HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:43:04 GMT

In article <m0n2DAV-0000anC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
>
>Hey dude.  What does Tony's employer have to do with your attempted character
>assasination of Tony?  In fact, it is purported that many of Amdahl's top
>execs are Mormons.  I can't validate this since I do not follow them to
>Church, but if it is true wouldn't you then be trashing your own kind by
>generically trashing Tony's employer?? What's the purpose in that?
>
	Gee, Amdahl is a wonderfull place, proably because there are
	so many mormons there. :-)   I just feel sorry for you all,
	if IBM is going to downsize and lay-off some many people,
	won't that effect you all?  

	Don't worry so much, so of my best friends use to work for
	Amdahl....
>>
>>   Some of the newsreaders group the response not on title, but on which
>>   article the author was responding to, when the response was writtten.
>>
>>   Just for demo purposes this was 1dgF02AN2fte01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com
>>
>>   See how easy that was!
>
>I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to prove by those comments, but one
>thing I am positive about is that Amdahl's Newsreader is NOT always updated to
>accurately reflect what has been posted to the NG arena.  The systems that
>maintain the Newsreaders are often taken off-line for routine maintenance and
>updating, and during that time period (which can be as long as 24 hours) no
>postings are updated.  Once they are back on-line then updating resumes, but
>may then only reflect what has been posted since it was returned on-line.
>Many things are missed in the interim.

  The point being that Tony has accused _many_, many people of changing
  the subject in the middle of a discussion.

  It would appear that he can't tell what message or messages that
  he is responding to. In other words, some of Tony's offensive actions
  are not entirly his fault, it is acentuated by the old, large
  antiqtated software and hardware that he has to deal with.

  I'm sure that if Amdahl would like to upgrade their hardware and software,
  my company would be _glad_ to sell them some better stuff.  :-)
>


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 14 Dec 1992 18:02:43 EST
From: World Leader <IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Satan Persecutes Mormons
 <92349.133725IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>

Well, you Mormons shouldn't complain about being persecuted---
you have GOOD LUCK, what else could you need?

-A
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Christian Ethics: Mixed Messages, was Perfectly Psychotic
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 18:46:45 GMT

On the subject of Luke 14:26 Kent Sandvik wrote:

>The isssue is though that if the word 'hate' is mentioned in the Bible,
>does that constitute in real life 'less love' instead of the word
>'hate'? That would imply a lot, especially concerning the correctness
>of the translations of the Bible. 

I find no reason to assume the word translated "hate" must have
identical meaning everywhere it appears in the manuscripts.  A
conclusion that Jesus used hyperbole in Luke 14:26 does not directly
imply anything about the translation of "hate" elsewhere.

Mr. Sandvik continues (expressing his agreement with whom?),

>I agree that the issue of 'less
>love' and 'more love' would beautifully help in the case of explaining 
>why God sometimes loves less his enemies during battles.

There is no need of help in explaining why God "loved less" his
enemies.  The Old Testament prophets clearly stated God's grievances.

We are asked to dabble in the hypothetical:

>what did Jesus think during this event?

>LUK 19:45  And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that
>sold therein, and them that bought;
>LUK 19:46  Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of
>prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.

It's probably safe to suggest Jesus thought, "These sellers don't
belong in the temple."


                                     Gregg Skinner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Cecilia Henningsson)
Subject: Re: What would you have said?
Organization: Lysator Academic Computer Society, Linkoping University, Sweden
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:05:39 GMT

(by this the parable is well known, I assume)
Kent Sandvik responded to it thusly:
>|> Hohoho, 1300 years later a women stood before the Inquisition,
>|> accused of witchcraft :-), or should it be :-( maybe.

pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White) writes:
>Well, was she a witch or was she a Christian? If a Christian, with the
>same answers, as doubtless happened in the inquisition, her answers
>deserve consideration.

Doubtless? Why certainly in the best of all worlds the inquisition
would consider every answer, aswell as *know* who was a witch and who
was a Christian, so they would only persecute the evil people.
Exercise for the reader: Look up 'naive' in the dictionary.

>All through the ages since Christ, the church has steadily grown.
>I am told that the ratio of Christians to non-Christians a few days
>after Pentecost was 1:360. Now it is approximately 1:6.2.
>In spite of all her failures, the Church has persevered and grown. The
>gates of hell have not and will not prevail against the Church.

