HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bast@wam.umd.edu (Jaguar)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:51:25 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park


Why on earth should I pick a less contrivesral term to describe myself?
Why should I pick a tr  term that is less offensive to christian 
sensibilities?  I describe myself as a follower of a pagan religion, 
and if pressed as to exactly what, a celtic shaman.
I say pagan, because it does not have the same images as withch does.
Yes, there are negative associations with it, primarly because of
the christian attitude to non-christians.
That is percisely why I use it.
It is to point out:
I do not believe what you believe.
You thought you got rid of or converted us all, but you were wrong
See, where you thought we were slime, we are not, we are just normal citizens
like you are.
There is this undertone, left over from that movement in the past to converts
all the native americans that to be civilized is to be christian. To be american
is to be christian, and that to have religous liberty here, you have to be
somewhere in the jo  judeo-christian religous spectrum.
The religious freedom of the native americans have suffered greatly from this
attitude. It is only today, when there is such pluralisim in religion that
people are recognizing a right by them to practice thier religion.
The use of pagan by my part also points out that some americans of
european desent are also non-christians.
If they have a problem with it, I probably do not want to associate with
them anyway.
And the gathering of kindiling can be dealt with legaly.
Jaguar
(has to figure out how to type over in this editor one day...)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23599 alt.atheism:23360 alt.slack:3412
From: rhogan@aludra.usc.edu (Ronald Hogan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 11 Dec 1992 11:52:21 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

Paul Harvey said:
repeating from Jen Kilmer:

>>There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
>>is empty.

>That's another one of those Christian pickup lines, isn't it? I never
>realized what players you Christians are. Yo! I got your Jesus, right
>here! Now, let's disco! Yo! Check out the way I can point my finger up
>and them point my finger down, way too cool, huh?

Which is a little classier than my initial reaction:

I had no idea God was shaped like a burrito.

Ron
(except that doesn't work for *every* person, does it?)
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 14 Dec 1992 16:06:13 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual




Anthony G Rose wrote:

>You mean that we had gotten to the brick wall where you had to face the
>issue at hand, so you decided to hide behind the veil of deception
>instead of looking at the Truth?

>If you meant that this is only a game to me, you are dead wrong!
>Spiritually dead wrong!  My love for your soul makes me dialog with you.
>We are instructed in Scripture to watch for false prophets, to test all
>things, to study, and to contend for the faith.

If they would hand out rewards based on ego you would get the top prize.
You would go into heaven ahead everyone else. 

I always find it interesting when an abusive father claims that he really
loves his children. Sorry, your message is not love to me.

>>You agreed that the Trinity can't be proven with scripture, why are you still
>>trying to prove it?

>I NEVER said that!  I said that with our finite minds it is hard to
>concept an infinite being.  I said that I would send you an outline
>demonstrating over 700 verse supporting the Trinity, but you declined the
>FREE offer, because you don't want to open your mind to the other side.You agreed that >the Trinity can't be proven with scripture, why are you still
>trying to prove it?

Let me refresh your mind. This is me:

>>I don't believe that the Bible can be used definately to prove either your's
>>or my belief. You interpret passages one way and I interpret it another way.

This was your response:

>....your are right, but we have to be aware that the writer only meant one
>of the meanings.

If you enjoy a monolog, please continue to send messages to me.

With brotherly love,

		Frank

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Defining the kingdom of God
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:58:13 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec16.181416.6878@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> I fear that Mr. Sandvik may be interpreting my argument against his
> claim "there's nothing logical about Christianity" as an argument for
> the truth of Christianity.

I'm trying to revise the picture from another angle, just to 
show the core issue.

> Earlier I wrote how silly I feel Mr. Sandvik's charge, "the only
> evidence for Jesus comes from believers," sounds in a different
> context.  At that time he interpreted my argument to be an attempt to
> assert the truth of Christianity.  For reasons I do not understand, my
> repeated clarifications fell on deaf ears.

Christians have over time digged into historical papers to justify
the existance of the miracle maker, and the outcome is meager, if
not missing. There are valid cases to admit that one of the Messiah
figures was named Joshua, and he started a sect called Christianity,
but that's really all.

Also, if Christianic issues would be logically useful, I'm sure
Popper, Heidegger, Nietzche, Russell, Whitehead, et rest would
have used them in their philosophical papers. 

So I would like to know if you have evidence from non-Christians
that support Christianity using logic. This would solve the problem
immediately, and I would silence my opinion.
 
> I now assert that Christianity is not absent of logic, contrary to Mr.
> Sandvik's unsupported assessment.  I am not suggesting that the
> presence of logic in Christianity in any way demonstrates its truth.

If you could happily apply logical tools with Christianity, then
I'm sure you have the formulas to explain why one is tree, and is
one, and why Jesus died for our sins, but he's still alive. 

