HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus?
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:20:18 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: California State University, Fresno
Keywords: 

In article <TOWFIQ.92Apr11195722@babyoil.FTP.COM> towfiq@FTP.COM writes:
|  Isn't one of the proofs for Jesus the fact that after 2000 years
|people still invoke Him by name and pledge their lives to Him?

This is the fallacy of common practice.  If this was a proof, then there
should be no doubt about astrology, or palmistry, or tea leaf-reading, or
belief in the thousands of other pagan Gods.  Common practice does not
a proof make.

|--
|Mark Towfiq, FTP Software, towfiq@FTP.COM, W:+1 617 224 6275, H:+1 617 488 2818
|
|Religious strife, throughout history, has been the cause of innumerable wars
|and conflicts, a major blight to progress, and is increasingly abhorrent to the
|people of all faiths and no faith.  Followers of all religions must be willing
|to face the basic questions which this strife raises, and to arrive at clear
|answers.  How are the differences between them to be resolved, both in theory
|and in practice?

By jettisoning religion.

|		-- "The Promise of World Peace", The Universal House of Justice
--
                                                 davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
"Make it make it make it make it.  It's good!!  IT'S GOOD!!"
                -- Homer in _Tell-Tale_Head_
From: davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:06:09 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: California State University, Fresno
Keywords: 

In article <1992Apr6.131444.5219@infonode.ingr.com> stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens) writes:
|East Coker writes:
|>
|>Please support the statement: "entities who were created by God to minister to
|>mankind" It is my understanding that Lucifer was booted out of the club because
|>want to be like (or greater than, I don't recall) god. I do not recall that 
|>Lucifer was created with the purpose you state. Is this not a conclusion that
|>you have arrived at?
|
|I didn't mean "exclusive" to mankind.  To be more accurate to Bible accounts,
|I probably should have stated that angels were created by God to assist in 
|carrying out his will in both heaven and earth.  Satan is associated with 
|angels in Job, and in Revelation he is cast out of heaven by the archangel 
|Michael.
|
|>Yes, the quantum state vector can be reduced by concious observation, but how
|                                                                       ^^^^^^^
|>this occurs is not understood, there are many theories. also, let us not
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>forget that quantum theory is verified only for objects that are suitably
|>small (i.e. photons, not flying bricks).  In any event I don't see this as an
|>explanation. 
|
|>You might also try JS Bell's book "The Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" as
|>well.  In this work, Bell attempts to debunk much of the nonsense that has
|                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>been said to be consequential of quantum theory (e.g. god gives us free will
|                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>and god retains gods omniscience via our reduction of the universes
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>state vector).
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
|To rephrase your own words, if collapsing the quantum wave function "is not
|understood", how can you "debunk" the theory of God giving us free will while
|still retaining omniscience via this observable and verifiable direct 
|interaction we have with all possible futures?
|
|Todd Stevens

You're watering down God's omniscience.  If God can only know all
possible futures, but not know exactly what will actually happen, then God
is no longer omniscient.
--
                                                 davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
    Sam:  How's life treating you?
    Norm: It's not, Sammy, but you can!
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: If GOD would give me a sign...(attn: atheist, agnostic, etc.)
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:55:55 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <53198@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
> 
> Do we need signs or not?
> Jesus said to Thomas that he (Thomas) believed because he saw, but blessed 
> are they who do not see and believe.  Faith is the key.  

Jesus spent a lot of time doing miracles in order to justify the faith
of his disciples. He even needed to do this after his resurrection.

If the disciples didn't believe him even after a great many miracles, what
about today when there's even no miracles?

Cheers,
Kent
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 15:26:25 EDT
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject:    re: Homosexuality and Christianity

I came across the quote below earlier today and it begs to be part
of this thread:

        "................................  Indeed, it is a
        benevolent dispensation of Providence that those who
        express most dread of an unorthodox advance are usually
        those whom Nature has most effectively protected from
        any risk of one...."

                                      _Thus Was Adonis Murdered_
                                       by Sarah Caudwell

Jack Carroll
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Biblical Reasons for Believing in the "Deity" of Christ.
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:51:25 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <22599@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>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. 

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

    In John chapter 1, Jesus is given the attributes of being the Word
(v1), being with God (v1), was God (v1), being with God in the 
beginning (v2), being reponsible for the creation of all things (v3),
being in the world (v10), made flesh (v14), and dwelt among us (v14).
John says they have seen his glory, of the One and Only, who came 
from the Father (v14).

Jesus was God and was made flesh, he was the fulness of God dwelling in 
bodily form.

In Hebrews 1, we see that God in times past spoke through the prophets, but
in these last days he spoke to use through his Son, whom he has appointed
heir of all things, by whom he also made the worlds.  Who being the brightness
of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things
by the word of his power, whe he had by himself purged our sins, sat down
on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being much better than the angels,
as he hath by inheritance objtained a more excellent name then they.  For
unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son.  Unto the
Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.
^^^                       ^^^^^

Note that the Son, Jesus, is called God here in Hebrews 1.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Prayer and Religious Activities in the Public Schools
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:52:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr08.055724.20749@bmerh2.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca
(Douglas Graham) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Apr6.100547.5400@pegasus.com> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
writes:
> 
> >Sounds good to me, Carl.  Buddhist philosophy has much going for it
> >and I would much rather have my kids exposed to a Buddhist than an
> >atheist, or a secular humanist.
> 
> Say Len.  Would you mind telling us what you think you know about
> secular humanism?  I can tell that you've carefully studied Buddhism
> and humanism, because you feel qualified to pass judgement on them.

A simple question, would you let your children listen to a person who:

a) states that killing non-believers will get you to heaven
b) tells people with alternate sexual behavior will burn in hell
c) states that we need to save mankind, the animal kingdom and the planet 
   from disaster?

Actually, I don't mind my children listen to all three persons,
but I hope they have enough intelligence to understand that c)
has more secular humanism than the two other points.

Cheers,
Kent
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:04:26 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr9.223423.17882@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.203348.11660@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>I _did_ say that homosexuality has
>>more negative consequences than many sins, the biggest of which is a focus on
>>being gay rather than on serving God.
>
>Where do you get off making a statement like that?
>What do you know about being gay OR serving God?
>All I see is a lot of ignorance around both.

Do we agree that focusing on _anything_ more than on serving God is
misguided?  (Or rather serving God in all that we do?)  If so I don't need to
know anything about either one in order to reiterate this simple fact.

>>If you admit that homosexuality is a
>>sin, but do not believe it is any more serious than eating certain meat,
>>_then_ your argument holds.
>
>Any gay person who believes their state or actions to be _a priori_
>sinful has a lot of work ahead of them.
>
>>But can you honestly say that being gay won't
>>keep you from living the way God wants you to live?
>
>You haven't been listening, have you?
>
>>Tell me something... Do
>>you get more upset when people slam your sexuality or when people slam
>>Christianity?  I hope it is the latter, and if not - your interests are in
>>the wrong place.
>
>The only people I hear who slam Christianity are people who are
>reacting, quite legitimately, to the kind of Christianity best
>exemplified by someone like you.  This, of course, is not a
>slam against Christianity.  It's a slam against misguided people.

You did not even begin to answer the question.

>>After all, I am not an authority on anything,
>>just presenting what the Bible says to me.
>
>No, you are not an authority on Christianity, sexuality or homosexuality;
>we've established that.

Are you?

>>I do not doubt that you love this person more than anyone could love
>>anything.  BUT (you knew that was coming :-) this type of love does not have
>>sex in its plan from everything that I have been convicted of while
>>researching this topic.
>
>Er, exactly what WERE you convicted of, and was it a suspended sentence?

Ha Ha.

John M.
From: SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:16:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: CUNYVM.92098.121653SECBH
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Apr7.073434.9253@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes in part:

>BUT Paul says it is even better to remain as he
>was (unmarried) so that we can concentrate on the work of God.  I
>think that homosexuals are blessed because this decision has been
>made for them (if it is a state of being and not a choice in the
>first place).

A decision made by whom?  If the church or state denies homosexuals
the opportunity to become a couple, "married" if you will, then
this decision is not parallel to that of the heterosexual who can
freely choose to marry or not.  I don't think we can slide so easily
from Paul's cautionary note to congratulating gay people on not
requiring this admonishment.

>Remember that a gay relationship w/out sex is just a
>friendship, and I would not hasten to call it homosexual.  To be
>homosexual a SEX ACT MUST OCCUR.

The distinction between a sexual orientation and sexual acts is a
real one, but I don't think that most people become orientation
neutral when they are not copulating.

I am heterosexual in urge only -
I abstain from all sexual behavior.

But above John seemed to be saying that without homosexual acts there
is no homosexually oriented person.  Now here John describes himself
as heterosexual-in-urge but having no sexual involvement.  If there is
no homosexual-in-urge how does it come about that same-sex sexual
acts ever take place?

>All I have to say is that
>their would be no problem if all Christians were intent on seeing the
>gospel spread instead of bickering about how much immorality they can
>get away with.

Perhaps the Love-That-Dare-Not-Speak-Its-Name has something to
teach the Religion-That-Can't-Shut-Its-Mouth.

Jack Carroll
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:56:25 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <TOWFIQ.92Apr11195722@babyoil.FTP.COM>, towfiq@FTP.COM (Mark Towfiq)
writes:
>   Isn't one of the proofs for Jesus the fact that after 2000 years
> people still invoke Him by name and pledge their lives to Him?

It certainly is historical evidence of a cult based on a Jewish leader. It
does not imply that there's anything sacred of holy about the issue, however.

Cheers,
Kent
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:22:54 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>In article <1992Apr6.102851.5857@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	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. 

>( I can just picture this conversation in that Kansas courtroom....)

>OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>loot, and terrorize?

	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE DARKSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:27:43 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <22317@zephyr.ens.tek.com>, davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David
Hatcher) writes:
>   First, I personally recognize a spiritual state where, when/if we are
> able to reach it, or pulled there by God, we all can claim as Jesus did 
> that we are One with our Beloved God. But I personally do not see Jesus 
> equating Himself to God. Jesus seemed to spend way too much time praying 
> too God and pointing towards God as in the Lords Prayer for Him to feel 
> that He was equal to God.

Your problem is that you are not worshipping the *right* God. You will
be called heretic forever by all the other political religious groups.
This was the curse of gnostics, rosicrucians and any other mystery cults.
Unfortunately society does not tolerate that a person could find his/her
own world view.

Cheers,
Kent
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:41:40 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr8.194025.9703@athena.cs.uga.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>I have recently read a book writtten by David Wilkerson called The Vision.
>If I remeber correctly, it was written in or before 1973.  Wilkerson
>told of how homosexuals would be given places of authority in churches,
>and be recognized by religious establishments.  This would be done under the
>guise of love and understanding.  He wrote that a day would come when in
>nearly every major city, there would be a church that catered to homosexuals
>and lesbians.  Sunday school literature would describe homosexuality as
>a valid means of sexual expression.  He also wrote that it would not
>be long (from when he wrote it) that homosexuals would begin to flaut 
>their perversion on national tv talk shows.  
>Instead of offering to help homosexuals, churches would tell them to accept
>their weaknesses as "gifts from God."

It did not take much prophetic insight to see all this, because it was
already happening in 1973. We *already* had the gay lib movement. We 
*already* had MCC. We already had a growing acceptance of gays and
lesbians in some churches.

If I remember right, some of the things Wilkerson predicted did not happen.
We have no all-gay cities, for instance. 


--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tnap1@isuevax.iastate.edu (ABDUR RAHMAN)
Subject: Re: The After-life
Reply-To: tnap1@isuevax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:15:48 GMT

In article <17713@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>
>	
>Erin Anderson writes:
>	Question...  If there is such a Being as God, or whatever they
>call him now, IF he exists, Then how can Hell be posible?  My eartly
>father would not want to punish me for the rest of my life, why would
>the Heavenly Father (who MUST love me more than the earthly father)
>put me in punishment forever?  Even if it is because he wants you to
>learn your lesson, isn't it a bit far to take it?
>	Terence
	Answer... The answer is the Heaven is the reward God will give to the
people who believe in Him and Worship Him alone without adding other Gods with
Him. He will reward them for there faith and good deeds. Hell is the punishment
that God gives to those who refused to believe in Him and to worship Him as He
has commanded them to. Some people have invented lies against God and have
included them in thier religion thus there is a lot of cofusion and
misunderstanding. God is Not our Father, we are Not his Children. God Is our
Lord and we are his Servants.

	The Truth that hasn't been changed is with Islam only,
	Abdur Rahman
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr14.170722.913@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:15:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.170722.913@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

   You will find though that in Christianity tradition carries next to
   no weight, and the Bible is the _only_ authority.  

Au contraire, mon frere.  If you count Christians, you will find that
tradition matters a great deal.  Only by defining the vast majority of
those who call themselves Christians as something else (see my
previous post) can you be correct.

As I become more attuned to the depth of the Christian tradition, and
its meaning, I have realized this more and more.  Christianity without
the Bible is possible; Christianity without the tradition is not.

--
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: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:29:33 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>In article <MIB.92Apr10101158@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

>>This is what you will hear from me.  The only two absolutes are these:
>>
>>``You shall love the Lord your God with all your heard and with all
>>your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and
>>your neighbor as yourself.''

>For me loving God means listening to the rest of his Word.

Which I and others have done.  We're just not hearing the same things.
I *know* that I'm not 100% right.  Will you admit the same?

 -Steve
-- 
 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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr8.190224.17172@ncsu.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:05:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.190224.17172@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:

   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.

This is just patently false.  The Greek word isn't much different in
meaning from the English word.  Go look at the judges in your
community, as they sit in court.  Are they judging based on their own
value system?  Of course not.  They judge based on the statutes and
the written traditions of common law.  

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

Well, yes it is.  Passing judgement is *anytime* you declare someone
else to be doing something wrong.  

   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!!

``You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, `You
shall not murder'; and `whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.'
But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you
will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you
will be liable to the council; and if you say, `You fool,' you will be
liable to the hell of fire.''	(Matthew 5:21-22)

--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | This is a virulent meme.  Whether or not you place
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | this into your signature file is irrelevant.  You
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | have already participated in its further trans-
			  | mission, and will doubtless continue to do so.