HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Jesus was a man, was Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:37:36 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <71232@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> |What I've read from the Bible Jesus was a man until Paul made him
> |a God :-).
> 
> In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God,
> ... the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.  (John 1:1-14)
> 
> Let us look at the prophecy of Jesus coming and who (John the Baptist) 
> would come before him and who it is actually that was to come (the Lord.)

Richard, as usually I'm quite curious to see how you are trying to
map that in the beginning there was the Word, to the statement that
Jesus is God. It clearly demonstrates the facts that humans have 
a very good creative mind, indeed!

Cheers, take it easy,
Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:19:01 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct14.172616.20228@macc.wisc.edu> bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.103514.59693@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>
>>Barry, Tony, Mark,
>> 
>>If you ever succeed if persuading me to leave the LDS Church, I
>>would become an atheist before affiliating myself with
>>"Christians" like you.
>> 
>>You might win the battle and still lose the war.
>

Dana:

I don't think you understand.  This is not an arguement between you and
us!  We don't want to argue with you, we want to help you.  You leaving
or staying in the LDS church has absolutely no effect on us whatsoever.

Your stating this tells me that you have some doubts about the LDS faith
that you can't reconcile, and can't deal with.  What you do with yourself
and your life is not between us and you, it is between God and you.

If you have doubts about the LDS church, there is something else, besides
nothing.  But remember, your battle is with God, not us.

Please let me know if I can help you.  I am truely interested in you,
not in any organization, you and your eternity.  That is my concern.

In the utmost sincerity,
-tony
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians?
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:27:01 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct12.191142.21319@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
 ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
[...]
>         Of interest to us is "Facsimilie 2", a round drawing, with
> smaller drawings inset.  The "Explaination" asserts that it contains
> very sacred, very secret items that "are to be had in the Holy Temple of
> God" or "ought not to be revealed at the present time."
> 
>         I will begin by examining figure 7, which pictures a man, with
> an errect male organ, sitting on a throne.  Joseph Smith gives the
> following "Explanation:"

Hmmm...  Looks to me like the figure has a *very* long outie
navel or it is ment to be the figure's right fore-arm.

Since when does one's penis protrude from one's navel or in
normal males?

What other Egyptian drawings exist that are similar to this
corroborate the above interpretation (that of an erect penis) ?

Is this interpretation still current in 1992 or has it changed?

>    "represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the
>    heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of
>    the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove."

Refering to the bird-like figure across from the seated figure?

[...]
>         The object that Jospeh Smith included in the Book of Abraham is,
> in reality, a "hypcephalus," a common item of Egyptian funeral
> literature.  Egyptologists tell us that this is the god "Min." Min is an
> "ithyphallic god," that is, a sexually aroused male diety. Yes, figure 7
> is "pornographic" in nature -- it is sexually explicit. Min is the god
> of the procreative forces of nature.  Joseph Smith told us that the
> Egyptian god Min was in point of fact the one true God.

Hmmm...  The last I read, no two hypocephali exactly the same.
The variations which were originally thought to be unimportant
turned out to be quite the opposite.

Also, recent research has turned up many references to "Abraham"
in many ancient Egyptian documents from the same period.  I'll
have to find the article for you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Idaho (criticism that "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:14:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.141527.29049@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>In response to my partenthetical comment,
>> (There are, of course, vast differences between the claim that Idaho
>> exists and the various claims about Jesus.  Valid criticisms can be
>> made of the latter.  But this particular criticism [that the
>> "evidence" for "Jesus" comes only from believers] is pathetic.)
>>There is one CRUCIAL difference. A disbeliever in "Idaho exists" can
>>independently verify that the statement is true (by going there) - he
>>does not HAVE to rely on the testimony of the believers.
>This is a different criticism, one of the "valid criticisms" I already
>mentioned, and one which I am not addressing.

Say what?  It's not a different criticism, it's the same criticism.  If you
say that evidence for Jesus comes only from believers, but so does evidence
for Idaho, it's most certainly the same criticism to note that evidence for
Idaho _doesn't_ just come from believers....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
From: bthomas@dumaine.gac.edu (Barbara L Thomas)
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:26:18 -0600

In article <1992Oct9.181608.22694@linus.mitre.org>  writes:
> In article <70498@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard  
Pitts) writes:
> }In article <ksand-071092185018@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com  
(Kent Sandvik) writes:
> }|Well, Osiris rose from the dead, Mitras died weekly in the Mitras cult
> }
> }Where are their bodies today?   Jesus never died again - he is alive.
> 
> Where is Dracula's?
> 
I'm not very familiar with the history of Dracula, but did he ever  
techinically die?  Basically, this has nothing to do with your thread, but  
I'd appreciate if someone could answer that question.  I'm a little lost.

--
Barbara L. Thomas
"The World may never know."
bthomas@nic.gac.edu
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: *Jesus of Nazareth*
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:07:56 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>Isn't it rather well-known that the last supper was a seder?

This question is more complex than it looks.  There are problems in
reconciling the chronology in John with the Synoptics.  One reading of
John is that the last supper was the night before the seder would
normally be celebrated.  There are various theories, which it is
probably not worth going over here, including different communities
celebrating the Passover on a different day.  I think most people
adopt solutions under which it was a seder.  However there are
scholars who believe it was not.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Idaho (criticism that "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers)
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:01:13 GMT

Ken Arromdee's post caused me to realize I misinterpreted what Charles
Board wrote.  My apologies.  With this post I'll reply afresh to these
words:

>There is one CRUCIAL difference. A disbeliever in "Idaho exists" can
>independently verify that the statement is true (by going there) - he
>does not HAVE to rely on the testimony of the believers.

In the spirit of the parody, I have question the ability of a
disbeliever to travel to "Idaho" and independently verify that it
exists.  How will he know that he has entered "Idaho" without relying
on the testimony of believers?
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Why have you forsaken me? Was: I'm God.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:15:41 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct9.213351.29482@digi.lonestar.org>,
gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) wrote:
> >Anyway, I'm curious to know why Jesus thought God had forsaken him? 
> >Problems?
> Christ was God and Man, but as for the latter, I believe he became
> _more_ man than any human being before him since the fall.  His
> incarnation, which did not end in the finality of death that we
> fallen men experience, penetrated through death and into resurrection
> into the very heart of the earth itself.  Here we have not just
> the condescenscion into the fallen condition of the earthly body
> of human existence, but the transformation of that body into the
> human body of resurrection, the seed of which has been planted
> and will bear fruit in all of us one day.  

True, that some of this is nice speculation. However, when we are dealing
with pure statements, instead of speculating on deep aspects of the 
contents, it's easier to map the message directly to a more mundane
and understandable form.

I'm not sure about all the possible translations from Arameic to English,
however if someones before he dies says "why has God forsaken him", it
clearly states it's intention to wonder why God didn't help this person.
I'm afraid anything else is based on personal speculation, that we could
never agree upon. However if we start speculating about words Jesus said,
then we open a can of worm -- we are able to speculate for eons about 
any single word he uttered. And that means just a lot of trouble for 
everyone. 

For instance if I would say "Jesus said that God forsake him",
we might speculate if I'm dealing with the deepest human mystery where
the God-form is so deeply penetrated into human flesh that the mystery
is profound. When I'm plainly stating that God forsake him. Is this 
clear? Why do I sound like Ross Perot?

Cheers,
Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rshelswe@socs.uts.edu.au (92089248 r   shelswell)
Subject: Jehovahs Witnesses, Information
Reply-To: rshelswe@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Date:  8 Oct 92 15:32:08 GMT


Can someone please help me with an assignment on comparative
religion of mine, on Jehovah's Witnesses.

The assignment is mainly concerned with doctrines and practices
of the faith, especially as conflicts with other faiths,
and Governmental stances on issues such as Birth Control,
Health Care and so on.

Any help would be appreciated.


+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Ryan Shelswell            |  School Of Computing Sciences,  |
|   rshelswe@socs.uts.edu.au  |  University Of Technology       |
|   "I said TAKE HER DOWN!"   |  Sydney, Australia.             |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

  "And what did Oscar Wilde say?"
  "Deeper?"
  "Besides that."
  "To define is to limit?"
  "Exactly.  Do you see now?"

--



+---------------------------------------------------------------+
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:35:14 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct12.180127.59639@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.222009.2428@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>
>Mormons are not inerrantists.
>Mormons do not believe in infallable prophets or leaders.
>Mormons do not believe in infallable scripture.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu

That is funny, the Bible does!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Gay attitudes...
Organization: SPS
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:17:48 GMT


This letter appeared in the Oct 12 column of Ann Landers...

Dear Ann Landers:
   I'm a 34 year-old gay male professional, in the closet and 
tired of it.
   I watched the press coverage of the parade for Gay Pride Week,
and as usual, the men representing the gay community were sashaying
around in wigs, dresses, chaps and harnesses.
   Like most gays, I'm thoroughly disgusted with the way we are
portrayed by Hollywood and the media. To be fair, however, a large
part of the blame must be placed the shoulders of a small minority
of the homosexual community. I refer to the effeminate, limp-wristed,
nasal-voiced queens who jump in fromt of the cameras and make a 
spectacle of themselves.
   Those wierdos do not represent me or any of my gay friends. 
Moreover, they are the reason homosexuals are considered freaks and
"queens" and must hide their sexuality. Small wonder average people
are reluctant to give gays equal rights. They don't want men who 
wear wigs, dresses and high heels teaching their kids and fighting
in their countries armies. And who can blame them?
   Stable people, gay and straight, do not flaunt their sexuality 
and private lives. So please, "girls," keep it in the bedroom and
let the rest of us be judged for who we are and not by the distorted
image you portray. You deny all of us the opportunity to be accepted
as decent, constructive members of the community, which we are.
       --Sabotaged in Calgary


Is this a common attitude in the gay community?
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:29:04 GMT
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual


>>>Do you recall my posting what your prophets taught? It matters little
>>>to me what you believe. The important part is what the prophets(LDS)
>>>taught. The importance bearing on their displacement of christianity
>>>by revelation. When the revelation is shown to be in error, the 
>>>standard LDS response is they were speaking as men, and not prophets:-)
>>
>>Thank you for your second honest response, that is that you don't care at
>>all what I or any other LDS thinks. Barry cares only about his interpretations
>>and what he thinks. I wonder where I got the idea that anti-mormons are
>>closed minded.

>That is not what Barry said!  HE didn't say that what mattered was his
>interpretation of what was said.  He said,  what matters is what THEY
>meant by what they said!  It doesn't matter how anyone interprets it,
>what matters is what was meant when the person said it or wrote it! ANy
>other interpretation is wrong!

I responded to Barry's statement that, "It matters little to me what you believe".
The assumptions were that he understood correctly what the "prophets(LDS) taught"

I take issue with Barry, an anti-Mormon, who interprets "correctly" what
the prophets(LDS) said, and we who's faith he is plastering with mud, don't
know beans. We are all too stupied and ignorent to understand our faith.
I would never be so presumptuous to tell a Jew, a Baptist, a Muslim,
a Catholic, or any one else what they believe in, and try to instruct them
about their faith. The only thing I can do to tell them about mine.

I hope you get what I am saying.

With brotherly love,

		Frank
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:56:33 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct13.105223.6874@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.044008.16073@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>
>However, the Tanners, Walters, Brodie, etc. have tried to claim the
>experience never happened. I think that Quinn, et al. have demonstrated
>that basically the main events did take place, and that Joseph Smith's
>many descriptions do agree on the essential experiences.


I don't doubt that it happened!  I believe that it did.  My question is:
who was it that spoke to Joseph?  Was it the angel of light that Paul
talks about?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: they have eyes yet they do not see, was (I'm God) [340+ LINES]
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:49:13 GMT
Summary: applying unspin

In article <ksand-151092192125@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
(Kent Sandvik) writes:

> Well, Romans really liked Paul, read the end of Acts where the Romans
> save Paul from an angry mob of Jews ready to kill him.

That is a rather peculiar spin to put on it.  Paul took advantage of
his Roman citizenship to escape at that point -- at the price of
appealing to the emperor.  He was taken (as a prisoner) to Rome
where he was executed.  While this is not as well documented as the
trial and execution of Sokrates (for example), we do have at least
one of Paul's letters from prison (and careful scholars with no
particular doctrinal interest at stake accept _Philemon_ as genuine.)
Note that we DO NOT have any equivalent evidence for Sokrates.

> Paul started Christianity, but he wasn't prepared to die for it.

Bullshit, on both counts.  Yes, Paul had a major shaping influence on
gentile Christianity, as did others.  Note also that being prepared
to die for it, as critics of Christian martyrology (rightly) point
out, is not material in these issues.  Con men and the deluded may
also go to their deaths sustaining their roles.  You need not try
to tear down Paul (whom, as I read the evidence, I do take as willing
to die for his cause) -- it reeks of Bush's attacks on Clinton.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:08:14 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <HcwPsB6w165w@topcat>, topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom 
Albrecht) writes:
> This is atheist propaganda, not American jurisprudence.

Then the Supreme Court has a bunch of Athiests sitting on it.

> I hate to tell you this, Kelley, but nowhere does the Constitution prohibit
> the Bible from being the basis of our civil laws.  

"Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of a religion nor
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  How do you construe using the Bible as
a basis for law to not violate this?

> In fact, most of the laws
> on the books of the various states at the time of the writing of the
> Constitution were taken directly from the Bible ... and none of them were
> declared unconstitutional as a result of the adoption of the 1st Amendment.

Mr. Albrecht forgets the plethora of laws that have been thrown out over the
years because they violate the first amendment.  Mr. Albrecht also forgets that
the laws are not simply declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but
only as the result of case and controversy.
 
>> In all the above, I see no justification for government stepping into the
>> realm of religion.  You have not made the point that either the bible or
>> the founding fathers intended the biblical law to be concidered in our form
>> of government.
> 
> Read the documents for yourself.  Or is this a case of, "I've made up my
> mind so don't confuse me with the facts."

As a Supreme Court Justice (I forget which one) asked someone making this
argument: The Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law."  Do you read that
to mean that "Congress shall pass some law?"

"The United States is in no way a Christian Nation"
                                           -- George Washington
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: What is religion? was Sure Made ME stop and wonder...
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct1.182043.7303@cerritos.edu> 
	<11OCT92.14586338.0101@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:22:05 GMT

In article <11OCT92.14586338.0101@VM1.MCGILL.CA> 
CXAD@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CXAD000) writes:
>Personally, I have been quite convinced by Durkheim's definition
>for religion:  any system of symbols for separating the sacred
>from the profane.  There are those who disagree, but I think
>that its the most all-inclusive we can get to defining an
>impossible to define word...

H'mm, I don't know that all religions make a distinction between what is
sacred and what is profane. That definition seems more like a definition
of the Roman Catholic church than anything else. I would say that a
religion is an organized mythology.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:13:34 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ldcf7bINNdro@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <70562@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
>Pitts) wrote:
>> In article <13715@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>> >solely on the basis of sexual orientation.  So, to put the question more
>> >clearly Richard, if you were a voter in Oregon, would you vote for this
>> >initiative?
> 
>> Yes.  
>
>Sorry to hear this, Richard. My respect for you just plummeted.

If your respect for me dropped because I support the following,
then that's fine.

	"The govt cannot facilitate and must discourage homosexual and other
	behavior.  All of government may not use their moneys or property
	to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism
	or masochism.

	All of government, including the education system must assist in 
	setting a standard for youth which recognizes that these behaviors 
	are 'abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse,' and are to be 
	discouraged and avoided.  The State may not recognize the conduct 
	under 'sexual orientation' or 'preference' labels, or through 
	quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or similar concepts. 

If it dropped because of the violence/hatred happening in Oregon, then
don't for I don't support the tactics.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |