HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: horst@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (Horst Hogenkamp)
Subject: Re: MARK-OF-THE-BEA$T bar-code$/scanner$
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:37:50 GMT
Organization: Universitaet Bielefeld, Technische Fakultaet.

In article <1992Nov4.190412.2126@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>ALL Christians are PROHIBITED by Revelation 14:9-11 from [...]
>[...deleted...]
>The UPC bar-codes are probably the most blatant form of 
>the "MARK OF THE BEA$T" so far, with the "NUMBER OF THE 
>BEA$T", 666, ALREADY CODED INTO THEM.

Rev.13:16-18 is the better reference, because is says
that people shall "receive a mark in their right hand,
or in their foreheads" (V.16) and *not* as you write:

>(as found in local libraries, supermarkets, retail establishments, etc.)


Horst
.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 8 Nov 1992 23:17:58 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:

>> >1) What is the soul?
>> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
>> 
>> 1) There is no such thing as a soul (why do you think there is?).  But if
>> you are asking what makes us who we are as individuals, then the answer is
>> the combination of the matter of which we are made and the form/order/
>> arrangement of this matter. Don't confuse the form with your concept of
>> the soul -- form is a property of matter and does not exist independently
>> of matter.

>Question 1 grade: 0%
>> 
>> 2) Purpose implies design, which is not evident.  So then we are left to 
>> our own devices to give meaning and purpose to our lives.
>> 

>Question 2 grade: 0%

>Overall grade: 0%  (pupil in wrong class)

You have asked a legitimate question, and now you chastise people for
answering.  If you don't want to know the answer, then don't ask the
question.

That is, if you know the answer, then why ask?  You are assuming that your
view is the only corect one (as everyone feels about his own views I 
suppose), so why don't you tell US the answer instead of playing these
little games.

Earlier you had posted a message saying how upset you were that no one
was taking you seriously.  Judging from your response to this answer, I
think I know why.  In fact, it seems to me that you are operating
on a false premise all around.  People don't post here just for your
amusment.  If you are just mocking us, then feel free to go elsewhere.

keith
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:22:39 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <BxKoJq.Mqp@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>	The Lord of the Hebrews is remote and brooding. No one ever sees Him

But the Lord of the Hebrews also dwelt among His people Israel as
the Shekinah in the Temple.  Yes, He is above all and over all, yet
He had His dwelling presence in Zion, and He called Jerusalem His home.

> ...  Paul's claim that the
>	Lord of the Hebrews somehow plants his seed in Mary and she conceives
>	of Jesus, the son of God is very reminiscent of the creation of
>	demi-gods in pagan religions.

Sorry, Apostle Paul never said that.  Nowhere in the New Testament
does it say that God planted His seed in Mary.  What the angel told
Mary was "The the Holy Spirit shall overshadow you, and you shall
conceive ..."  It was a miracle, brought out by the power of the
Holy Spirit.  The fact that the word 'Spirit' is a feminine word should
dispell any notion that God planted His seed in Mary in that verse.

> ... Presumably, Jesus being of God and Mary
>	is part human, part God, hence demi-God.

No!  Jesus is FULLY God, yet at the same time also TRULY human.
What you said above indicates that your notion of 'Son of God' is
really a Hellenistic one, which is not the New Testament's notion
of 'Son of God'.

In the days of old, Israel was, in a typological sense, the son of
God, for God dwelt among Israel to be the light to the nations.
But the true fulfillment of this typology came only with Jesus the
Messiah, in whom was summed up all the Torah and the Prophets,
for in reality and in fulfillment the FULLNESS of the Deity dwells
in the Person of Jesus the Messiah, and as such, Jesus is, in the
real sense, the Son of God; just as Israel was, in a typological
sense, the son of God in the days of old.  It is with this Hebrew
framework, that the Messiah would the true fulfillment of Israel's
history and destiny in God's plan, that the prophecies once applied
to Israel can be rightly applied to the Messiah, as in the Gospel of
Matthew.  (Reference: Alfred Edersheim's classic "The Life and Times
of Jesus the Messiah", MacDonald Publishing Company,
ISBN 0-917006-12-7)

PS: I plan to a take a break from my Usenet activities for a few
    weeks.  I deserve a nice and tranquil vacation!
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: drew@cs.anu.edu.au (Drew Corrigan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Worldwide Church of God mailing list.
Date: 11 Nov 1992 16:26:00 +1100
Organization: Computer Science Department, ANU, Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.anu.edu.au

Hi,

I am a member of the Worldwide Church of God in Canberra, Australia. Some
fellow WCoG members and I have put together a mailing list for members of
the church. If you are a WCoG member and would like to join our mailing
list, just drop me a line.