Exercise for the reader: Do a library search with the keywords 'meme'
and 'meme theory' combined with 'rational'. What does the meme theory
have to say about the competetiveness of memes and their rationality?

>It is interesting that if you want the Church to grow most slowly, the
>best thing to do is leave it alone. If you persecute Christians, the 
>Church grows more rapidly. If you martyr Christians, it grows even
>faster. 

The same goes for Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and all other organized
religions. Does that mean that they are all right in the same degree?

>Whatever, you do, the Church grows bringing people into the
>freedom and love that are in Christ.

Freedom? Love? That's why they look so rigid and strict? That's why
they throw stones at other people and yell at them? 

Peter White's sig says:
>            His anger lasts only a moment, 
>			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Fine. How long does it take a god to kill an offender?

--Ceci
--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
Linkoeping, Sweden features a medieval dome, an open-air museum and a
museum of aerial warfare. Its university has 7000 undergraduate
students, studying mainly technical and medical subjects. The town
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: What is Christianity
Originator: mda46419@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:55:02 GMT

Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:

>"And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name
>of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us his
>commandment.

>Now what can this mean?  'believe on the name'?  This one's had
>me bedazzled for years.  Anybody help me out?  Don't go trying to
>sell me that old shoe wax of 'believing the right things'.

Well, perhaps a different translation might help....

In <1John.3.27>, someone claiming the authority of John writes:

|This is his command: to give our allegiance to his Son Jesus Christ
|and love one another as he commanded.

(New English Bible)

To the Fundyfolk, who tend to point to verses like these and say "See!
Here it says..." this can be taken as Biblical force to the idea of
"Accept Christ as your saviour or be damned to hell for all eternity."

I never have been fond of such hard-sell.

IMO, when you take this verse in the context of all of the tract
and my own beliefs, it just says that people ought to practice
love, charity, trustworthiness, courtesy (despite possible social
stigmas), free thought, etc. like Jesus did/is said to have.
Try to act like you believe God (a loving, caring Being from what
I've been able to discern from my chats with Hir) would act if
Sie were human.

Jesus Ben Joseph was, in a certain sense, preaching for a turn towards
a kindler, gentler humanity without overturning the apple cart too
much too quickly.  I believe he wanted people to go through life
with kindness in their hearts, a good sense of humour, and a 
willingness to go against social custom when social custom is
cruel or stupid.

IMO, people who do this are practicing one form of Christianity, even
if they do not profess to be Christians.

-- 
Michael D. Adams       (aka StarOwl)	| Of all sexual aberrations, chastity
StarOwl@uiuc.edu       (NeXT mail OK)	| is the strangest. -- Anatole France
anon.46@pax.tpa.com.au (anonymously)	|------------------------------------
an692@anon.penet.fi    (anonymously)	| NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv	     
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23580 alt.atheism:23352 alt.slack:3402
From: rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:36:41 GMT
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY

>What sort of geometry is necessary to construct this
>god-shaped hole, given that god cannot even produce
>a good approximation of pi?

God doesn't have to approximate pi; He knows it.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a prophet?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:35:46 GMT

In article <78397@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> In article <rana.724406667@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana) writes:
|> |rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> |>In article <rana.723431431@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana) writes:

|> Could it be equally said that Jesus never said he was not God and so
|> he is?  One can't argue very well from silence.
|> 
|> However, when Jesus said in response to the Jewish leaders questions
|> that "before Abraham was I AM", the Jews recognized that he was claiming
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this an exact quote, Richard? Wasn't "I AM" the name of God in the OT? Sounds like
Jusus was saying "before Abraham was God"...and again making no claim either way
about himself. The tense would seem to confirm this reading - if he were talking about
himself "before Abraham was, I was" would be more what would be expected.

|> to be older than Abraham.
|>  Also, Jesus also said that He was the 
|> Son of God and the Jews were going to stone him for blasphemy, for they
   ^^^^^^^^^^  
  a common phrase at the time that did *not* indicate diety.

|> recognized that he was claiming to be equal to God with his statment.
Any evidence for the statement in the line above?

|> Jesus said he was the King of the Jesus.  Jesus our our Savior and God
|> is our Savior.  God created the world and yet it says Jesus created it,
|> too, for without Jesus nothing was created and it was created for him.
|> 
|> Doesn't it seem odd to you that the attributes give to Jesus are SO
|> much like those associated with God? 

