HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:32:58 GMT

In article <fVwuGsX@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.033859.20728@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>What is this obsession of yours with Paul? I think we can say pretty
>>safely that he didn't edit or write the Gospels, since they
>>are usually dated well after his death. Moreover, it would be
>>rather strange to have a single author edit four such disparate
>>documents. You really should study some modern NT criticism before
>>you say such inane things.
>"The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity", Hyam Maccoby. A
>provocative work arguing that Jesus remained a faithful Jew and that
>Christianity was created by Paul, who synthesized it out of Gnosticism
>and other Hellenistic cults. ISBN: 0-06-015582-5
Well, that would be pretty entertaining, since Gnosticism was not
a Hellenic cult and the Hellenistic versions are Christian Gnostic
and post-date Paul by quite some time. There isn't a shred of
Gnosticism in Pauline Xianity. It's nothing like it at all. Just because
someone thinks so doesn't make it so.
In any case, whether Paul is responsible for creating Xianity in his
current form, to suggest that he was responsible for editing all four
Gospels is just silly.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21439 alt.atheism:21582
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State, A Myth
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:13:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <nyikos.722121640@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In article <nyikos.721601879@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Didn't you say you went to a Lutheran school?  [Or are you someone else
>than the person who wrote the >>> lines?]  Don't the Lutherans say anything
>about repentance? 
	
	Well, yes, I attended lutheran conformation school. But, please, it 
was sarcasm! <sheesh> And yes, over exageration.

	Anyways, you can always modify such a statement to be:

	You mean I can do X, and all I have to do is truley repent on my 
death bed, and I'll go to heaven? Then, one buy's indulgences to get one's 
soul out of purgatory.

	Now, whether one can do all of X, and is capably of truley repenting,
is another matter...
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Sharp Contrast to the Song of Solomon
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:35:43 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Nov16.231011.20643@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
In article <Bxtv5o.Dpz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>>   For the record (and put very simply), the actual Catholic teaching
>>is that the purposes of sexual activity are procreation and the
>>happiness and unity of the married couple; none of these aspects of
>>marriage is to be separated from any sexual act.
>
>So what, in practice, is the difference between saying that sex is only for
>procreation, and saying it's for procreation "and the happiness and unity of
>the couple"?

   The difference is that saying sex is only for procreation excludes
its use for the happiness and unity of the couple.  This happiness and
unity, which are known as the unitive aspect of marriage, include the
pleasure involved in the act itself, as well as the emotional
closeness, intimacy, etc. that should accompany sex.  Saying this is
excluded is what the previous poster falsely accused the Church of
doing.

   The Catholic Church teaches that both aspects, procreative and
unitive, are important.  The teaching on artificial contraception does
not make procreation the only valid, nor the most important, reason
for sex.  Rather, it forbids a couple from deliberately interfering
with the procreative aspect.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:43:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.175426.25417@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.125213.535@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>It is impossible for us, mere mortals, to have even a 
>>minute amount of knowledge about the whole of God!
>
>Oh, fine then.  You don't claim to know God is good, let alone omniscient,
>omnipotent, described-in-the-Bible, etc.


jThose are just parts of God, not his/her whole!  And it irritaites me
that fundementalist really humanize God.  God ain't human, sonny....

>
>Why is it that few people who answer criticism of God by saying that we can't
>really understand God, hardly ever seem to mean it?

I don't need "words" to mean it.  I think that in my posting I showed a
very tolerant side....and tried to explain what God is to me and how
awsume he is!!!!  


It amazes me still that you really think you, a mere person, know
all of God.....kind of trivializes God, doesn't it?

>--
>"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 (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)


Bil Snodgrass III
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:35:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.184936.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>
>   Well, there's this guy in talk.origins who says that all living things,
>including viruses, have souls :-)

I see the Smiley, but I'm still curious: why is he sure viruses are "living"?

	Sven
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:13:04 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov18.051913.12109@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.193525.26954@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>I have read of many theistic barbaric destroyers as well.  By your
>>logic I could use these examples to dispute the thesis that religion
>>leads to morality.  Some would argue, though that these people weren't
>>*true* Christians.  These same people will turn around and cite Stalin
>>as a "typical" atheist though.  Go figure.
>
>Yep.  You've got a point.  But I guess some would argue further, though
>that some of the atheistic barbaric destroyers weren't *true* atheists.

Some might.  I wouldn't.  I don't know what it means to be a non-true
atheist (following a religion secretly while claiming to be an atheist?),
but in any case that doesn't matter.

Religions make statements, prescribe certain forms of behaviour and
prohibit others, and in general they make people do certain things.
If we want to know whether a religious destroyer was a true representative
of his religion, it is because he said that he was acting in a direction
prescribed by his religion, and if that is true, then it will appear that
this religion is the cause of destruction.