Drew Corrigan  (drew@cs.anu.edu.au)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: _The Gainsayers_ by Darrick Evenson
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:50:03 GMT

wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:


Willard once again interprets.  He quotes, yet he does not understand
what he quotes.


>To infer Darrick Evenson from "proved items" is using one's imagination.
>On Sept 17th, shortly after my reference to Darrack Evenson, Mr Hamblin
>sent the following to me via email. Under normal circumstances it isn't
>kosher to post email messages, but since Mr Clapp insists on accusing Mr
>Hamblin for something he hasn't done or believed in, I think that I can
>be allowed this little passage:

The inference is obvious that Hamblin was refering to your post 
citing _The Gainsayers_ (unless he was refering to something else).
Your _Gainsayers_ post was the only post that he could be refering to.
Where was your retraction?  Where was his discussion about Evenson's
duplicity?  Anyone see it?

>    Evenson himself has been unmasked as a fraud along much the lines he
>    claims about anti-Mormons.  I don't doubt that his information is
>    basically correct, since it is corroborated in other sources, 

Why didn't Hamblin or others post this?  If Hamblin wasn't refering
to this when he posted his top-10 list, then what?

[ "Evidence from the Brown's deleted.  I guess this means I have
to post another long Tanner article that sheds some light in the
Brown's deceptive pit. ]

>If you need an example of other sources that support the notion that some
>Anti-Mormons will join the LDS Church and exerggerate their standing in the
>church to build up one's authoritative status then let me refer you to
>Robert and Rosemary Brown's _They Lie In Wait to Deceive_, vol 2. Among
>other things, it addresses the case of one Wayne L. Cowdrey.

I'm sure we all know about Cowdrey.  Is that "it?"  How can that 
case be the norm, or even establish a trend?


>Just for good faith Glenn, since you insisted on accusing Mr Hamblin
>unjustly, how about a nice retraction on your part. Then we can all be one
>big happy family again :-).

I haven't seen ANY evidence that Hamblin was not refering to _The Gainsayers_
and your arguments that you based on them.  What EXACTLY was he refering
to, if not that?  Why didn't he make it known publically about his 
opinion on Evenson?  The Gainsayers?  If he was refering to something else,
I'll happily retract that I thought he was refering to The Gainsayers,
and I'll respond to what he really was refering to.
-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:18:51 GMT
Organization: funky drummer

In article <HqJoTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>1) What is the soul?

James Brown

>2) What is the purpose of human life?

Dharma. (Do the right "Spike Lee" thing)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:44:43 GMT

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

>Question 1 grade: 0% (joking to cover up ignorance)
>Question 2 grade: 0% (Human life not the purpose of human life)

Student slaps teacher. Jests in spurn of question begging.

>Overall grade: 0%

Zero, the one true number! In division, it gives birth to the ten
thousand things, yet adds nothing. In multiplication, it destroys
them all, yet diminishes them not. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:34:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.185417.17061@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:

>>  Gee, after your little foray into talk.origins, did you convince
>>  anybody that you even knew what the questions were. You -did- proclaim
>>  your self, an expert on micro-biology.  Is it your premise, that you
>>  know as much about the religion and practise of the Wittness's of 
>>  Jehovah as you do about any part of Biology?
>
>	I didn't proclaim to be an expert in microbiology, just said that I'm a
>	biologist. And tell me, Kermit, WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT I AM ? Tell 
>	it to me ! Are you a biologist ? If not, then shut up and listen. Are 
>	you a JW ? I think not. Then who are you to tell me who Witnesses are ?
>	Get real, man, if you want to maintain your credibility. 

 No you claimed that _your_ experitise was a field of biology. You decided
 to argue evolution and creation myths here. Your were invited to present
 your theory in talk.origins. You did so. You were asked to respond to
 questions about your "experitise".  They BLEW you away.  It was
 shown how much you really do know about _any_ area of biology. It appears
 that you know even less than you know about either christianity or JW'
 thinking.

   ---

 Now, tony rose, has turned his misguide thoughts in your direction.
 Congrates, Antti, you now have an opponent, worthy of your talents.

 Yes, you two _deserve_ each other. Your argument style seem to mesh
 in close order.  Why you two seem tobe pretty much the same _type_
 of person. I mistakenly thought at one time, that he had a lot in
 common with the JW's, as he argues with the same style of misinformaiton
 that you do. I see now how I could have made such a terrible :-) mistake

 Think of this both of you will get you just punishment. You can be his
 punishment, he can be yours!

-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:00:10 GMT

In article <BxJ6x9.L9@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:

>I have a hunch you've been misinformed.  The earliest known fragment
>of the New Testament is the Rylands Fragment, which is a piece of the
>Gospel of John.  It's been dated at about 125 A.D., but the date could
>be off by a couple of decades either way.

There are some fragments that were found in Qumran which some have argued
are fragments of one of the gospels.  The letters line up with letters in
the NT, but there is not enough evidence for many scholars to accept 
it yet (though many scholars accept other types of theories more readily.)

Link Hudson.



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:13:32 GMT

In article <g28uTB7w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> >1) What is the soul?
>Question 1 grade: 50%
>> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
>Question 2 grade: 95% (best yet)

So where do you get the answers from?
--
"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
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:37:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



/9) The Bible's Undeniable Influence for Good - When taken in its purity
/    (I do not consider the adulterated version pushed by denominations
/    to be pure), it has done nothing but good.  It makes those who
/    would obey it the model parents, friends, neighbors, and citizens, if 
/    obeyed.


You are a deliberate liar.  More evil has been done in the name of the
bible than any other force.  It has been used to justify the wholesale
extermination of villages, towns, and countries.  It is used to justify
racism, slavery, and violence against people.  Check out the verses 
in Leviticus that proscribe death for witches & rebellious sons.  
Fortunately, we live in a democracy and not a theocracy.

"Undeniable influence"?  I know many who would deny it wholeheartedly.



/  These are the main reasons.  Next letter I'll examine creationism vs.
/evolutionism - 

I would rather you answer the holes in these arguments first.  There is
no point in going on to another letter if you cannot or will not defend
what has *already* been written here.




/why if the supernaturalistic viewpoint is refused that
/evolution is the only half-way logical alternative, the closed-mindedness
/of those who insist upon naturalism, and the holes in the evolutionary
/theory.

Great.  I look forward to seeing you point out the "holes" in the
evolutionary theory.  In fact, why don't you start with the FAQ from
talk.origins?  Go read it, and then shoot holes in all those arguments.
Post the entire thing here so that we can all see it.

Somehow I suspect, though, that you will not answer any of the questions 
raised in it.  The bible-believers always ignore the questions, hoping 
they will go away.  I also hope that you learn some chemistry, astronomy, 
biology, and archaelogy before you try to point out the "holes" in 
evolution.  So far, your understanding of science and history has been 
pretty bad.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:20:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov11.210910.18822@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
lungtt@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) wrote:
> I don't know.  But I'm beginning to think there may be some useful
> consequences of any kind of doctrine from the first day in school.
> Do those other countries have as much rape, murder, drug gangs and extortion 
> going on in their public *grammar* schools as we do here in the USA?
> Is this a consequence of the *absence* of this kind of education from
> the first day in school?  This kind of education seems to do little
> if nothing for people *investing* their souls in one doctrine or another.
> I wonder if there is a study on this.

There are other countries that lacked religious doctrines in school,
and these countries didn't have high numbers of rape, murder, drug
gangs and extortion before they suddenly became free societies...

I don't think you could just map religious teaching to some kind
of a magic wand that solves social problems.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:04:32 GMT

In article <o3ZwTB4w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> Question 1 grade: 50% (knows what it is but doesn't want to admit
> it)

	I would have given him 100% for that answer.  Seems spot on to
me.  Your grade, on the other hand, I only give 40%.  I think he does
know what it is, AND I think he was honest about expressing his
belief.  I don't see any foundation for your claim that "he doesn't
want to admit it."

> Question 2 grade: 0% (doesn't know what it is and doesn't want to
> admit it)

	I would given him 90%.  Seems to me it really is up to each of
us to define the purpose of h[is|er] own life.  Again, you have the
unsupported assertion that "he doesn't want to admit it."

> Overall grade: 25%
> Try again!

	I score him 95%.  He aced it. :-)

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
    WARNING: The Surgeon General is both a surgeon AND a general.  So watch it.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:21:00 GMT

In article <92312.110835ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
>#In article <1992Nov2.191505.8118@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.
>#es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>#>
>#>Don't forget the interpretation supported by the nature of God
>#>as revealed in that book, the Bible:
>#>
>#>God is omnicient.  He knows everything.  He knows the future.
>#>He knows what I will do in a few seconds, next week, and in 20
>#>years.  Therefore, he knows me.  He knows me now, he knows me
>#>in the future, and he knows me in the past.  I don't even need
>#>to exist in order for God to know me.  Therefore, he knew me
>#>before I was born, before he created me.
>
>You can't be serious to believe/accept/construe this to be true!
>If God was omnicient, there would be no free will or agency.

[false examples and arguments deleted]

You have made the classical mistake with omnicience-- believing that
knowledge = interference, or that it is active or has action associated
with it.  I have mentioned in a previous post about this, that knowledge
is passive.  You know that the lights will come on or go off when 
you flip the switch, but it doesn't happen unless you actually do it.
Because God knows what you have done, are doing, and will do, doesn't
mean that you then didn't, aren't, or won't do the thing or make
the choice.  If you still do not understand omnicience, let me know
and I'll try to explain in better terms.   Omnicience has NOTHING
to do with free will or free agency.



-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20775 sci.skeptic:19276
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:20:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: gap.1dnkb5INNo0c
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov10.013603.25399@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1djltmINNfke@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.202912.17497@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>What I was trying to say is the behaviour of some of the follower's
>>>of a religion should not detract from the merits of the religion
>>>itself.
>>
>>And what we'veb been trying to say is that the term "Christianity" has,
>>historically, been applied to the various churches.  If you're talking about
>>something other than that, come up with a new word.
>
>My statement was general in nature and wasn't meant specifically
>for Christianity.  What are you trying to say?  What does the fact
>that there are different denominations to Christianity have to do
>with the above statement?

John, you can't judge something on its merits without looking at its effects. 
If you think you can, then please present a description of how you can do that.
If you can't then please take this thread to someplace more appropriate, like
one of the religion or philosophy groups; they don't generally insist that the
things they talk about there have concrete referents.  If you should happen to
agree that you must include the effects of something when judging it, then you
can't arbitrarily dismiss the actions of some of the followers of a religion
with the standard "They aren't *REAL* Christians" bullshit, unless you can also
specify an operational definition of Christianity that doesn't depend on your
subjective evaluations.
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
>HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
>7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
>McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: jlong@calvin.rl.af.mil (Jeff Long)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Examiners Refuted
Date: 4 Nov 92 14:04:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Rome Laboratory, Network Design Facility

In article <Bx0t2K.9Gv@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
(Robert Weiss) wrote:

> Jeff,
> 	No, I am asking `when was the last time that Ezra Taft Benson 
> spoke a word from God.' I am told that the CoJCoLdS is founded on 
> continuing revelation. Benson still has the power of speech. Why is 
> there no revelation from God to him?

I'm sorry, but I don't get a feeling from reading the OT, that God gave a
"daily revelation" to his prophets!  He reveals his will when he feels it
is needed, not to just "let people know the pipeline is still working". 
I'm sorry if the term "Continuing Revelation" has a different meaning to
you than to me, but I don't feel the need for daily, weekly, monthly,
yearly, every decade.... regularly scheduled revelation from God.  I can
only assume that when we need to be instructed, he will do so through his
Prophet.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capt Jeff Long
Network Design Facilty,  Rome Laboratory, Griffiss AFB, NY
jlong@calvin.rl.af.mil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------