said opinion.

Notice the first two words in my line--"I think"
My personal opinion in any matter does not make a difference.

We are arguing the Bible, not my opinion.


Chris
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:57:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.032423.11579@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>The treatment he actually described was not by Jews--it was by Christians.
>Perhaps his anger is misdirected.  Anger directed at minority groups is
>particularly misdirected.

It's anger at religions which devalue and marginalize gay people and
those who persecute others (here, gay people) in misguided service to
their religion.  As has been said before a number of times, Judaism is
no less guilty of this than Christianity.  Just talk to a few lesbian
and gay Jews who take their religion seriously, or who are members of
an observant family.  It's not a happy situation.  The anger Jack
expressed is on behalf of those gay Jews he knows who have been
similarly hurt and ostracized because of their sexuality.  I know these
people too.  In that sense, I read his comments as entirely justified
when read in the context I brought to it.  Perhaps we need to find a
Jewish gay person similarly enraged before you will treat this cry of
outrage seriously.  But should that happen, it won't be your issue.
You'll just 'n' past it, preferring to engage in your favorite
pastime of taunting the literalists.

I find it very unfortunate that this thread has become so distorted.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:06:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: geech.MIB.92Apr14160646
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA


Much though Ken Arromdee might not like to admit it, the Orthodox
Jewish community has been right up there with the right-wing Catholics
and the fundamentalists fighting every gay-rights issue that comes
into the popular press.  And, just like the more outspoken Catholics
and the more outspoken fundamentalists, some even call for gay people
to be killed.

The Reform Jewish community, by noted contrast, has been very
accepting of gay people in general, and the Conservative Jewish
community has, not surprisingly, been somewhere in the middle.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | She has anointed my body beforehand for its burial.
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 | wil be told in remembrance of her.
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs Child Custody booklet, and why a judge might have felt it promoted "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:23:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr7.222316.15720
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

This is necessarily indicated to be a flame.  I merely have
information which bears on a point Walter inadvertently brought up.
To this end, his disclaimer appears intact.

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>[Disclaimer:  this is NOT designed to encourage flame wars between the
>JWs and those they attack.  It is meant to give an accurate portrayal
>of the JWs view of other religions, in contrast to the "advised answers"
>they give in their booklet]
  [...]
>"As a result, the suicide rate of both adults and teenagers in Utah
>is also above the national average, and consumpsion of tranquilizers
>and pep pills, among other drugs, by Mormons far exceeds that by
>the population at large...this paradox is the product of Mormonism's
>unique and bizzare concept of the nature of God and man."
>(Awake, 12/22/82, p.25)

While the study quoted by the Witnesses does indicate that drug abuse
in Utah was moderately higher than the national average (less than 2%
as I recall, hardly "far exceed[ing]") for the period of the study, it
stated explicitly that there was absolutely no way to know if the
abusers were active Mormons or not.

Statistically, it is quite fallacious to equate statistics for Utah
with statistics for Mormons, as the authors pointed out.  The
population ratio of Mormons to non-Mormons in Utah and the ratio of
Utah Mormons to Mormons living elsewhere combine to make Utah a
statistically invalid sample of Mormonism.

Those who are interested in how this works out might enjoy the book
"How to Lie With Statistics."

Again, this isn't a flame of the JW position, merely an addendum to an
error in method.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:47:27 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana


     I am just curious as to the nature of your translations. I ask this out of
pure curiosity and the will to research the translations my self. I mean, all
bibles that I have read say the same thing. What I am curious about as is it
that you know that those who have translated the bible don't( I say this as
respectfull in nature). I would like to have more that what you have written
as a basis for the bible to be wrong.....:)

Thanks!

-Vette


"He who has the knowledge of God knows it to be truth, there is know believing
 to it! He is also  open to all opposition for how could what is true be false."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  send me some mail! I like mail.....:)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr16.151813.23152@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<MIB.92Apr16120458@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr16.173022.25593@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:32:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.173022.25593@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

   In article <MIB.92Apr16120458@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

   >Shintoism, Mahayana, and Theravada. [...]
   >I have always heard Shintoism described as a form of Buddhism.

   No, shintoism is a religion of nature worship indigenous to Japan.
   It is not buddhism at all, though the two get along together quite
   well. It's not unusual to find elements of both shinto and buddhist
   belief in a given Japanese household.

Many thanks to you (and Michael Siemen) for the correction.

   >The arguments of the used by the one with Shintoist parents ran
   >roughly along the line of homosexuality being un-Japanese.

   This seems to be a social position then, not a religious one (though in
   shinto, religion and nation are very closely tied). Do you know if
   anything in shintoism itself could be construed to speak expressly
   against homosexuality? I have no information either way.

He didn't say quite what the religious reasons were.  Given what I
know about the connection between religion and culture in Japan, I'm
skeptical of the connection

   >The arguments described by the one with Mahayana parents were more along
   >the line of violating one's nature, and spreading discord.

   Well, then I guess we have buddhist homophobes, too, which is not
   unexpected. But, I wonder where the various sects stand collectively,
   and what buddhist leaders' positions are.

The only non-American Buddhist leader I know much about is the Dalai
Lama, who is anything bit a homophobe.



--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | I give you a new commandment, that you 
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | love one another.  Just as I have loved 
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | you, you also should love one another. By
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 | this everyone will know that you are my
			  | disciples, if you have love for one another.
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:02:24 GMT
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: Project EOS - North Carolina State University




So many people  (pro-homosexual or whatever) keep telling me and 
others that we are judging homosexuals.

To judge someone means to form an opinion based on my own set
of beleifs and values--a value system that I have devised.

The Bible is relevant to all. To say that some action is evil
because the Bible says it is evil is not "passing judgement."

I cannot speak for all the people posting--some are not speaking 
from the Bible. 

Also, if a Christian makes a comment that is in say all caps. to 
represent being ticked off. Don't come back with this
bologna about "Well, what kinda Christian are you getting mad!?"
There is nothing wrong with getting mad. So don't write me and
tell me what a bad Christian I am because I get angry!!

Chris
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Line and Verse PLEASE
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:11:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr7.221150.14962
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> [Exodus 20:13, "kill" or "murder."]
>
>Well, I hope the NIV is actually a better translation of the bible and
>not just a quick fix of problems like these.

NIV is not without its faults, but in this particular case it is quite
correct and KJV is clearly wrong.

>I'm not the one trying to prove the bible! My intention is not to make the
>bible not contradict itself. It's nice that the NIV rewords it, but as I
>said before, I hope the translators didn't just reword it to their tastes.

It's not too hard to do a little library work and check this out for
yourself.  "Ratzach" clearly means premeditated, unjustified homicide,
as opposed to "harag," which denotes the taking of life in general.
The Hebrew is quite clear on the subject.  Your gripe should be with
the KJV translators, not the NIV translators.

>>Wrong.  You can't just yank this line out of a poor translation, and remove
>>all of the context.  Look at God's Law in Leviticus.  Tell me that man
>>isn't allowed to kill.  In fact, man is ordered to kill.
>
>Quit whining! It's a commandment; it speaks for itself.

Yes, it speaks clearly and eloquently for itself, WHEN READ CORRECTLY.
You pulled a single line out of a faulty translation and from that
generalized something which was neither intended nor connoted in the
source material, and for which there exist many correct renditions.

You don't need to take our word for it.  Look it up, at least.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:49:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr14.155311.21560@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.021759.24826@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

>>Most gay couples would be happy to marry each other.

>I don't know if this is statistically accurate.  But from a Biblical perspective
>there is no such thing as a same sex marriage.  Marriage that God ordained
>and Christ taught about involves a MAN cleaving to his WIFE.  

Now for a simple question: why should this apply to people who do
not follow your religion?

>Link Hudson.

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson)
Subject: Re: Quality of life
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:14:25 GMT

In article <22427@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>I have a short an interesting note: Yesterday I realized that my
>life is really nice, I don't need to worry about the original sin,
>the devil, placement in hell, wheel of karma, tabuus about women,
>sexist issues, ten commandments, kosher food, worshipping of 8-legged
>gods, mantras, inner voices, holy wars or following the right path.
>
>What's the name of the religion I follow? It's is called NULL :-). I
>really recommend it.
>
>Cheers, happiness, and joy!
>Kent

Three cheers for Kent.

This is the most intelligent posting I've seen in this group.

If you enjoy your life, why ruin it by always thinking "What if...."

If there is a God, I'm sure he would want us to enjoy everything he has
given us to the fullest, and not worry about Him.

- Alan

-- 
 ___________/ Alan S. Olson  UW-Milwaukee Chemistry Department \______________
/     e-mail to alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu  OR  alan@alchemy.chem.uwm.edu      \
|          Want some good music?  Check out Milwaukee's own BoDeans           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Court testimony of C.T. Russell (was JW divorce-court booklet thread)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:46:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.120732.12678@e2big.mko.dec.com> sornson@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:
>        As I look at this fragment of testimony, I see no lie.

Reality check time.  First, I agree with Mark that a "lie" is a bit
strong there.  What he was saying, was not very accurate, however.
Russell appears to have been making himself appear to be more
knowledgeable on the subject than he really was; saying he knew
the Greek alphabet (or most of it) was part of that; the attorney
was able to demonstrate Russell didn't, or if he did, he knew
precious little of it.  
                    
>    Still, his answer of "yes" wasn't a lie (and
>    thus, perjury).                   


Now, lets say a murdurur is called to testify in his case.  He
is asked if he committed the crime, and says no.  At the
end of the trial, he is found guilty.  Is he also charged
with perjury?  Hardly.   What Russell did wasn't perjury, 
but it was misleading, in a way that would make him look
'better' than he really was. 

Walter
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ?
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:58:26 GMT

58618
Ken Arromdee writes:
 
> It is possible to say that I'm an illusion.  But you can't say that _only_ I
> am an illusion; in order to say that I am an illusion while being consistent,
> you also have to explain away lots of other things as being illusion or
> deceit: my picture, my name in the phone book, articles ostensibly posted by
> me, etc.
 
> On the other hand, you _can_ say a private personal experience is an illusion
> without requiring (for coherency) that you explain lots of other things as
> illusions also.
 
Nope.  In both cases, you're talking about the validity of perception.  You're
the one who brought up the artificial example of a being that could tickle
brain parts -- but you drew a line around which areas this being would tickle
so that you could infer a difference between "inside" and "outside" events.
No such division exists!  To a brain, everything is "inside."  There's no
"you" in a concrete sense, because everything I perceive about you, no matter
how directly, is a perception taking place in the brain.  If your being can
dinker with perception, then the distinction between events is arbitrarily
in favor of the case you're making.  I could just as easily propose another
being that created an artifical perception of an "outside" -- and build a
plausible argument that only "inside" experiences were valid.  That makes
equally as much sense -- none -- as what you're proposing.
 
At the very best, you can put experiences along a continuum consisting of
the "least likely to be confirmed by others" all the way to "most likely
to be confirmed by others."  But this continuum is absolutely meaningless,
because the perceptions that the scale is based on are so easily biased.
 

-- 
Perot for President.

Boycott Microsoft.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Even more Mormonism!!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:52:15 GMT

WHAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO,
Just a second, I need to catch my breath!!!!!!!!!
When I first posted asking questions on Mormonism, I was not
prepared for the amount of anger I  was about to stir up!!!!!
I was not even thinking about who kept what secrets from whom
and who wrote what about this person or that......
Very few people actually answered my post straight forward in 
language I could understand.  My thanks to those who did and
those who emailed me.  You, I could understand!!!!!!!
Now, my questions were simple......well, what I thought was simple.
I know, for a fact, that Mormonism is NOT based on lies and deciet!!
Nor is it some white-facist we-will-rule-everbody mentality.  Up here
there are quite a few black mormons and I'm quite sure they don't walk
around spouting Amis & Andy lines.  They don't go around saying all the
religions other then mormonism is wrong.....  No, it seems to me, up here
anyway, that those are the Bible Baptists....  OK?
Now, there are at least two people (whom I won't mention) that can actually
give me straightforward answers.  Could someone else PLEASE answer me
open and honestly, about Mormonism, their practices, and baptisms.
Thank you!                                                 ROG!

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc