HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martini@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (ok)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:50:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <BzGp8w.J74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>The whole point is the term 'pagan' is, I believe how Christians caharcterized
>non-believers.  For a person to call themselves pagan is to, at best, engage in
>mocking Christians (not that I have any problem with that, mind you.)  I just
>think it is better to use, oh, I dunno, the actual NAME of your faith system, if
>it has one, and if it doesn't, then why throw a silly Christianity-derived term
>on there?  I find the word is used largely for attention-getting and pretense.
>
>Matt I.

pagan comes from a latin or greek term paganus, or something quite like
that, which meant of the field, or farmers, people of the sod, etc.  christ-
ianity took this term, or perhaps semitic peoples did, to describe people who
worshiped their own local gods, especially with rites in the fields to ensure
good crops, etc.  Pagan may be a term that people apply to themselves in 
order to identify with the majority of the human race, across huge bands of
time, rather than in response to a religion that appears to me to ever more
divest itself of it's roots.  Christianity has quite definately left its
past behind, becoming a religion of social power (see Popes & influence in
middle ages, Christ never seemed to imply that *he* wished to be Ceasar and
have renderings unto himself.; see also falwell, etc in modern america)

most of the "pagans" on this sub seem to be people who like/respect the land
of the planet, and seek to understand ancient religions as a source of human
identity--how have humans done this?  how am I human?  how can I pass my
human values into the future, especially in regards to everything worthy on
this planet/universe in ways that fit their conscience.  as far as being
tied to the land, that seems to fit the old pagan idea of the romans.

sheilagh
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a prophet?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:52:12 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>|>Jesus did tell us to worship God, but he never rebuked anyone for
						  ^^^^^^^>|
>without rebuke?
	 ^^^^^^^
Why is it that Christians always use the EXACT words used in translations in
their daily conversations (rebuke is such a DUMB word), and then talk about
interpretability and Greek when those words no longer serve them?

Eeek

MAtt I.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:51:13 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <lipc7lINNfif@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>
>Anthony G Rose wrote:
>
>>If you meant that this is only a game to me, you are dead wrong!
>>Spiritually dead wrong!  My love for your soul makes me dialog with you.
>>We are instructed in Scripture to watch for false prophets, to test all
>>things, to study, and to contend for the faith.
>
>I always find it interesting when an abusive father claims that he really
>loves his children. Sorry, your message is not love to me.

I understand that the things I say are not pleasing to your ears.  But
trust me, I would not spend the hours that I do every day answering these
posts and working with the local Mormons.  My conviction is that we are in
the last days, and that many Mormons are lost because of the doctrines of
the church.  That is my reason for what I do.  That is out of love. You
know, Jesus didn't sound too much like love either when he said:

     "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being
      condemned to hell?"  (Matthew 23:33)

However, He WAS incarnate Love.

>>>You agreed that the Trinity can't be proven with scripture, why are you still
>>>trying to prove it?
>
>>I NEVER said that!  I said that with our finite minds it is hard to
>>concept an infinite being.  I said that I would send you an outline
>>demonstrating over 700 verse supporting the Trinity, but you declined the
>>FREE offer, because you don't want to open your mind to the other side.You agreed that >the Trinity can't be proven with scripture, why are you still
>>trying to prove it?
>
>Let me refresh your mind. This is me:
>
>>>I don't believe that the Bible can be used definately to prove either your's
>>>or my belief. You interpret passages one way and I interpret it another way.
>
>This was your response:
>
>>....your are right, but we have to be aware that the writer only meant one
>>of the meanings.

Yes, look closely at your words that you have quoted.  You were talking
about "beliefs".  I never said that the Trinity concept couldn't be
shown from the Bible.  The point is, that you are not open to looking at
the proof.  Why is it that you refuse to look at the outline of the 700
verses I offered for FREE, if you are open-minded?

>If you enjoy a monolog, please continue to send messages to me.

Do you mean on trm or personal email?  Either is alright by me.

>With brotherly love,
>
>		Frank


Likewise, Lord Bless,
-tony
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:20:01 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>In article <17836@pitt.UUCP>, geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>
> This is the problem.  I can't worship such a being who would doom
> people for eternity because they have the wrong notion of what
> His nature is.  This is not a loving God.  What it is that attracts
> you to a wrathful God, I don't know, but it doesn't attract me,
> and it didn't attract Jesus, from my reading of the Bible.

  What happened when people bowed to a stick?  God didn't like that.
  Your statement here confirms the lds position:

    "God created man in His own image, and man returned the favor."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23919 alt.atheism:23750 alt.slack:3491
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:40:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

...it's no dumber than being a mormon.

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
			  WARNING: Intel Inside
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Satanic Bondage Update
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:01:15 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Dec11.214231.28083@athena.mit.edu> 
starpath@bard.mit.edu writes:
(message deleted)
>--
>David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>I rebuke Satan in the name of Jesus and I bind that demon that has
>you so lost.  My brother, the Lord is going to deliver you from pride
>and haughtness.
>	-- Roderick Moten to Eric Sieferman on talk.religion.misc

David, I'm touched, never before have I made it into
a .sig, even indirectly.

You may be interested to know that I am still in Satan's
bondage, and my pride and haughtiness are undiminished.
If any changes in this condition occur, I will post
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:02:54 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>|>In all sincerity, isn't it a little presumptious to think that one's own
>|>understanding of understanding is the best one out there?
>|Why not?  You seem to do it.
>I don't claim the understanding I have as my own, but believe that it 
>is of God.  He has promised to come and make his home with us, if we love
>him and keep his commandments.
You DO claim to know what God promised, what He wants, etc.  I find even that
presumptuous, and entirely unprovable and unsubstantiable.

>I don't look to myself for salvation nor spiritual understanding,
>but to the Lord - it is his and he has given me and all those who
>believe a glimpse of it.
Careful, you didn't capitalize.  And how am I to know you have this 
understanding?  Why shouldn't I believe others that calim they know God?

>|>Do you think there is any other level of wisdom or understanding in the
>|>universe today?
>|I haven't seen any so far.
>Is your answer "no"?  Is what mortal man has achieved on his own the
>supreme level or as he continues to achieve will that be supreme?
It is possible.  I think wisdom and understanding are terms of humanity in
the first place.  A higher power may have no need of them.

>|>Also, on my first question above, what is there, if anything, about Jesus 
>|>or the Father that you don't want to be like or even know?
>|It's contrary to reason.
>It is contrary to man's pride and self proclaimed and appointed knowledge,
>but it is not contrary to those who believe.  We were told long ago,
>even at the very beginning, that the cross is foolishness to those who have 
>knowledge as their goal.  Even the early sermons had people who sneered at 
>the concept of the resurrection, but some believed and some intellectuals 
>wanted to here more.
"We" were told long ago?  Before I was born, I was told?  Huh?  And by the way,
people who called themselves 'intellectuals' back then still had the idea that
the sun revolved around the earth, as well as some seriously spooky medical 
advice to give.

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:31:08 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <NICHAEL.92Dec16123850@pilsner.bbn.com>, nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
> 
> In article <adams.724518272@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>    >In article <Bz8BKK.EB1@spss.com>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>    >The Valentinian Gnostics (who used the Thomas Gospel, I believe)
>    >traced their teaching back to Paul, through one of his disciples who
>    >claimed to have received Paul's secret teaching.  Maybe you can have
>    >your Paul and your Gnosticism, too!
> 
> Is this correct?  The one person that I've know who was involved with
> a Valentinian group described their group as explicitly rejecting Paul
> as a corrupter of the original doctrine.

There are still Valentinians around??? Wow!  Well, just about everything
I know about this subject comes from Elaine Pagels' famous book
"The Gnostic Gospels."  According to that book, there was a tradition
(in the 2nd century anyway) that their doctrine derived its apostolic
authority from Paul -- it was his teaching for the "mature,"  the one
he wouldn't give the Corinthians.   Official Paulist doctrine
is certainly a corruption, from the Valentinian point of view, though.

> 
> (On the other hand, this is no doubt a rather simplified view of this
> position and, furthermore, surely there must be _lots_ of doctrinal
> disagreement among such groups.)

I'm amazed that there are still such groups out there! I thought they were
all suppressed out of existence by the ecclesiastical authorities during
of Gnosticism in the way the Wiccans are of European paganism?

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
ome kind of modern revival
of Gnosticism in the way the Wiccans are of Eur 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: Omniscient
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:30:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.150149.19415@oclc.org>, you write:
|> ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
|> : In article <1992Dec9.145259.29567@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
|> : |> ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
|> : |> : 
|> : |> : Not correct.  Foreknowledge and predestination are not
|> : |> : the same thing.
|> : |> 
|> : |> I didn't say they were the same thing, I said that God had 
|> : |> foreknowledge of our actions and still chose to create us, 
|> : |> therefore our actions are predestined.  How can you deny
|> : |> such a common sense idea?  If you want to convince me otherwise,
|> : |> how about elaborating on your assertion?
|> : |> 
|> : 
|> : Well, by my definitions, predestination means A&E had no
|> : choice, God decided that they would sin.  Foreknowldge means
|> : that God new ahead of time that they would choose to sin.
|> : The difference seems clear to me.
|> 
|> Why do you keep repeating this?  I have already agreed with your
|> definitions.  Repeating the definitions and pointing out
|> the difference is beside the point!  I said that predestination
|> logically *follows* from foreknowledge, *NOT* that they are the same
|> thing.  What were the odds that A&E would commit Original Sin?
|> God knew with 100% certainty when he created them that they would
|> Fall.  God would be pretty suprised if A&E avoided the Fall in 
|> spite of his 100% foreknowledge that they *would* Fall.  Therefore,
|> in spite of appearances, A&E had 0% possibility of avoiding it.
|> How can you avoid the conclusion that it wasn't predestined?  And

I am sorry if I am repeating, but one of us is confused, and
it may well be me. 

We agree that foreknowledge and predestination are not
the same.  That foreknowledge is knowing with 100% certainty
what will happen, and predestination is deciding in advance
what somebody will do.  Am I correct that we agree on this?

Given the above, I do not understand how know what someone
will do equates with forcing them to do it.  

The problem may arise from my misdirection in the
argument.  Is it your argument that because God
knew that if he created man by plan X that they
would perform act Y, that God used foreknowldge to
create plan X so that man would be predestined to
commit act Y.  If so, then I would agree that this
is the same as predestination.

However, that is not the way I see it.  But that can
wait until we get clear on this point.

|> _please_ don't simply repeat the defintions again.
|> -- 
|> > Jeff Young <
|> > Personal   <               I'm not lost, I'm exploring.
|> > opinions   <

-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:06:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.193829.25041@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <1992Dec16.020127.16844@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> >He most certainly could experience humanity without original sin. 
> 
> Say what?
> 
To narrow it down into what you are saying, true he did not
experience all humanity while he _walked_ on the earth.

> If humans have original sin, then to experience humanity he had better have it
> too.  That's what it means to experience humanity: to experience those things
> which are common to all humans.  If there's something common to all humans
> which he has not experienced, it makes no sense to say that he has experienced
> humanity.

He experienced the totality of sin on the cross by taking it all
to himself, so he likely felt and had original sin on him too
(as the metaphorical scapegoat)during and after the final sacrifice.
I hope you don't think I'm cheesing out on this, but it goes back
to the original point someone made that the sacrifice was nothing,
as well as covering your point.


barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: The Endless Topic
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:36:27 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:12:21 GMT
>FROM:   Daniel S OConnell <dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu>
>
>
>E.g., what's special about ministry? Does society need some unspecialized
>professions? We "know" what lawyers and doctors do; what exactly do
>ministers do? How does one prepare for the "doing"?
>

I'd say that Billy Graham, Popes of all flavor, and Pat Robertson
entertain. They tell stories, sing, and do whatever else performers
do to attract a paying crowd ("the eggs" as we ultrahip gig players
of old referred to the audience).  It would surprise me to learn that 
very many of these Thespians believed in Xianity any more than I do.  
My readings here have indicated that alt.atheists, for the most part, 
grant the sincerity of the religious stars.  Jerry Falwell, however, seems 
far too intelligent to actually believe much of anything he says, as do
almost all the other godheads with large fan clubs.  I cannot
prove that Robert Tilton has no interest in Jesus beyond
His incarnation in the Xian marketshare of professional bunko
operations, but he would have an equally difficult time convincing
me that he doesn't belong in jail. Sun Myung Moon, Cardinal
O'Connor (too bad there is no hell, eh?), and the Rev. George Bush 
can all pack a house -- Kneeling Room Only 8^) -- but do any
but the "eggs" credit any of them with honesty about much of anything?


Not only money spurs individuals to exploit the gullible through
religion; sex, politics, exhibitionism, whatever, all have a crony in Jesus.  
Some, perhaps, even have benevolent reasons.

A significant percentage of the churchgoers have faith in god, I
guess, but I would bet that only a small percentage of 
ministers, priests, or what have you,  believe in god at all.  One
can do no more than surmise about this, of course, since such statistics 
remain unavailable, given that one cannot validate the veracity of the 
answers on the questionaire.

No true god could have possibly designed those shocking bad hats.
I suspect that Christ drove a traveling haberdasher's wagon,
and that the Romans convicted and executed him for felonious bad 
taste.  Religious costuming rivals the best in Las Vegas, as does
the take at the gate.  What do they do?  They entertain.  What
do they learn?  They learn the script(ure) and the songs and
dance their way into the hearts of the adoring.  The crowd pays
through the nose for the best seats, and the fan clubs do get rowdy.

The witch doctor always knows whence came the smoke.

-jim tims

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:13:27 GMT

In article <77904@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.170512.61803@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>|In article <1992Dec8.011037.10480@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
>| brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
[...]
>|> I would like to add that the trinity doctrine will not make or
>|> break one's acceptance into heaven.  If the Mormons are correct,
>|> or if the Evangelical Christians are, one way or another, we will
>|> be certain  one way or another when we get to heaven.  We can ask
>|> Jesus in person when we get there.  He can set us straight.
>
>I think you are wrong - I haven't followed this, but in I John
>we are told that if one doesn't have the Son, then one doesn't
>have the Father.  It also says that anyone who denies that THE
>Christ has come in the flesh is not to be followed or listened to,
>for they are the antichrist.

Ah, but one needn't have the Father in order to come to the Son, right?
More to the point, unless it is explicitly stated that one must have
the Son *while alive on Earth* in order to get to heaven, then it follows
that it is possible to get to heaven by having the Son after death, but
before judgement.

>Paul tells us in Corinthians that there are other Jesus', other
>gospels, and other spirits, but we know we aren't to follow them.
>
>Paul even warns strongly in Galatians 1 that if anyone preaches
>another gospel that they are to be condemened - an anathama.

All this is, of course, totally irrelevant.

>|I couldn't agree more. 
>|Why is it that Tony Rose can't seem to grasp this concept?
>|<he asked rhetorically>
>|
>|Isn't the important thing that one is trying to live ones life
>|and do what they think God wants them to? (ie: have faith,
>|believe in God, repent from sin, seek the guidance of the Holy
>|Spirit, help others, etc.)
>
>You have to come to THE Jesus and not a Jesus.

So tell us: how do you tell the difference between "a" Jesus and THE
Jesus?

And who are these "other" Jesus people you refer to, anyway?

>For Christ and His Kingdom,
>Richard Pitts

Anyone wonder why heaven is supposedly a "kingdom" instead of a democracy?
:-)


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Straw Poll: Mormon Specific Newsgroup ^REPOST^
Date: 19 Dec 92 11:31:22 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Since the volume of traffic in talk.religion.misc regarding
Mormon related postings has leveled off somewhat, I'd like to
conduct a straw poll.

Since most of us will be going on break for the holidays
(including me), I'll continue the polling a few weeks into
January so that everyone that wants to gets a chance to
participate.

I will post a summary of the results.

Don't post to the net.  Email your reply to: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
(Replying to this post *should* do the trick.)

-----8<---If--you--cut--here--you--will--ruin--your--monitor--->8-----

Questions:

1a.  Do you think that a separate newsgroup should be created for
     discussing Mormon specific things on Usenet?

1b.  Why or why not?


2a.  If you do think that a Mormon specific newsgroup should be
     created, should it be moderated?

2b.  Why or why not?


3.   If you do think that a Mormon specific newsgroup should be
     created, what hierarchy and name should the newsgroup have
     and why?


4.   (Optional)  Just to get an idea of who is providing feed
     back, what is your religious persuasion?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reasoning about the self-righteous
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:52:18 GMT
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY

In article <1992Dec10.094455.10259@sei.cmu.edu>, dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> In article <1992Dec9.215617.28836@cs.cornell.edu> (Roderick Moten)
|> writes:
|> 
|> >I could explain this too you, but you don't understand the simple
|> >things of Christianity like the baptism of the Holy Spirit,
|> >righteousness by faith and the victory of the cross.  
|> 
|> The presumptions and arrogance here are mind-boggling.
|> 

How can I talk to you about God making man in His image and 
you don't know what the image of God is?

By the way, do you know what it means to be born again? To be a Christian?