Yes, but much less odd than the idea of God killing himself as a sacrifice
to himself to atone for sins that he himself guaranteed would occur. 
A Christian, who by definition believes in some extremely odd and improbable things, 
can not reasonably argue based on oddity or probability.

|> 
|> If we are to worship God alone, why do you think Jesus was worshipped 
|> without rebuke?
Maybe it served his purposes...then again he did rebuke them once for
worshipping him, claiming that only "God is good"
|> 
|> For Christ and His Kingdom,
|> Richard Pitts
|> 
|> -- 
|> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
|>                           --|--   
|> Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
|> Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Who is an ex-Christian?  (was: What is Christianity?)
Date: 11 Dec 1992 12:43:19 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu

-*----
In article <1992Dec11.134712.20330@cs.cornell.edu> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
> What does it mean to be a Christian?

There is variation in definition across the different Christian
groups.  One definition that seems to cut a broad swathe down
the center might read as follows.

    A Christian is one who believes in and accepts Jesus 
    as their savior.

Two points need to be made about this definition.  First, the
concerned belief sits in a prerequisite context of other beliefs
such as the existence of the Christian god, an ontology that
makes salvation an issue, and the rightness of "a perfect
sacrifice" as part of a salvation scheme.  Second, it is a common
part of Christian theology that one who so accepts Jesus begins a
relationship with Jesus, though again there is considerable
variation in what this means and how it presents itself. 

> For you who denounce Christ, ...

Only someone who obstinately refuses to listen thinks that
non-believers "denounce Christ."  The vast majority of
non-believers are simply unable to swallow the prerequisite
beliefs.  (Consider, for example, the difference between someone
who "denounces" Santa Claus and someone who cannot swallow the 
notion that Santa Claus really exists.)

This applies also to those of us who were once Christian.  Most
of us simply reached the point where our study of the scripture
and other texts, our communion with our fellow Christians, and
our religious experiences (the soi disant relationship with
Jesus) were simply insufficient to maintain our former beliefs.  

That many, many Christians find all of these things dubious at
times and often wander on the edge of non-belief is demonstrable
from the vast amount of Christian writings (in the bookstores, on
the net, and elsewhere) that are meant to act as safety lines
pulling people back from the edge of belief.  There is a whole
set of mythology built up for this purpose, including the myth
that non-Christians and ex-Christians attitudinally "reject
Christ," rather than experience incredulity at the notions
involved.  Where does that leave the Christian who is on the
verge of non-belief, who realizes that these writings and these
myths are rationalizations so specious that in most cases they
are laughable?  It is such a Christian who loses belief, often
unwillingly, with sadness and despair, but nonetheless unable to
continue the required intellectual pretense.  Comparisons to a
bad marriage or relationship are appropriate.  And as with a bad
relationship, the period of trauma is followed by a permanent
sense of joy and freedom at having left behind the chains of
religious belief. 

Russell
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:37:05 GMT

Willard writes:
> barry writes:
>|Willard missed what I said entirely. The LDS boast of living
>|prophets is full of holes, and Bringham is a good example.
>|The LDS hide behind the non-infallible veil, that no one is
>|perfect.

>barry, I know that you love the last word, so I will make my comment and
>let you slash away.

Willard, I was wondering when I would see that comment again. :)

BTW, can you post the latest quarterly line count tally?  Many of us
are waiting for the results -- being the real test of truth that it is.
I noticed Glenn tried to goose his numbers by duplicating the ULM
posting.  I guess you were right Willard, you just cant trust those
ex-Mormons. :)

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:15:52 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <41Rk02dr2eI001@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>Well, they are, I guess that is there problem.  I reckon the
>missionaries that are returning as homosexuals are violating other
>guidlines set forth as well!
>
>And don't tell me that they church doesn't have a problem with
>missionaries returning homosexual, because I know them!  And not that
>way for you sarcasitic dudes....   :-)
>

This seems to be a recurring theme with you.  We always get back
to "sexual groping" in the temple and "missionaries returning
homosexual".  Just what is the attraction that these images have
for you?  You seem to really be obsessed with this stuff.  Just how
is it that you "know" so many of these homosexual missionaries, hmmmmm?

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
Subject: Satan Persecutes Mormons
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:54:00 GMT

The widespread persecution of Mormons is evidence that Jesus Christ did indeed
organize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and leads it today.

Those who persecute Mormons do so because they are deceived by Satan.

There are many humble followers of Christ outside the Mormon church.  They do
not rail against the Mormon church.  Those who do are not humble followers of
Christ.

It's not real complicated.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: MILITARY PURPOSE OF JONESTOWN MASSACRE
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 21:29:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.184526.7392@pages.com>, bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.210852.2847@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu  
>writes:
>>
>> [long, imaginative post deleted]
>>
>
>Uh, shouldn't this be in rec.arts.sf.written?  On the other hand, the author  
>might be a good contributing editor to the Tanners' newsletter. ;-)  ..bruce..

Actually, the author should add a few characters and the required blonde femme
fatale and we could have the basis for the screenplay for the next 007
movie.  This blonde's brother gets killed at the "Battle of the Harvest Moon"
by some super enemy agent and sets off for Jonestown for revenge.  At this 
point, she meets James Bond and the fun starts.

Brocolli et al are behind schedule.  They should hear about this and get
started on #19.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:17:15 GMT

Take prospective translation and turn to Isaiah 7:14. If you find the word
"virgin" therein, consign the translation to the flames. It is NOT a
correct translation from the Hebrew.  The word in question is ALMAH which
in Hebrew means a young woman of marriageable age, not virgin, although a
virgin of marriagable age could be so designated. The Hebrew word for
virgin is B'TULAH which is not in that verse from Isiah.

The word is mistranslated, because in the Septuigent, the Greek
translation of Tanach (what you Xtians call the Old Teastement), the greek
word for virgin was used as a translation for both ALMAH and B'TULAH.

The tranlation was latched onto by Xtian theologians to invest the
Meshiach (Messiah) with a supernatural origin.  In Jewish thinking, the
Meshiach is a normal human being, a descendant of the line of David, with
a special role.  BTW according to Halacha the descent is figured from the
mother's side. Miriam (Mary) was not from the tribe of Y'Hudah (Judah).
Even if the patriarchal descent is used, since Y'Hoshuah (Jesus) was not
patrilineally descendend from Yoseph (Joseph) who was from the tribe of
Y'Hudah, then Jesus could not be the Meshiach.  Either way, no meshiach.

Try again Xtian friends.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:31:32 GMT
Summary: A likely explaination

Concerning the beliefs, doctrines, and views of the Latter-day Saints
agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>I do discuss what members believe.  The problem is that they change it on
>me!

It is more likely, Mr Rose, that you haven't understood Mormon beliefs
in the first place.

Historically we don't get to see the full position of many early Christian
sects that were condemned by the orthodox Christians except through the
eyes of the orthodox Chrisitans who condemned them. In practically all
cases, the documents of these smaller sects were destroyed, and the only
descriptions of their beliefs was filtered to us by their enemies.

This little exercise, carried out by Mr Rose, shows me exactly how a
person who is fanatically anti-something or other will distort their
opponent's beliefs in order to attack them (the typical strawman). If Mr
Rose wants to convert us, then perhaps he should listen to us first,
understand accurately our point of view, and then with an accurate
understanding attempt his conversion.

At the moment all we have gotten is what Mr Rose "thinks" we believe
(prejudice and all). When we point out his inaccuracies or object to his
interpretations apparently our "testimonies are suppose to be
unraveling." Well, perhaps in Mr Rose's mind things are unraveled :-).
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24024 alt.atheism:23872 alt.slack:3515
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:26:18 GMT

ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus) writes:

: yourselves by refusing to identify that people 'out there' have a notion of
: what that word means.  I dunno, I think of pagan and picture hairy men breaking
: open bones and drinking the marrow.  I know that isn't the whole story (or 
: perhaps any of it), but come on...

No, many people think they have an idea what the word means. Your example
above shows that many people actually have little, or no clue.

: 
: >and as for mocking christianity, how so?  christians don't have sole
: >claim to the use of words.
: No.  But they invented a few.  A fe that sound silly and pompous when they use
: them.  Pagan is such a word.  Almost comical in connotation.  I don't mean to
: insult you....I don't know what I mean to do.  Yeargh.

So, why do you insist on applying labels to everything? Why do you feel that
people must fit your definition of what that label means? The term "Pagan",
was not invented by Christians. It was in use, long before Christianity
existed.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc