HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.cascade
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:35:34 GMT
	<Bx9B84.Dvw@inews.Intel.COM> <73791@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Organization: Life is Too Short!

In article <73791@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>Have you ever noticed I don't invoke PR's name, but I do invoke that of 
>the Lord Jesus the Christ, the God man - Jesus of Nazareth, who I preach 

the God meister, fisher-of-men man, the PR of PR (boys! boys! crazy-boys!), 
Luke14:26 monger coming to make some copies, boy-toy of Mary Magdelan ...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 09 Nov 92 01:55:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


  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.


(pwhite)
/	
/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.

No.

As the passage says, Asa was king over Judah, NOT over Israel.  There
were not three men running around "claiming to be king of Israel".

What you have to do, as I pointed out to you, is find two men in the
line of kings of Israel who both are named Baasha, and who both ruled
during Asa's reign in Judah.  You have not done so, and the records do
not indicate any such situation.



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

/(pwhite)
/Already commented about this, can repeat if interest.

I read the comments.  Did you read mine?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:46:00 GMT

Okay, I'm game; I'll see what I can do to answer your questions.

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>1) What is the soul?
>2) What is the purpose of human life?

I'd define the "soul" as the capability for emotion and feeling, the
ability to see life as more than just a cycle of "eat/sleep/
reproduce".  But that's just the way I think of it, and I realize it's
probably not the common definition.  I don't believe there is any such
thing as the "soul" in a religious sense (of it being some "ghost"
attached to the physical body) -- I came into existence when I was
born, and I will cease to exist when I die, except in the hearts and
minds of others.

The purpose of human life is to do what you want to do, and I would
measure success in life as how satisfied you are by what you've done.
Someone who has learned to balance his risks with his gains, and who
can reap the benefits of his actions as easily as their consequences,
and who is always eager to learn more about the world and people
around him, and who takes responsibility for who he is and what he
does and is comfortable with it all, is someone who, in my opinion,
has truly lived.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jeffh@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jeffrey Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Jeff H -- still can't get through
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:34:49 GMT

Mark:

	This is a second attempt at a follow-up.  I got a mail message from the
server that my first follow-up failed, so I thought I should try again.  The
news server should my first posting, but that may have only been locally, and
the outside may not have been able to see it.  Anyway, below is my follow-up:


news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:


>        Jeff ... if you're out there (which I know you are), I still can't
>    get through to you via e-mail, although I tried several variations of
>    the paths you sent me.

>        Do mind posting a reply here in t.r.m?  I may be able to get a
>    pathname to you directly from here.  If you don't want to post, send me
>    e-mail again.

>                                                                -mark.

I am sorry about the inconvenience and trouble that you have been having
getting through to me.  Hopefully, the path from this posting will work.  If
you still can not get through to me and your reply is appropriate for posting,
you may want to consider posting it.  Do what you think is best.

                                Jeffrey
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,alt.atheism
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Jungian Archetypes
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:40:08 GMT

(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.

Dano
-- 
Daniel O'Connell
Meadville/Lombard Theological School
University of Chicago Divinty School
dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Now that the Anti-Mormon Issues are Subsiding
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:53:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <lflomtINNi31@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes...
> 
> 
> 
>Now that the anti-Mormon flare is subsiding, here is some food for thought 
>for all of us.

[...]

Frank,

	It was in May or June when I originally came upon this 
newsgroup. The genesis of this current thread can be more or less 
traced to there. In light of the fact that you term this an 
`anti-Mormon flare,' I think that you should know how it started.

	At that time, there was a woman named Becky Harris, who gave 
here testimony here. She is ex-LDS, and told of her experience in 
coming to know the Lord. She also mentioned that she was surprised at 
some of the things that happened to her when she went to the Temple.

	She was derided by those that responded from the LDS side. Her 
personal testimony of the shock that she had in the Temple was 
ridiculed and made light of.

	And then the thread developed from there.

	But the genesis of what you call anti-Mormon flares lies in 
the bashing of ex-LDS by the `saints.'

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Harmony Of The Gospels? 
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 21:44:00 GMT

[the following is excerpted from THE SKEPTICAL REVIEW. TSR is a quarterly
newsletter published by Farrell Till, a former church Of Christ pastor,
dedicated to exposing the absurdity of Biblical inerrancy. First year 
subscription is free, then $4 a year thereafter. Address at end of this article.
The excerpt refers to a $1,000 prize that has been offered to anyone who
can come up with a contradiction-free harmonization of the biblical
resurrection accounts. I thought some here would get a chuckle (and
some will be offended)]

  A thousand dollars is certainly nothing to sneeze at, so we decided to try for
Ralph Nielsen's $1,000 offered in the summer issue. In taking the information
from the opening verses of each account of the resurrection, we hit a snag when
we tried to fuse it all into one consistent statement. Our effort came out like
this:
       When the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother Of James, Joanna,
       Salome, and the other women bought spices to anoint the body. Late on the
       sabbath day, at early dawn, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the
       week, they came to see the sepulchre when the sun was risen, very early on
       the first day of the week, while it was yet dark.



[TSR: PO Box 617, Canton, Ill. 61520-0617]

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: True Gay Christians
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:01:43 GMT

In article <WIGGINS.92Nov7002138@hurricane.cs.odu.edu> wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.031134.9777@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>   In article <1992Nov6.020604.670@HQ.Ileaf.COM> raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:
>   >    just words
>   Yes, but I'm talking about YOU. If understanding comes from prayer
>   and faith, I don't see why you feel the need to talk about the
>   text at all.
>Perhaps prayer for understanding of the text and faith that the text
>is correct.
If you need prayer to understand the text, then I suggest to you
that the text is not sufficient for understanding. Perhaps it is
not necessary either.

>   >		Mephistopheles ... ruthless, sleepless, unsmiling,
>   >                concentration on self or humorous, civilised, sensible
>   >                and adaptable 
>   Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste....
>"Surely, every man at his best is a mere breath."  Psalm 39:5 by David
"He who finds the meanings of this sayings shall not taste death."
  -Gospel of Thomas, Saying 114.

When you figure out where my first comment "Please allow me to introduce
myself..." comes from, perhaps you'll understand what it meant.
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 06:23:24 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

<RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:

> In response to Sam Wiggins's assertion that Jesus claimed to be God:
> 
> There is not a single verse in the so-called canonical gospels where
> Jesus explicitly stated that he is God or a God-incarnate. Your assertion
> can only be accepted if one extrapolates the meanings of certain verses,
> which are too subtle. Those verses are open to interpretation. Trinitarians
> like to interpret them to prove the divinity of Jesus, others reject it.

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)

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:27:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes, quoting my posting:

>>As far as I can find, Paul doesn't claim that Jesus is God.  He says
>>things like "he is the image of the invisible God".

>The best bets for someone trying to argue that Paul claimed that Jesus is
>God are Philippians 2:6, Romans 9:5, and Titus 2:13.  All of these have
>disputed translations, however.  The following quotations are from the NIV,
>with alternate readings in brackets.

Thanks.  I've referred to at least Phil 2:5-6 and Rom 9:5 myself in
other contexts.  I certainly believe in the Incarnation.  My concern
was that the posting I was responding to didn't seem to take into
account the kind of indirectness suggested both in Paul's references
and in classical theology.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:48:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.002823.3933@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus5.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>It's too bad for this so-called *proven* theory that fragments of a copy
>of the Gospel of Mark have been dated *by scientific methods* as having
>been *copied* in *50* a.d.  In other words, the thing was well in
>circulation by that time period.  These fragments are in the custody
>of Professor Jose O'Callaghan at the Pontifical Biblical Institute
>in Rome.  You can go date the fragments yourself.
Really?
Please, post a peer reviewed paper that dates this document.

>The existence of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria, Egypt
>(founded by John Mark himself) is a big blow to the above so-called
  ^^^^^^^
Allegedly founded....
  
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Keywords: mindless,politically-correct,use,your,head
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:31:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.100920.21687@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.022625.931@psych.toronto.edu> grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant) writes:
>
>>>Fine.  So if you don't find a word useful, don't use it.  If other people
>>>find genderless pronouns useful, why bother them for using them?  Who are
>>>you to define what is a useful word for other people?  Why the big fuss?
>>>
>>The problem is, personal choice has been removed in some situations. For
>>example, the American Psychological Association requires authors to avoid
>>language that could be construed as sexist. This policy prohibits 
>>the use of gendered pronouns as generic pronouns, among other things. 
>
>But this is a completely different issue, altogether.  Surely you don't
>think that impeding the use of gender-neutral language is any better that
>requiring the use of such language?

My post was directly related to the passage quoted. The first passage 
said that if you don't like to use gender neutral language, you don't
have to. I said that this is not always true. Some organizations insist
of gender neutral language. There is no choice (other than to withdraw
from the organization).

While I don't oppose people who try to construct their sentences to avoid
gender, I do oppose those that tell me how to construct my sentences
and that I am bad for so constructing my sentences. I also oppose those
that corrupt the language to further their political ends.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:17:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov11.040917.27760@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
>    Jesus really doesn't give a hoot about intellect.  It doesn't impress
> him.  Why should it?  He himself created the universe . . . Einstein,
> Hawkins, Marilyn Vos Savant and the likes are less than kindergardners compared
> to the intellect of Jesus.  To Jesus, we all have insignficant I.Q.s.
> He has infinite I.Q.  The sum total of ours approaches zero in comparison.

>    Things that may seem important to you and I are not important in His
> eyes.  Do you know what impresses Jesus?  It is not intellect. 
> Read the Bible carefully.  You will find only one thing.  Faith.
> Faith impresses Jesus.  Jesus is amazed and pleased when people show
> faith.  That is what Jesus looks for.   And for the definition of
> faith, (don't give me that blind faith crap), take faith in context.
> Read Hebrews 11 for the contextual definition.

Well, it all started when I just placed a Bertrand Russell statement
in the news entry, as in:

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in
praise of intelligence.
                -- Bertrand Russell

That was the statement, and I've read the Bible a couple of times,
and I do think that concerning the Gospels Bertrand was right. As
we all know we and our children live longer with the help of intelligent
ideas (vaccines, health care, more secure environments), so if Jesus
thinks that intellect stinks, fine for me. However I do think that
intelligent ideas save people, and not blind faith.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Bashers Refuted
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:42:43 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1aGk02NE2apu01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
|
|markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|>
|>So where shall we start?  What do you propose as the oldest revelation
|>that we can agree came from God?
|
|The Bereans used what we know today as the Old Testament.  Any newer
|revelations, such as the New Testament, that does not go against the old,
|has much credibility of being from God.  It's the new revelations that
|speak out against what has already been revealed, that we know cannot be
|from God (D&C, BoM, etc..)

So you are proposing the Old Testament in it's entirety as being from
God?  Do we have an error free version to work with, or shall we
select some general principles as a common ground to work from?  I suggest
that we identify some general principles since I doubt that we have an
error free version.  So perhaps we can agree that:

1. the creation of the Earth was directed by God.
2. God spoke to prophets to instruct people in general.
3. God has specific guidelines for blessings (commandments).
4. those who do not follow God's guidelines are punished.
5. those who do follow God's guidelines are rewarded.
6. Satan exists and attempts get us to choose not to follow God's guidelines.
7. because of Adam and Eve, we are mortal.
8. God has required certain rituals to be performed by authorized people.

Feel free to add to or change this list.  I have not spent hours
comming up with it, so I already know it to be far from complete.  I
believe we can have a more rewarding discussion by establishing a
common ground.  Of course, if you know of an error free version of the
OT, I would like to know of it so that we can work from it.

Mark
-- 
   I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
   -- Galileo
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormon Bashers Refuted
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:36:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.175511.24394@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
>..
>>Ah good, then shall we appliy a _pure_ berean test and use _only_ the
>>OT and see what the OT would say about a claim that the promised one
>>of Isreal is _also_ God.
>
>Isaiah 9:6 is a good place to start.  Concerning the Promised One, it
>was prophesied he would be called 'Father of Eternity' and 'Mighty God'.
>The only Mighty God anyone knew about was Jehovah, who is the first and
>the last -- literally the Father of Eternity.
>

 One such translation from the Hebrew, (not King James)

 For to us a child is born, a son appointed who will shoulder the burden
 of goverment.
 He will be called
   Wouderful Counseler, One Mighty in Valor, a Father for Ever, A Prince of
   Peace-
 that sovereignt may be extended and peace have no end; that on the throne
 of David and over his kingdom his rule may be established and upheld by
 justice and convenant keeping from this time forth and forever.
 The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will accomplish it.


  It is my limited understanding, but one of the promises made to
  Abraham was that he would be blessed and be a Father for Ever. 
  Jacob/Israel was called a counsoler to the wise. Issac was called the
  one mighty in valor. And Melchesidik the prince of Salam was called
  prince of Peace.  Now this might be a judgement call, but would
  Isaiah be saying that messias ben-judea would have the admirable
  characteristic of the forerunners of the Hebrew nation.

  As a sidenote, this is also why the Jews as recorded in the NT,
  thought that messiah when he would come would alter the form 
  of the goverment, and reestablish the kingdom of David.

  We know that Jesus did _not_ form a a kingdom like unto to David,
  but a kingdom not of this earth.

  Now I now that this in christian myth a direct sign of Christ as
  God, because of Handle. but a closer examination of the OT as
  a the source of such rumors doesn't bear up.

  What other source in the OT do you think equate the Promised One (Messiah)
  with God himself?

-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20779 sci.skeptic:19282
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:35:50 GMT

In article <a0ZwTB5w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us 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.
>> 
>>>1) What is the soul?
>>>2) What is the purpose of human life?
>> 
>If you do take spiritual knowledge seriously, and if you are sure that
>you are an expert whereas we are amateurs, then please tell us, what is
>the soul? What is the purpose of human life? And most importantly, since
>you are now our teacher, what is the source of your information?

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

My sources of information are:

  1)  My own observations.
  2)  Observation of trusted others.
  3)  Observations of others I do not know that are consistent with
      other contemporary observations. 


My answers to your questions are:

  1) There is no soul.
  2) To ensure the survival of one's genes in the next generation.

Along with a grade I would also like to see the answer key and the
sources of your information.

-Bill


P.S.  I'd also like to see that proof you keep harping about on
      talk.origins. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc