HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: Anti-Mormon Genes?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:35:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.170212.14674@macc.wisc.edu> bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
>In article <BxILux.Jys@javelin.sim.es.com>, gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com 
>(Glenn Clapp) writes...
>
>>A DEVASTATING FIND
>
>Speaking of finds, I was browsing around in a copy of the old LDS "Messenger
>and Advocate" newspaper from March of 1836 and I ran across an article which
>spoke of a person who was stirring up problems against the Mormons in 
>northern Ohio.  I wasn't able to find a full name, but the article referred 
>to him a couple of times as "Old Man Clapp."
>
>Any relation that you know of, Glenn?
>

We must be related, but I have no idea of who it could be.

-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:18:13 GMT

kalki33 writes:

>A few days ago we posted a simple questionnaire covering two fundamental
>truths. Our purpose was to see if there was anyone reading this
>newsgroup who was really serious about spiritual knowledge. Of the
>half-dozen responses, there was only one which made an attempt to answer
>the questions seriously. The remaining responses were sarcastic and
>impudent.

Perhaps this was because you asked the questions point-blank; unmoderated
newsgroups such as this regularly see "hit-and-run" questions which
can seem to be a setup. 

>We download several hundred messages a day from this group, including
>many voluminous diatribes. However, although much is said in
>talk.religion.misc, apparently little is known, otherwise our two simple
>questions, the answers to which which form the basis of all spiritual
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>truth,
 ^^^^^
Here is where (perhaps) your difficulty in getting others to
take you seriously begins. You preface your questions with
an assumption not all would share and indeed might find
presumptuous and obnoxious.

As to your questions:

>1) What is the soul?
>2) What is the purpose of human life?

Your tactics seem a bit disingenuous, consider:

>...Anyone who is sober enough to answer these
>questions, or humble enough to admit ignorance, will find us more than
>willing to share our knowledge.

This attitude is a bit patronizing at best: the emperor's new clothes
and all that. . .

You clearly already have an implicit philosophy that you broadcast:

>      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |

So one cannot take your

>Sincerely,

too seriously. Some of us DO take "spiritual knowledge" seriously,
yet have little sufferance for dilletantes.

Dano
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:54:19 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <92315.103940RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
|In response to Richard Pitts, on questions relating to Jesus (sorry I cannot
|include your exact statements, because my computer terminal does not
|have such facilities for on-line responses on the Net):
|
|        Your statements concerning Jesus's claim of Godhood, etc. are based on
|        the New Testament books - all of which are PSEUDOPIGRAPHIC (I have
|        provided, in a separate reply, the references to this proven theory).

Where do you get this information?  To my understanding the Quran
doesn't directly speak to this.  Could you give us your source?
Shouldn't the Quran speak to this fact, since it seems to be so central?

|        As such, the statements which are attributed to Jesus simply
|        may not be true. Biblical scholars all agree that none of the gospels

To my understanding, the Quran mentions Jesus either 93 or 193 times.  Have
you ever looked at what is said of Him in the Quran?  I think it tells us
that he was born of a virgin and was sinless, along with some other things.

Also, doesn't the Quran commend the reading of the old scriptures?
Which ones are to be read?

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Reply-To: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 01:49:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.202912.17497@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> 
> I think that this is a red herring in this case.  Some people
> stand for certain qualities such that if you were aware of that
> person, you would know if there was a distortion.  For example, if
> I call myself a "Kingite" because I am a follower of Dr. Martin
> Luther King, and I then call for execution of all white people in
> the legal profession, for their perpetuation of hatred and
> discrimination in America, do you think I am following the good
> Doctor?  Do you need a panel of experts to tell you that what I
> called for is totally and diametrically opposed to Dr. Martin
> Luther King's philosphy, assuming that you were knowlegable of Dr.
> King?  I would dare say that the non-violent followers of Dr. King
> would be extremely distressed. 

  Distressed ??  I hope you are knowledgeable of Dr Kings teaching
  your example is insidious
  If there was ever an altruist aside from the Lord, it was Dr King

chris
-- 

		Mephistopheles ... ruthless, sleepless, unsmiling,
                concentration on self or humorous, civilised, sensible
                and adaptable
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:57:28 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

Dale Skiba wrote:
>There are probably hundreds of "Biblical contradictions" out there.
>Probaby 95 percent of them can be discounted fairly easily, much in
>the manner that you did above.  However, the 5 percent that remain
>are not so easy.  Below are a couple examples of the nasty ones.

>I don't think that you can resolve these nasty ones without acknowledging
>that there is some kind of mistake.  Just one error shoots down the
>idea that the Bible contains total, complete, absolute, inerrant truth.

=======================================================================

  I Kings 16:6,8
	  Baasha, King of Israel. died in the 26th year of Asa's reign over Judah.

  II Chronicles 16:1

	  In the 36th year of Asa's reign, Baasha built a city.
It sounds to me like there are two guys with the same name. The way it
looks to me is that during the 36th year of Asa's reign, there were at
least 3 guys running around claiming to be king of Israel: Omri,
his son, Asa and the other Baasha.

>and how does the Bible answer simple questions on the death of Judas?

Already commented about this, can repeat if interest.
--
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Still no Retraction 
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:07:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.202042.20087@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:
>The latest round began in September and is probably the longest one I have
>ever seen. Stats on the latest round:
>
>    Began Sept 14, 1992
>    Everyone burned out about 1st week in November 1992
>    Approximately 83000 lines posted
>
>    Top Anti-Mormon Posters          Top Mormon Posters
>    Rose   13,084 lines              Hunsaker  8837 lines
>    Fuller 12,417 lines              Tensmeyer 5956 lines
>    Clapp   3,836 lines              Hamblin   2008 lines
>

	Whoa, I posted almost 6000 lines? I demand a recount!
	That's gotta be also included text. I don't have enought
	original lines. Glen's post also seem a little hight, he
	only posted 3 or 4 times except for the reprint of "GainSayers"

	Is it possible that Tony Rose posted even more than Fuller,
	nah, not possible, not with that on-line text DB of Fullers,
	that he can unload at the drop of a hat.

	Wow!
>
>There is only one thing that I am sure of: "baiting" will continue, and Anti-
>Mormons' curious expressions of "love" for Mormons will continue. My only
>question is whether I want to continue to participate for another four and
>a half years or spend my time more constructively studying Greek.
>-- 
>
>              Willard C. Smith
>  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
>   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: klt@b23a.b23a.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer X8127)
Subject: Re: LdS ignoring the example of the Bereans
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:39:14 GMT

In article <Nov.2.19.51.17.1992.27079@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>
>This depends upon the books.  The Gospels and most of Paul's letters
>were regarded as scriptural from as far back as we can see, certainly
>by 130.  Around 200 AD, the "Muratorian canon" gives the list of books
>being used at Rome.  It differs from ours by omission of Hebrews, 1 &
>2 Peter, 3 John, and addition of Rev. to Peter and Wisdom of Solomon.
>The Shepherd of Hermas is to be used in private but not public.
>
>During the period right before the final decision, debates were over
>relatively "minor" books.  Debate persisted especially about Heb,
>Jude, 2 Pet, 2 and 3 John, and Rev, with fewer books being under
>debate as time went on.

	I went back to the library to get semi-non secterian reference
	to refute your arguments. I got a book called "The Bible Companion"
	by Abingdon Press copyright 1985. From the section "Introducing
	the Bible" written by William Barclay, I found that his information
	seems to match your information.   OOPS.


	From the discussion and the chronology in the back, it apears that
	Galations is the first book of NT written. About 60 ad Philippians,
	Colossians, Philemon, and perhaps I Peter were written then. 
	Gosple of Mark in 75 AD, Matthew in 85, Luke-Acts 90 AD. 
	92 Pauls letters are garthered and found to have general value.
	95 AD Hebrews (author uncertain) and Revelation written.

	I Clement and I Peter in 96, John, James and main part of II Esdras.
	written in 100. Letter of John written in 110. Ignatius and Polycarp
	written in 115. Jude writen in 125. (also oldest extant NT fragement
	dates from this period)

	Pastorals and Barnabas written 130 AD. Shepherd of Hermas in 140.

	Marcion's expurgated version of Luke and Pauls writtings in 144.

	II Peter, Teaching of Twelve Apostles (Didache) in 150 AD

	Peter and Paul died in 64 AD.
>
>You'll note that almost all quotations in doctrinal discussions are
>from the Gospels or Paul's letters.  I don't think there are any
>Christian doctrines you can't establish from those books.

	Aside from the Gosple of John, where can support be found
	for the correct doctrine that the Promised One of Isreal was
	also the God of Isreal?  That Jesus was the promised deliverer
	of Isreal was well established by the other books. However,
	the essential message of Christiainity is that Jesus as Christ, is
	also God.  That message is not in the OT, and not in the major
	portions of the orthodox NT. 

	In my opinion, it is because of the vision that John saw in the
	Apocalypse that convinced him that the Man that he personally knew
	was also God. And for that reason, he wrote a Gosple that is of
	different form from the other Gosples.
news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!samsung!balrog!nickel!king
From: king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:11:12 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.



>~
>As for all the NT being pseudepigraphic, that depends upon what you
>mean by the term.  The Concise Oxford defines it as "spurious".  I
>could well believe that a Moslem may regard the entire NT as spurious.
>That's a matter of judgement.

I'm not sure what you are basing your statement about Moslems on,
but the Koran states that the Gospels, at the very least, are
inspired by God.

Jack


Keywords:
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:00:14 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <74547@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) writes:
|>In article <BxHnJq.7As@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>
akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
|>>To begin with, it's worth noting that Mr. Pitts has once again failed
|>>to provide any evidence that Jesus supported governmentally organized
|>>public prayers.  Mr. Pitts has also failed to give any coherent
|>>reason why he, as a self-proclaimed follower of Jesus, ought to
|>>support government-organized prayer in the public schools.
|>
|>Thanks for pointing out my error OR RATHER pointing out your desire
|>of not wanting prayer in public schools?  Do you pray?
|>
|>Ok, as I said, Mr. Provine limited the scope of the question to
|>words in red (words record of Jesus) - I said and rightly say the
|>whole Bible is valid.  For I as, hopefully, Mr. Provine does believes
|>the WHOLE Bible (OT and NT) is valid and useful for doctrine and 
|>encouragement - I don't know how you (Mr. Bloom) believe on that.
|>Prayer is communication - my prayers are communication with God,
|>the Creator and Savior of the World.  The Bible encourages us to 
|>pray and there are many instances of this being done in public.
|>The admonition to pray is there and we are in America where, I think,
|>the people are to be respresented - some of us want a time for prayer
|>in school (call it meditation or period of silence.)

I am sorry, but I don't recall school being SO busy that I
didn't have time to sit quietly and think (meditate, if you like).
What about lunch?  What about recess? What about study-hall?
What kind of "time" do you require? 10 mins? 2 hours?
Why are Christians the ones who are pushing this so hard,
when it is the Muslims that need to pray at certain times of the day?
(excuse my spelling, I'm in a rush)

|>
|>Let me ask you do the gospels or the Bible in general specifically
|>prohibit public school prayer?  The only correct about the purpose
|>of prayer given by Jesus was that we are not to pray TO BE SEEN by
|>men, but to be heard by God - He went ahead and told us to let our
|>light shine and not hide it - Jesus prayed in public, as well as,
|>in private.

Who said anything about PROHIBITING prayer?  The arguement is that
people should not LEAD school children into prayer in the schools.
(ex. your son's teacher starts each day with everyone in class
doing a Wiccan chant)


|>
|>...
|>>Keith
|>
|>Sincerely,
|>Richard Pitts
|>-- 
|>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
|>Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
|>                        -|-  |  -|-
|>                         |   |   |
                                       
Brian /-|-\
From: radams@cerritos.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:08:35 PST
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA

In article <P64wTB10w165w@kalki33>, 
kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

> I thought the argument was about Jesus being the Son of God, not God. In
> the Bible, Jesus certainly claims that God is his father. You are
> right that he nowhere claimed to be God. In fact, he directly denies it
> in the verse "...for the Father is greater than I..." (John 14:28)
> 

Jesus clearly states "I and my Father are one". We are all children of God
but Jesus knew his oneness with God. But he also knew himself as an 
individualized expression of Spirit and sometimes spoke from that state.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Roger Adams
	radams@cerritos.edu               To those in whom love dwells,
	Cerritos College                  the whole world is one family.
	11110 Alondra Blvd                             A Hindu Proverb
        Norwalk, California 90650
	USA        		          292 Dwapara :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Date: 13 Nov 92 11:03:58 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet wrote:
:   Comparison to other documents:
: 
: ANCIENT LITERATURE             # MANUSCRIPTS           PROXIMITY TO
:                                                        ORIGINAL COPY
: -----------------------------  ----------------------  -------------
: Livy's History of Rome                 20                500 yrs
: Caesar's Gallic Wars                   10                900 yrs
: Tacitus' Annals                         2                800 yrs
: History of Thucydides                   8              1300+ yrs
: History of Heroditus                    1               1000 yrs
: Writings of Aristotle                   5              1400+ yrs
: 
:   Now remember - all of these are universally regarded as accurate.  Let's
: compare them to the New Testament - 24,633 total MSS and 5338 complete MSS!

Where you say these documents are "accurate" you mean that what we have
is a reasonable translation of what the author originally wrote.

It would indeed be somewhat perverse to insist that the bible is not
accurate in this sense. It is indeed a very reliably transmitted
document, in comparison with other documents of comparable vintage.

However, the *truth* of what is written is another matter entirely,
and bears no particular relation to how accurately it is transmitted.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: comments on Neopaganism FAQ
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:43:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Nov6.171657.2928@esds.mdc.com> bonney@esds.mdc.com (Greg Bonney) writes:
>In talk.religion.misc Eric writes:

	[I didn't catch the full of his neopaganism FAQ:]

% and it deals with mythology and the realm of the `spiritual'.  But, as
% we in the Judeo/Christian West have come to understand `religion' (an
% organized body of belief that connects the `supernatural' with an
% authoritarian moral code via `faith') neopaganism is effectively and
% radically anti-religious.  I emphasize this because it is important in
% understanding what follows.

>Not all Christians put such a big emphasis on the moral code.  Faith has to do
>with belief and trust, not following a bunch of rules.

	Tell that to some Fundie some time :-)

	Or to the Vatican :-)

%     Ritual and festive nudity are common; to be naked before nature is
% often considered a holy and integrating act in itself.  Sex is
% considered sacramental and sexual energy and symbolisms permeate
% neopagan practice (we like to contrast this with Christianity, in
% which the central sacrament commemorates a murder and climaxes in
% ritual cannibalism).

>That's a very narrow view of Christianity.  First off, protestants (and
>probably most catholics today) no longer believe that the bread and wine
>actually magically become the body and blood of Christ.

	I'm sure that the Vatican will enjoy hearing that :-)

>Second, the emphasis isn't on the act of murder, but on the sacrifice that
>Jesus was making for us.  Jesus knew he was going to be killed, but he didn't
>split town.

	And he was to rise for the dead. Sheesh. What "sacrifice" is
it when he could have just jumped off that cross? After all, he was
God, right? And God is omnipotent, right?

	I believe in helping others, but not in self-destructing for
others' benefit. I'm no worker bee.

>Most Christians would probably think your "sex as a sacrament" belief is
>simply an excuse to practice immorality.

	What's "immorality", and why don't dishonesty, robbery,
destruction of valuable entities, abusing others, and other such
things count?

>I just want to make sure you're aware that when you say "Christianity", you are
>making a blanket statement about a large number of groups, each of which has a
>different interpretation of the meaning behind those events which changed the
>world almost 2000 years ago.  

	So did a _lot_ of other events.

	I think you ought to thank Paul more than anything, otherwise,
Christianity would have remained some eccentric Jewish heresy.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: True Gay Christians
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:49:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.195852.28763@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>Consider: Leviticus really refers to "lying with a man as with a woman."
>It's not at all clear what that means. It's been suggested that it
>refers only to anal sex. Romans refers to homosexuality as a penalty
>for sin, not the other way around. Where, then, is your point?

It speaks of how one sin leads to others.  Any way you slice it, from a 
Biblical perspective, lustful hearts given to impurity are sinful.  
Dishonoring the body is sinful.  Practicing degrading passions is sinful. 
lusting and commiting indecent acts is sinful.  Notice that they also 
recieved due penalty for their _error.  (Venerial disease was rampant in
the Roman empire.  Many of them still haunt society today.)    

Notice how often "God gave them over" is mentioned in the passage. Because
of one sin, God gives them over to another.  Notice how these homosexuals
are described in verse 28, "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge
God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind..."  It is sin
not to acknowledge God, and a depraved mind that cannot tell good from
evil is certainly an evil thing to have.

Link Hudson
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Jungian Archetypes
Organization: worlds above and worlds below
	<ksand-081192145653@wintermute.apple.com> 
	<1992Nov9.234008.16992@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:02:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.234008.16992@midway.uchicago.edu> 
dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>(Kent Sandvik) writes in reply to Simon Clippingdale's report
>of the Dawkin's lecture:
>>I've started to think about similar concepts. Campbell showed elegantly
>>how we have many core myths in use in various world religions, and
>>Jung pointed out the core archetypes that are present in dreams.
>>Thus, there is a core of 'something', ideas that are common for our
>>race, based on cultural traditions, biology, our ancestory history
>>and ultimately our genes and how our brain works.
>One of the interesting point Jung makes is that some archetypes
>are *not* based on cultural traditions, in fact transcending
>them.

That's a connection to Aldous Huxley's "Perennial Philosophy".
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20470 alt.cascade:3056