As for truth, logic deals with the truth, it's the tool of the
truth, and if presence of logic does not demonstrate its truth,
something must be wrong with the logical conclusions.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:44:42 GMT

press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>Apparantly J wasn't trying to be human, he was human in every
>sense of the word(and I'll qualify this time)except original
>sin. It would be logically impossible for him to have original sin.
>He most certainly could experience humanity without original sin. 
>Original sin just says humans are born with a propensity to disobey
>God and what god wants of his people. If J was born with this
>propensity, he could not qualify to buy back his people through
>the eternal sinless(spotless)sacrifice.
Peopensity, eh?  Why did He give us such a propensity?  Sounds like a
nasty set-up to me.

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: astounding vanity
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:00:56 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <oRciVB6w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
> > > It is, rather, the unbelievers who are trying to hide from God. God is
> > > so accomodating that He allows them to remain ignorant of Him. God deals
> > > with each person according to that person's desires. Would you have it
> > > any other way?
> 
> > That would explain why God nurtures agnostics and atheists trying
> > to get rid of him. Or supports Satan worshippers.
> 
> Yes, but would you have it any other way?

What other way? Like God making sure that nobody questions that he
exists, maybe? Are you implying that God is the ultimate joker, leading
people deliberately astray concerning his/her existance? Hehehe...

"Well, I exist, but I will make sure that people believe I won't exist".

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: johnsd2@jec325.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: What is Christianity
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec325.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:44:54 GMT

In article 20330@cs.cornell.edu, rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>For you who denounce Christ,  
>
>What does it mean to be a Christian?
>

Perhaps it would help if you could tell us all who it is you
think is "denouncing" Christ? I have never seen anyone do this
on this group myself.

Perhaps article quotations would help, so we (or at least I :) ) can
see how and why these folx denounce Christ.

Thanx.
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:11:14 GMT

In article <78447@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1gnifaINNsko@cascade.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>Jen Kilmer writes:
>>>Christianity is true.
>>
>>  And so are many other spiritual traditions.	
>
>How do you reconcile Jesus' statement of Himself being the only way to
>the Father?

Jesus was mistaken, or misquoted.

>Jesus said the whole of Scripture points to Himself, yet
>people refuse to come to Him.

Jesus was mistaken, or misquoted.

>It is written about Jesus that there is no other name given whereby men 
>must be saved.  How do you reconcile this with these many other spiritual 
>traditions?

Jesus was mistaken, or misquoted.



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Truth:  You ignore it, it ignores you.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:27:16 GMT

In article <12071@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.235301.5271@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>>		TOP 5 REASONS WHY GOD IS BETTER THAN BEER
>>
>>3. You can get Bibles for free in motel rooms.
>
>But you can't get a god.  :-)

Or a goddess...   :-(   :-)

>My wedding will be without God -- but it won't be without beer.

You might argue: God didn't invite me to his wedding - why would I invite him
to mine?

	Sven

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:24:25 GMT

martini@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (ok) writes:

>pagan comes from a latin or greek term paganus, or something quite like
>that, which meant of the field, or farmers, people of the sod, etc.  christ-
>ianity took this term, or perhaps semitic peoples did, to describe people who
>worshiped their own local gods, especially with rites in the fields to ensure
>good crops, etc.  Pagan may be a term that people apply to themselves in 
>order to identify with the majority of the human race, across huge bands of
>time, rather than in response to a religion that appears to me to ever more
>divest itself of it's roots.  Christianity has quite definately left its
>past behind, becoming a religion of social power (see Popes & influence in
>middle ages, Christ never seemed to imply that *he* wished to be Ceasar and
>have renderings unto himself.; see also falwell, etc in modern america)
Well....Christians didn't invent it.  My mistake.  Guess I've been programmed
by the all powerful 'society' eh?

>most of the "pagans" on this sub seem to be people who like/respect the land
>of the planet, and seek to understand ancient religions as a source of human
>identity--how have humans done this?  how am I human?  how can I pass my
>human values into the future, especially in regards to everything worthy on
>this planet/universe in ways that fit their conscience.  as far as being
>tied to the land, that seems to fit the old pagan idea of the romans.
I find that respectable.

>sheilagh
Matt I.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Peter/Rock
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:48:51 GMT

In article <1cY.02kv2ft701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE) writes:
>              "And I shall say unto thee, Thou are Peter and
>               upon this rock I will build my church; and
>               the gates of hell shall not prevail against
>               it."  (Matthew 16:18)
>
>"Peter" here comes from the Greek word "Petros" but "rock" comes from the
>Greek word "petra", 1 Corinthians 10:4 says that the "petra" was Christ.

   Actually, the Greek words "Petros" and "petra" are forms of the
same word.  In English we lose this literary effect because the name
"Peter" and the word "rock" are not related.  This is because, as is
often the case in English, we have synonymous words derived from more
than one language.  For example, the name "Peter" comes from the Greek
word for rock, whereas the word "rock" comes from Middle English, from
Old North French, from Vulgar Latin.

   The word used by Jesus was actually the Aramaic "kepa" in both
places ("thou art Kepa and on this kepa I will build my church.")
Also, in modern French the word is "pierre" in both places, as
"Pierre" is a man's name, and "pierre" means "rock."

   We know that the Gospel according to Matthew was written originally
in Aramaic, but translated into Greek.  What the people in the Gospels
said would most likely also have been in Aramaic, the common language
of that time and place.  The Aramaic for rock is kepa, or kepha
(depending on how you transliterate the alphabet).  Aramaic, like
English, does not have inflection of nouns.  That is, a noun is always
spelled the same, whether it is used as a subject, an object, or
what-have-you.  Greek, however, like German and Latin, _is_ inflected,
as well as having gender of nouns.  This means that a noun is spelled
differently in Greek, depending on where the noun is used in the
sentence.  So in translating from Aramaic to Greek one would likely be
forced by the grammar to make such a change in spelling of a word that
had been the same in both places in Aramaic.

   Also, like English and most other languages, a proper name in Greek
is either masculine or feminine, depending on whether it is given to a
male or a female.  For example, the English Stephen/Stephanie,
Robert/Roberta, etc. and the Greek Petros/Petra.

  Now if Simon Peter had been a woman, we wouldn't have this
misunderstanding.  Jesus would have said, "Simone, daughter of Jonah,
you are _Petra_, and on this _petra_ I will build my Church."
However, Simon Peter was a man, so Jesus had to say, "Simon, son of
Jonah, you are _Petros_, and on this _petra_ I will build my Church."
In neither case would the "Rock" have a meaning different than the
"rock."

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a prophet?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:18:54 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <78397@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> However, when Jesus said in response to the Jewish leaders questions
> that "before Abraham was I AM", the Jews recognized that he was claiming
> 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
> recognized that he was claiming to be equal to God with his statment.
> 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.

If he was older than Abraham he could have been Adam, Seth, or
something else. It does not logically imply that he's a God. Same
with the concept 'son of God', 'son of God' does not automatically
imply that he is God. Actually the other way around, why couldn't
he say that :"Look here, I'm really God, but just now I'm a man
in an human form, and the third part is the holy ghost, and when
I'm back in heaven I'm once again part of the three parts that constitute
God". All this was *never* said by Jesus, instead by Paul and the
followers that wanted to create a nice religion.

A lot of the issues would not be present if Jesus would have 
said things about the doctrines. As long as this is not the case,
you will always find people questioning why all this was added
later.

> Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
> Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
I guess responsibility includes to let people walk into abortion
clinics without disturbing their way.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24058 alt.atheism:23887 alt.slack:3520
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 17 Dec 1992 02:00:03 CST
From: <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
 <1992Dec11.232659.22699@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>

In article <1992Dec11.232659.22699@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com
(young.u.huh) says:
>
>You can continue to sin out of your own weakness
>but always be forgiven when you admit your guilt.

  COOL!  You mean I can kill you, chop you into little bits and eat them
and I can be forgiven and go ho heaven?  Cool.  Remind me to become a
christie A.S.A.P.

   --CR
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23950 alt.atheism:23791 alt.slack:3500
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:12:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <BzCvsD.4HG.1@cs.cmu.edu> rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
>	Is this an US and THEM argument? Do you group a whole set of people
>together here, or was it just some one or two people who were making small talk?
>Maybe one of them was hot for you and had put the others up to it...  It is 
>possible for those 'Christians' to act like normal folks you know.  
>
>Bob 'tired of Us and Them' Huss
>	

	I happened to break out laughing at this post. Not at any of Robert'
s ideas. Rather, I just happen to be listening to Pink Floyd's _Us and Them_!


	*sigh* Yes, finals are over.

	I'll be leaving shortly.

	
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dennis@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Thomas A. Dennis)
Subject: Re: Book: Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls, B. Thiering
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:33:16 GMT

In <1992Dec10.184550.2529@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry 
Palo) writes:

>  A kind of new-age twist was added to it
>in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", which claims there is a secret conspiracy
>to propagate the royal lineage and bring in a new era of peace and 
>prosperity etc.

Great book, but they made the mistake of showing the alleged descendant of the
Actual Historical Jesus, and... well... he looks like the stereotypical Old 
French Dude, not at all like the Traditional Doe-Eyed Hippie Jesus (not to 
mention the Hitler Youth Jesus, the Fightin' Jesus, or any of the other various
Jesii, especially my own personal Beer Commercial Jesus, who looks like your 
basic lumberjack, only with a crown of thorns).
--
>---<

Tom Dennis                  | "I have seen all the works that are done
dennis@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu  |    under the sun; and, behold, all is 
(217)384-2504               |      vanity and vexation of spirit."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: What would you have said?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:56:13 GMT

pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White) writes:
>I don't have any figures. However, you do bring to mind that there can
>be a difference between the message and the way it is carried out. 
>Just because people foul up, doesn't necessicarily invalidate the message.
No, but it makes it harder to swallow as a way of life or an influence in
government, for example.

>The Bible teaches that Christianity is a call to receive eternal life and
>a call to become Christ-like. It does not say, that giving your life
>to Christ results in immediate perfection. In fact, it says that the
>Christian can expect to grow in spirit throughout his life. 
Yes, but Christ never killed.  Thus, it is *never* Christ-like to kill, and 
thus the statement that Christians kill more than they are killed is a pretty
well-pointed critique of Christianity.


______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc