HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: Scott G.: Answer this for me... 
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 00:30:33 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Sep4.203321.28905@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>Tell me something Scott, how did trusting in Jesus for your salvation and
>receiving Him as the Lord of your life make you miserable?  You are not
>allowed to tell me about the people involved... Only about this simple state
>of mind, which is what makes one a Christian.

Well, I'm not Scott, but I can tell you my case:

I just didn't like the helplessness that believing in christ forced me 
into.  I'm not responsible for my actions, since god already knew what I
was going to do before I did it.  I also didn't like the defeatest attitude
that it forced on me-- all bad things are god's will and I can't avoid them.
I couldn't deal with the hypocracy of the leaders-- priests that are pedo-
philes, televangilists that have a more active sex life than a prostitute,
etc.

Now that I realize that I have the power to make my life better and improve
the lives of others, I am much happier.  I can accept that people don't
believe the same way as me and that I don't have to force them to agree.
I don't have that paranoid feeling that something is looking over my shoulder
and interfering with my life.

I don't presumre to speak for Scott, but I would suspect that he would
agree with these points and possibly even feel the same way.  But, if he
doesn't, I have no need to preach to him that my way is the *one true 
way* (TM, Real lives, Inc, 1992).


Jerry
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christians at Work in Oregon
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:06:49 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>In article <adams.715654881@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>><SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>>
>>1. This is unfair...tarring all Christians with this.  Some of us
>>   reject entirely the ideas that these groups in Oregon have.
>>
>>2. Some of us Christians do not object to equal treatment and fairness
>>   to all people.  Some of us ardently support it.

>This is true.

>But where are the Christians speaking out against OCA?

One right here.  I do not support it.  The Bible in fact does not support
this kind of thing.  Christians are to practive universal love...and bring
about conversions through the word, not by force.

If you look, you will see principles Christians objecting to such laws.  I
would work against any such laws in my community or state.  I will condemn
any such attempts in other communities or states.

There must be at least ONE Christian group in Oregon opposing this...

 -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:16031 alt.atheism:16958
From: danoc@xtrek.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 10 Sep 1992 20:45:38 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: xtrek

 (Steve Adams) writes:
 > 
 > Pardon me while I butt in here...<<oomph, nudge, push, oomph>>
 
hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
 Hey! Who let this guy in here??  
 
Yeah, yeah. Move over, there's still room on the cosmic
couch :)

   hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

 >>Actually, I'd bet atheists think about God more than 95% of theists do.
 >>Of course, I have no statistics...
 > 
 > Hmm...this is probably true...I know a large number of hour-a-week
 > Christians (or 90 minutes, if the sermon runs long)....except for church,
 > you wouldn't think they even thought about God occasionally...
 
 Atheists are often people who take religion more seriously than all but
 the most devout believers. For the atheist, as for the devout believer,
 questions of ultimate meaning, life and death, happiness and evil, are
 all experienced "up-front and personal." 
 (Note: I'm referring to the North American ex-Christian atheist, here)

Hmmm. I think this is a hasty generalization. Some atheists don't
take religion seriously at all, believing the subject to be so
much fantasy, and only worthy of attention, when it (religion)
is used as a "weapon" against them.
  
 You are regarded as a deviant, and a threat, by the majority of your
 fellow-citizens. I suspect this is much more the case in the U.S. than in
 Canada, but even here, to declare yourself an atheist is the same as
 declaring yourself to be a Communist - people look at you funny, write
 you off as a loony, regard you as untrustworthy, and try to convert you
 back to "normalcy."

I submit that this is the exception, not the rule. Maybe I grew
up in a "sheltered atheist" home, but I *rarely* experienced
what you describe, and even then it was in elementary school.
  
Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
From: aph016@cch.coventry.ac.uk (ozzy)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: none
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:42:03 GMT

[ quotes from bible deleted ]

>
>     Shirley MacLaine believes she is God.  Being or becoming God
>     is not only a New Age religion belief, but also a Mormom
>     doctrine.  From the Bible, this belief is one of Satan's 
>     original lies.  The second lie to be exact.  (The first one was
>     "You will not surely die." in Genesis 3:4. Certainly not true.)
>     People are still falling for the I-can-be-God lie today.  A 
>     very flattering lie indeed.
>
>
>
>  

I think its a question of belief. The christian religion assumes the concept 
that everyone is imperfect, and therefore never be like God, as only He is 
perfect. Other religions, like new age doctrines, believe in the idea that we 
are all Gods in our own 'little universe' so to speak. 
  Do you have absolute proof that your right ? When you do I'd be very 
interested in what you have to say, although personally I think that there
is something very obnoxious about people that 'know' that they are right.

Stay a seeker, it avoids being proved wrong :)


ozzy


-- 
ozzy :)
aph016@uk.ac.cov.cch

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Christians at Work in Oregon
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 06:12:02 GMT

In article <Sep.5.19.31.10.1992.18905@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>>But where are the Christians speaking out against OCA?
>
>I can't answer this question specifically, since all I have heard of
>this issue is on the net.  However I can say that on issues involving
>New Jersey, presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and various
>other "liberal" churches routinely make public statements.  And the
>national offices have made statements and intervened in the past in
>favor of rights for homosexuals.  This has gotten our Stated Clerk in
>big trouble with some of our members.  You can criticize the liberal
>churches for many things, but it's hard to see criticizing them for
>not making clear their opposition to racism, homophobia, etc.  If
>anything, our leadership and that of other churches in the same
>position have made statements with such regularity that it's unclear
>how much attention is paid to them.

I suppose it could be the news media failing to report it. But I've
honestly never heard of things like this. The only stuff I hear is about
gay marriages which are often followed a month later by a
pronouncement from higher ups that gay marriages will not be tolerated.

I know there are some denominations where this doesn't seem to be a problem,
the UCC in Worcester allowed the gay pride parade comitee to meet there. But
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 7 Sep 92 03:59:25 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <ksand-060992132849@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> The problem with Christianity is that it will never accept this
> notion of alternate realizations. "I am the way"... Then again
> I guess it's hard for Christians to counter-argue why Hindus
> accept Christianity, while Christians don't tolerate Hinduism.
>
> It's maybe a question of open-mindness.

That which everyone calls Hinduism is not really a religion. IMO, every 
true religion demands blind or unconditional faith from its followers.
Hinduism does not. A Hindu is free to think and believe in whatever
he/she chooses to. A Hindu can even deny God's existence. In fact, 
some parts of Hindu philosophy are devoted to atheistic arguments.

But, let it be known that not everyone who calls him/herself a Hindu is
tolerant. On the other hand, I am sure that there are Christians who are 
very tolerant even though (IMO) Christianity, being a religion, isn't.

It appears to me that the question of open-mindedness has two aspects.
Whether the particular set of beliefs that a person subscribes to 
supports open-mindedness (as Hinduism does), and more importantly,
whether the person him/herself is open-minded (as some Christians are)..

> 
> 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.

RKP
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:54:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <Sep.10.01.15.31.1992.19629@athos.rutgers.edu>,
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) wrote:
> It's unfortunate that Christians insist on saying "Jesus is God".
> There's nothing wrong with that statement when made in the proper
> context.  But to people on the outside, it's very misleading.  It
> suggests that we are completely identifying two rather different
> things: a human being and God.  We do believe that God was present in
> and through Jesus, so that Jesus' acts are God's acts, and Jesus
> reveals God's nature to us.  But Christian theology keeps his humanity
> and God's identication with him carefully separate.  Confusing
> Christ's humanity and divinity is one of the classic heresies.

However, I still question if Jesus had a direct connection with
God, with the reference to his statement that even he didn't know 
the day of the final days. Thus God was present via Jesus (maybe),
but he didn't provide Jesus with all the needed information (lack
of trust?).

Cheers,
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.atheism
From: mcbryde@navier.math.uh.edu (Jack Mcbryde)
Subject: Messenger Archangel?
Organization: UH Dept of Math
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:11:12 GMT

In the christian religious literature was there an archangel type who served
as a messenger? Please  e-mail. I can't deal with the concept of wading
through 538 articles to catch up + whatever the daily volume has to be to
generate 538 articles sitting there. And it's not nearly important enough
to consider suffering that much. (I just need another nickname for
'the puppet-guy'.)

later,
jack
--
jack      mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu    * All I ask of Thee, Lord
* Christ died for our sins.  Dare we    * Is to be a drinker and fornicator
* make his martyrdom meaningless by     * An unbeliever and a sodomite
* not committing them? - Jules Feiffer  * And then to die. - Claude de Chauvigny
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: english@ssdslc38.asl.dl.nec.com (Kim English)
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Followup-To: english@asl.dl.nec.com
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:04:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.055948.2973@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>In article <67588@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>
>>I believe, eternal life, heaven, kingdom of heaven, kingdom of God, and 
>>being saved are used interchangably here and refer to the same thing.
>
>Let's start with 'eternal life'.  I have heard three interpretations
>of this term.  They are:
>
>  1) "eternal life == immortability" - this is the JW/SDA
>     interpretation.  It can be easily refuted but there is
>     no need to get into the details in this discussion, for
>     neither you nor I believe in this interpretation.
>
>  2) "eternal life == going to heaven immediately after you die ==
>     being saved" - frankly speaking, this is the Gnostic idea of
>     salvation (Rf. Prof. Kurt Rudolf's book "Gnosis", a must read
>     if you want to understand this ancient heresy that nearly
>     destroyed Christianity in the early centuries.)  The
>     Christian idea of salvation and hope, from Apostles' Creed
>     to "Fundamentals of the Christian Faith", has always been
>     bodily resurrection and the second coming.
>
>  3) "eternal life == God's own divine life, by which we were
>     regenerated, and with which we became the sons of God" -
>     This is the correct interpretation.  This Life is in the
>     Son (and this is one of the reasons that the divinity of
>     Christ is so important a matter.)  If and only if we have
>     the Son, we have this Life.  This Life is also the Light
>     we walk in.  With this Life and in this Light, we can have
>     fellowship with God and with other Christians.  As have
>     been commented by some Bible scholars, 'eternal' here denotes
>     not only the duration, but much more also the nature and the
>     quality of this Life.
>
>Regards,
>-- 
>-- Publius

   I may be opening a big can of worms with this question, but here goes:
   I, for one, don't understand where you get this interpretation, #3.
Where in the Bible (please cite book, chapter, and verse, if
its not too much trouble)? 
   Are you saying that there is "heaven" on earth right now for
Christians, those who are living this "Life"?

Thanks!
-- 
#***************************************************************************#
# KIM English @  NEC America Advanced Switching Lab, Irving, TX             #
# (214)518-3435  english@asl.dl.nec.com  || My opinions are mine...for now! #
#***************************************************************************#
From: mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An open question...
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:23:38 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


I think that this started out as sort of a scholarly question 
regarding what was termed "misquotes" of the O.T. on the part
of the gospel of Matthew.

So, I offer some (hopefully) scholarly thoughts.

1)  Out context and style of argument is different than the
    styles 2000 years ago.  Matthew was (it would seem), writing
    to a primarily Jewish audience.  One has to have a good
    grasp of O.T. writings (or Torah, Writings, and Prophets if
    you don't like the term O.T.) in order to gain a great
    appreciation for the message.  The way in which Matthew
    quotes the O.T. is very consistent with the style of the day
    and age.  Jewish people would expect no other style at that
    time.  To them it made perfect sense.  To us today, this 
    causes some problems, since this is not our method of
    argument or style.

2)  Regarding "prophecy" that is not contained in the O.T., but
    quoted in Matthew.  During what is called the "inter-testimental"
    period, there was a profusion of Jewish writings, many of which
    addressed so called apocalyptic and/or prophetic subjects.
    Matthew may be quoting from one of these sources which was well
    known to the audience to whom he was writing.  "Extra" Biblical
    quotes are not at all unknown.  Jude (if I remember correctly),
    quotes an apocryphal or pseudepigraphal writing.  The O.T.,
    especially the historical writings, often refers to other books
    as containing more information on a subject, books which we
    do not have today.

If you want to better understand the Jewish writing and arguing
style of that time, I suggest you examine the older sections of the
Talmud and Midrash.  The style of arguing is definately foreign
to today.

Good sources for Biblical exegesis (as well as an excellent source
for other sources) is:

    Gordon D. Fee, "New Testament Exegesis", 
        (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1983)
        ISBN 0-664-24469-6 (paperback)

    Douglas Stuart, "Old Testament Exegesis",
        (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1980)
        ISBN 0-664-24559-5 (paperback)

I believe that if you are going to present material either for or
against a position, you better understand the material, and know 
the sources.  This helps you from looking back down a 2000 year
old tunnel and seeing today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark McGregor -- mmcgreg@uswnvg.com

For God does speak -- now one way, now another --
   though man may not perceive it.

Job 33:14
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: SPIRTUAL HEALING
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:30:39 GMT

Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
: Daniel Campbell writes:
: 
: >Is there such a thing as Spirtual Healing? Wheres it come from? Where
: >can one harnas it?
: >                                       
: 
: There are just as many REAL cases of spiritual healing though.  They are
: well documented episodes usually occuring on foreign soil by a missionary
: team, or something along those lines.
: (sfg)

Could you provide references to this documentation?  Thankx.

: ---- As for where it comes from, It can only come from God.  More
: literally the Holy spirit, since he is the only one at work here on the
: earth currently.  The bible has many references to the fact that the Holy
: Spirit is the divine healer, etc..
: (sfg)

Are you sure the only explaination is that "[i]t can only come from God"?

-- 
Jeff Young                         |          God is coming
Opinions expressed are mine alone. |      and boy is She Pissed!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:33:53 GMT

In article <Sep.10.01.15.31.1992.19629@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>>> As a human, he is subject to the normal human limitations.
>>Right. Like being able to raise the dead, walk on water, calm storms, etc.
>>I understand now. It's all so clear...:)
>He had a special role, and thus a
>more direct access to God's power, but it is God's power, which is
>separate from Jesus' nature as a human being.  Christians do not
>regard Jesus as superman, i.e. someone who as a human being has extra
>powers.  Such views have been suggested, but are considered heretical.

Except that "one's nature", in the way you're using it here, seems to be an
incoherent concept.  If Jesus is capable of walking on water, and I cannot,
I have a limitation which he doesn't.  And walking on water is an "extra
power".  As far as I can tell the only difference between this extra ability
and a "real" extra ability is that you apply the phrase "separate from Jesus's
nature" to the former; otherwise the cases are indistinguishable.

>It's unfortunate that Christians insist on saying "Jesus is God".
>There's nothing wrong with that statement when made in the proper
>context.  But to people on the outside, it's very misleading.  It
>suggests that we are completely identifying two rather different
>things: a human being and God.  We do believe that God was present in
>and through Jesus, so that Jesus' acts are God's acts, and Jesus
>reveals God's nature to us.  But Christian theology keeps his humanity
>and God's identication with him carefully separate.  Confusing
>Christ's humanity and divinity is one of the classic heresies.

But again, I see no difference between the "heresy" and the "truth".  The
only difference seems to be that you speak the sentence "I'm not identifying
Jesus with God", but everything else is exactly as though you were doing just
that.
--
"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)
From: johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:58:09 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

In article <1992Sep14.185053.12354@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov  
(Chris A Lyman) writes:
> In the late 1800's, a Captain Dreyfuss was railroaded into prison by the  
French
> Army for espionage, although no credible evidence was presented at his  
trial.
> It actually seems that Dreyfuss' sole crime is that he happened to be  
Jewish. 
> The sordid details of his trial and conviction were eventually published  
in a
> Paris newspaper under the banner headline "J'ACCUSE!"  Because of the  
powerful
> repercussions the story made in French politics, the phrase "J'ACCUSE!"  
took on
> an almost incantatory meaning.  "J'ACCUSE!" has been used to headline  
stories
> of prejudice and injustice many times.

     As I recall, J'ACCUSE! was a long series of public accusations made  
by the French writer Emile Zola against the French army and French  
government wrt the Dreyfuss case. Zola deliberately made them publicly,  
even though he had no evidence whatsoever for any of them, because he  
wanted certain members of the army and government to sue him for libel.  
Zola hoped that the libel trial would bring to light the evidence he  
needed to support his accusations, thereby securing Dreyfuss' release from  
prison, as well as producing needed reforms. It's possible that Peter may  
be thinking of doing the same thing, i.e. publicly accuse Joan Campbell  
and the Protestant leadership of the NCC of complete apostasy from  
Christianity as well as hypocrisy, in the hope that one or more of them  
will sue him for libel. Any libel trial would inevitably bring out the  
true beliefs of the plaintiffs wrt Christianity (thereby providing the  
defendant with all the evidence he needs). Talk.religion.misc seems an odd  
public forum to make the accusations in, however.
 
> -- 
> Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include  
<std.disclaimers.h>
>        "I ain't man enuff to be a mudder!" -- Robin Williams as "Popeye"

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu
From: wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins)
Subject: I know!  I know!
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:50:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.222830.20839@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

>P.S.   What do Satan, Eve and Shirley MacLaine have in common?

All of them are mythical characters!!

Do I win a prize for providing the first correct answer???

darin
wilkins@scubed.scubed.com
-------
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.
But that's the way to bet.