HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: JW humor
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:59:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.151340.11141@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>
>
>	I'm just honest and I say what I think. If you ask me stupid questions,
>	you get stupid answers. Besides, who are you to say what I am ?
>-- 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

  The point is that you normally won't say what you are thinking (You Do
  Think I suppose) You prefer not to think on the net. You have over the
  last year being caught lying, changing the subject of any argment (in the
  US and England the phrase is weasling.) You post reference to newspaper
  article from 20 years ago as scholarly reference. You demand that other
  people support your argument by researching what you should have done.

  You dismiss others response as "rubbish" and now you been caught calling
  someone on the net as being filled to the brim with _shit_.

  Now do _you_ think that you have been misquoted or taken out of context?

  You have defined your self to the net in a fairly through manner.

  I simply wish to make the point that the vast majority of the JW's should
  not be "tarred with the same brush".  To assume that you know anything
  about Christianity, JW's and/or Biology would require a massive "Leap of
  Faith", that frankly could not be otherwise justified.



-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:28:45 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-100992115222@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|In article <67876@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|Pitts) wrote:
|> In article <ksand-080992173152@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> >I do think that trinity can't be really explained with notions
|> >from the Gospels, mostly because it was an invention defined long
|> >time after gospels were written.
|> 
|> What about the wrapping up message Jesus gave, you know Matthew 28:18-20,
|> to go make disciples and baptized them in THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF
|> THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT?
| 
|> Note it is THE name, which is singular, and yet there are three.

Also not that the word used for God in the Hebrew denotes plurality,
but is used as a singular.

|He didn't say to baptize in the name of the holy trinity, or what. 
|Is it mention anywhere in the Gospesl (holy trinity?).

Read - Matthew 28:18-20, paraphrased, "go make disciples, baptized
them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them
all things I have commanded you - lo, I am with you always."

Jesus (the Son) prayed to the Father and said that the Father would
give us ANOTHER comforter, the Counselor - the Holy Spirit - the Spirit 
of God - Jesus said he was send the Holy Spirit (John 14-16.)

|> Also, what about when Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended
|> on him and the voice from heaven said this is my son.  Note: Holy Spirit,
|> Jesus (the Son) and the Father, the voice which spoke and was apart from
|> the Holy Spirit of God and the Son of God.  Three again.
|
|Same logical problem again, where do you see the words "Holy trinity"
|mentioned. I don't see 'em. Anyway, I don't see a connection between
|three entities separately doing things, and suddenly there's a
|magical interconnection. It clearly shows that we have three things,
|that's sure.

Why do THE WORDS have to be mentioned.  There are three revealed 
persons/identities of the One God.  And we know from the OT that God
embodied plurality in some way, but yet it also says "Here O Isreal,
The Lord Your God is One."

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: cfury@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Chris Fury)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Various Religions
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:15:58 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:

>turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:

>>-*----
>>Note followups.

>>-*----
>>In article <1992Aug29.194930.10566@access.digex.com> minx@access.digex.com (minx) writes:
>>> ... I was just saying that atheism is a religion that calls the 
>>> bible fiction.

>>Which is still a pretty silly thing to say.  

>>Except for the brain-dead fundamentalists, Christians recognize
>>that parts of the Bible are fiction.  Many Christians, for
>>example, are quite happy to take the Garden of Eden story as a
>>piece of fiction that contains some religious truths, rather than
>>as a literal history.  Conversely, I have never met an atheist
>>who thought that the *entire* Bible is a work of fiction. 

The bible is fact.  I believe that, strange stories and all.  You see, 
evolution is a neat thing and all that, and I'm sure it did play a role of
some sort, it bothers me that we just *happened* to transform ourselves
from ameobas.... :)

>Which is why there exist agnostics, like myself, who argue against or for either
>side of the issue, but certainly against organized belief in things that there
>is no real evidence for, especially when said organizations are hypocritical and
>inconsistent.

That's because the people in them (including myself) are just that, human
beings.  We tend to get a little emotional (and some, power crazy) at times.
(I'm NOT justifying it.  I think it's disgusting too.)

>>So solely on the grounds of thinking that the Bible contains
>>fiction, Christians are not distinguished from those of other
>>religions, nor from atheists.

>>Russell

--
Christopher B. Fury        | "...reality was once a primative method of crowd  
cfury@csugrad.cs.vt.edu    |  control that got out of hand" - Jane Wagner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Hindu "creation science"? (was Re: I visited the ICR in pers)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:52:36 GMT

In article <gate.HH3mqB1w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us> kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) writes:
>SL>Steve Linke
>SL>Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
>SL>La Jolla, CA

> Kalki Dasa> If anyone would like to find out about a saner approach
> to "creation research", a good place to contact is:

@                     The Bhaktivedanta Institute
@                     P.O Box 99584
@                     San Diego, CA 92109
@                     Tel: 619-272-8145

	OK. I'll bite. What do they have to say? Anything that hasn't
been said already?

	I wonder how much of their shtick is simply a recycling of the
Christian Fundamentalist (yes, those blasphemers who deny all gods but
theirs) arguments that we have heard _ad nauseam_?
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:37:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <adams.715789739@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >In other words, the supposedly omnipotent God is so perfect that he
> >is not able to sin. While humans are so inperfect they could do things
> >God can't. Isn't that special!

> It is a logical fallacy to suggest that God can work against His will.  As
> such, your point fails...since sin is going against God's will and causing
> separation, it is illogical to suggest that God can work against His own
> purposes...

However you must agree on my statement that humans are capable of 
doing things (sinning) God is not capable of. Is this a case of
a problem with the Christian notion of omnipotence?

wonders Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.athiesm
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Grace in non-Christian Religions?
Organization: College Boyz (The John M Paradox)
	<1992Sep6.192210.17114@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:15:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.192210.17114@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
<Let me clarify:
<God cannot look on less than perfection.  His mercy towards those who have
<acepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is that of providing the
<ultimate sacrifice so that we no longer require mercy (are without sin)
<through Jesus.
<Many people are hoping to be "good enough" so that God's "mercy" fills in the
<rest.  What they fail to realize is that God's mercy (in whatever form) must
<also satisfy His will (the law -- perfection -- w/out sin).  When God judges
<the believer, He judges Jesus Christ, who was perfect!  The believer will be
<found pure and righteous in spite of his/her independent deeds and thoughts.
<This is grace... it is not merely mercy, which must compromise!  God is above
<compromising His standard -- THE standard -- so He fulfilled it with one last
<sacrifice for all time, so that whoever places their trust in Jesus will
<obtain eternal life!
<As we have seen, this is one of the simplest yet hardest things to do.

Yo-John, check this out!

Hollywooooooood
Rolling outside of two-pesos ...
Sound clip of R. Nixon: "I'm afraid ... it's much worse than that ..."
John Muehlhausen, thought that he had, what it took to be a superstar
friends in high places, brains and a look, and a friendly smile
...
... ridin' on the White man's ...
He's living Hollywood, that means he's acting now
If he got the role to play a proud human being, would he know how?
There he goes, fronting with his disconected car phone
He fell prey, to the Hollywood parodox
Hollywooooooood
Yo, stop fronting and use your head! 
Ain't nothin' but a sign in the hills!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: What is 'Kingdom of Heaven'?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 06:54:41 GMT

What is 'Kingdom of Heaven' mentioned in the Bible?  Is it the same
as Heaven?  Does 'enter the Kingdom of Heaven' means 'go to Heaven
after you die'?

Here is an exerpt from Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible.

	"The expression 'kingdom of heaven' (lit. 'of the heavens'),
	 one that is peculiar to Matthew, refers to the rule of the
	 heavens, i.e. the rule of the God of heaven over the earth
	 (cp. Dan. 2:44; 4:25,32).  The kingdom of heaven is similar
	 in many respects to the kingdom of God and is often used
	 synonymously with it, though emphasizing certain features
	 of divine government.  When contrasted with the universal
	 kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven includes only men on
	 earth, excluding angels and other creatures.  The kingdom
	 of heaven is the earthly sphere of profession as shown by
	 the inclusion of those designated as wheat and tares, the
	 latter of which are cast out of the kingdom (Mt. 13:41),
	 and is compared to a net containing both the god and bad
	 fish which are later separated (Mt. 13:47) ..."
 	           - Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible, p. 972 footnote 4

As Scofield stated, the Kingdom of the Heavens refers to the rule of
the heavens ON EARTH.  It is an earthly sphere where God's rule is
acknowledged.  To enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens means to
have God as your Lord in your life.  It means to repent the way of
life that is separated from God.  It means to live a life that is
filled with Christ, and have Him as the sphere in which we live, move,
and have our beings.  It has nothing to do with "after you die, you will
go to Heaven".

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  8 Sep 92 23:51:13 GMT

dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>
>That's your belief. Ask me such a question. At least one, please.

Jarek, you are one of the few christians (and don't tell me you know lot's,
as these are probably people you associate with you know birds of a feather)
who are willing to think for more than a couple of seconds about the general
God exists subject. What most of us atheists are concerned about is the
other 95% who beleive that they can buy their house in heaven, that
non-beleivers are loathable beings, that war (and therefore murder) is fine
as God is on their side, that knocking on people's doors at 6:30 am on 
Saturday morning to justify their faith is reasonable, who limit the rights
of women because the bible was written for men etc etc. I'm not saying that
atheists are all ideal people (far from it) I'm saying that a Christian is
more likely to be unthinking. You I'm afraid am an exception.

Jeff.


>Best wishes,
>             Jarek
>======================================================
> .-----.            Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com       
> `-> <-'       I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune on "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:43:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.172606.27981@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.211210.5205@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>|> If you're going to talk about Oregon v. Smith, do it right.
>|> It did NOT ban the use of peyote in religious ceremonies.
>|> It PERMITTED the states to ban the use of peyote in religious ceremonies.
>|> These are two very different things.
>
>They are different things, but it does put a hole in the 1st ammendment.
Absolutely, an enormous one. But that's not the same as the Court
mandating a positive ban.

>The 1st ammendment says the government will not limit religion nor
>will it promote a particular sect or religion.  There's another ammendment
>(is it the 14th?) that indicates that no state shall deny people
>constitutional rights.  Permitting states to ban peyote would be
>equivalent to allowing states to abridge SOME religious sacrements.
Quite true. That has been done.
Most disturbing.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:42:43 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <d3rns4n.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) wrote (in article <67831@hydra.gatech.EDU>):
>>   Mat 24:23   At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!'
>>      or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.
>
>How is a Christian to know when the Second Coming has happened, then?
>This sounds very Monty Pythonesque -- "Only the true Messiah denies
>his divinity!"  ;)

The point of the passage was that NO ONE WILL HAVE TO SAY "Here he is"
or "There he is", for we all will see it.  Matthew 24:27 says that as
the lightning is visible SO WILL BE the coming of the Son of Man.

>Seriously, though -- if someone is so obviously Jesus in his second
>incarnation that everyone believes in him, then that person isn't
>Jesus, according to these passages you quoted.  But if Jesus doesn't
>look like Jesus, how can anyone believe that he is who he is?

It will be obvious and no one will need to say anything.  The passage
above is warning about those who need to have someone tell you about
a supposed Christ.  The passage tell us that every eye will see.

   Mat 24:30   "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the
      sky, and ALL THE NATIONS of the earth will mourn. THEY WILL SEE the Son
      of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.


>     << Brian >>

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sean gets his reply (finally) [A.Johnson thread]
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep6.114904.7362@ac.dal.ca> 
	<1992Sep6.194140.18212@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:06:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.194140.18212@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>Surely!  Whatever turns your crank man... In fact I would say that my
>understanding of God is more one of complete awe and reverence than the "pal"
>you don't seem to find appealing.  God can (and does) present Himself in many
>ways...  There are times that I think about the vastness of creation and the
>immensity of !!!GOD!!! and I start crying at the thought of Him caring about
>_me_.  Only such a perfectly immense God could have such a perfect love that
>he would care about me enough to sacrifice His Son for my salvation.  The
>implications of that act blow me away.  I cannot fully understand what God
>did for me (or what Jesus death really meant on the spiritual plane), but I
>know that He is guiding my life and helping me to love, which is the source
>of such a pure joy that I can't really relate it.
>You can chant with spoons up your nose while sitting in a bathtub full of
>jello for all I care -- just accept Jesus back into your heart and life
>PLEASE!  Don't do it for me -- DO IT FOR YOU!

Seems to me the street term for this kind of thing is "riding the white
horse". I particularly find the mention of spoons rather interesting.
And "Don't do it for me -- DO IT FOR YOU!", that just seems like a dead
ringer. Well, P.T. Barnum called it like it is, didn't he?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15827 alt.atheism:16687
From: yohan@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Mr. Newton's definition
Date: 7 Sep 1992 19:04:30 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu


From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Not that it matters to your apparent ignorance, but I do not
think there is proof of god's existence. How that makes me
a christian, unthinking or otherwise is something perhaps
you can explain to yourself, but seems ludicrous to me.

Me:
You have no evidence for god's existence, yet you have drawn a conclusion.  You
therefore have blind faith.  This is exactly what I have been talking about all
along.

Jon Newton
From: kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Brainwashing             
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 03:48:24 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

SDM>   Does anyone have any info/evidence about brainwashing tactics being used
SDM>by cults/revivalist preachers/churches? I have recently come across reports
SDM>such things, and indeed have encountered such sinister methods- I would be
SDM>very grateful to receive any information at all about such things; I am par
SDM>arly interested in the methods uses in brainwashing , neuro-linguistics
SDM>especially. If anyone has any such info I'd much appreciate it if they coul
SDM>mail it to me.

If the brain is dirty, it shall be washed.
---
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Kalki's Infoline, 803-643-3172, Aiken, SC, USA
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: noitazinagrO
	<1992Sep14.210645.4988@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <adams.716569269@spssig>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:52:28 GMT

In article <adams.716569269@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>The basic answer to this is, I don't know.  I can't begin to explain this.
>Why did God make the world with hurricanes?

S. Florida needs hurricanes to bring fresh water rain, these big storms
are a significant water supply. The water is stored in the Everglades. Also
this is just Mother Nature. To create, one must first destroy, so the big
winds knock out older and bigger trees and clear the earth for new life.
A lack of hurricanes in S. Florida means drought.

>Earthquakes? 

Since I live in Calif., this one is easy. They are to remind us that even 
the earth is not constant or "grounded". Also they form mountain ranges
and are responsible for the geological beauty of places like Calif. They
produce microclimates which makes possible optimized agriculture.

Volcanoes:

Creator and destroyer. Volcanoes formed the Hawai'ian islands. Volcanoes 
bring to the surface deep nutrients, volcanic soils are among the best 
agricultural soils in the world. This is Pele.

Low Lying River Deltas, like Bangladesh:

These are always getting flooded by seawater from sea storms like
hurricanes and they are always getting flooded by freshwater floods from
the mountains. Why do people live there? Because the soils are some of the
most productive in the world and the waters and shallow seas are full of
sea animals. If you dam the river waters to stop floods and build dikes
to stop the sea, productivity suffers because the system has become
fixed in time, stagnant, no longer capable of re-creation.

No change = fixed in time = death, dead. Life = variable in time = change.
But Life also creates death, to recreate, one must first destroy, kill,
produce death. Life feeds on life, thus recreating death, life dies so that
new, recreated life may form and continue the process of recreation.
This Life/Death cycle is a fire, one can feed the fire, like Buddha or
Bacchus/Dionysus, or one can quench the fire, like the Jains or
Christian nuns. Or one can remain oblivious to the presence of Shiva,
the destroyer of worlds, on one's back, tapping on the drum of time.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:23:34 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke) writes:

[Biblical cites deleted]

>There appears to be abundant Biblical evidence which indicates that the
>Lord Jesus Christ will return as the judge of all the earth sometime
>during September in 1994. 
No man may know the day or the hour....

No one knows the day or the hour except the Father, not even the Son, for
the Father has not revealed it to Him...

This is figurative writing...picking the 'month' and 'year' instead of the
'day' and the 'hour' doesn't escape the admonition of Jesus...He has told
you that you can't know.

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15762 alt.atheism:16627 alt.politics.homosexuality:5714