Atheism doesn't tell people how to behave, it doesn't cause them to do
things; atheists get their motives and standards from elsewhere, and
while there is a reason to expect that two Christians (or two Buddhists,
whatever) may behave alike in some ways, there is no reason to expect
two atheists to behave alike.

So obviously Stalin was a true atheist, but his actions had as much to
do with his atheism as they had with the size of his moustache.

>I still think morality has a better chance of instituting morality
>than absence-of-morality.

Morality has a better chance of instituting morality?  Did you mean to
type something else?

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov16.060310.29899@midway.uchicago.edu> 
	<11556@hogg.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Nov 1992 07:04:59 UTC

In article <11556@hogg.ed.ac.uk> 
iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>But a number of posters decided, for some reason, that what was
>seeked was access specifically to the Christian heaven.  Obviously no
>religion other than Christianity can take you there.  Except the
>question becomes a trifle meaningless then.

No, because then you get to argue about which sect of Christianity gets
you to Christian Heaven. Certainly not all the sects, including RC,
Protestant, Anglican, Baptist, Quaker, Mormon, JW, etc can go, can
they? Does every Christian sect have its own Christian Heaven? Will
there be a special Heaven for Pat Robertson, Pat Buchannan and their
followers?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<11555@scott.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Nov 1992 06:56:28 UTC

In article <11555@scott.ed.ac.uk> 
iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <ksand-151192201606@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>>In article <11516@hogg.ed.ac.uk>
iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) wrote:
>>> Suppose God has decided to damn all Christians and
>>> save everybody else.  Or to save all atheists and damn everybody else.
>>Then believe in atheism as well as a valid form of religion.
>I'll skip the obvious response about the meaning of "believing in
>atheism" and move to the real point: 

There is a sect of Hinduism that are atheist, that is they don't believe
there is a "God". The existance or non-existance of God turns out to be
a non issue if you think about it enough. It's really a metaphor and
metaphors just are. It's kinda like: "I am that I am."

>Just as being an atheist is
>incompatible with having following a religion, many religions are
>incompatible with one another.

Only if you take the dogmatic approach or believe the word of the
jealous ones. We live in a field of opposites, like life and death.
Though these opposites may seem oppossed, the answer is in the Union.
Follow the example of Cosmic Physics. The Unified Theory is the Holy
Grail. We are not separated from the Kingdom by time or distance.

>Therefore you don't necessarily
>maximise your chances by following several of them simultaneously.
>Maybe each of the gods you worship will damn you for _also_ having

Learn from dogma, but please do not become dogmatic.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:54:46 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <mjenkins.721874244@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
<In <11516@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
<
<>Suppose God has decided to damn all Christians and
<>save everybody else.  Or to save all atheists and damn everybody else.
<
<Then God would be going directly against his word:
<
<"God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that
<whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting
<life." John 3:16.

But by saving the Christians he'd be going directly against his word:

  [insert appropriate quote from the _Qur'a:n_]

and against his word:

  [insert appropriate quote from the _Zend-Avesta_]

and against his word:

  [insert appropriate quote from the _Bha:gava:d-Gi:ta:_]

and against his word:

  [repeat ad libitum]

Seriously, the Christian god wouldn't do that.  I didn't mean him, though.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:47:12 GMT

In article <Petch-191192082841@oboe.gvg.tek.com>
Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes among other fundie stuff:
>
>
>It amazes me how people who know very little about the religion they are
>criticizing manage to be so certain about their opinions. Being a
>fundamentalist simply means getting back to the fundamental ideas taught in
>the Bible without embellishing it with present day fads, such as the idea
>that homosexuality is not morally offensive.
>
It is not morally offensive to me. Are you a bait or are you for real?
 
>
>The same Jesus told us to go and make disciples, but he also set standards
>of morality for all of His disciples (Christians). He told us to confront a
>fellow Christian if they break those standards, and further, to break
>fellowship with them if they refuse to listen. This is hard stuff, but IT'S
>NOT UNLOVING.
>
 
You are wrong, the text you refer to is from Paulus. Jesus demanded among other
impossible things that we'd forgive our brother 7 x 70 times. Paulus rather
ignored this.
 
And since you apparently don't know what your god (instead one of his
followers) said: there were things like giving up one's possession to the
extent that one wouldn't know where to lay one's head in the night.
 
Go stick to these things instead of imposing fascist double standards on
others.
 
Or read the FAQ file. It says something like preaching is not appreciated.
That means you, too.
 
>Seek Jesus out, and ask Him to forgive your
>sins and come into your life. You won't regret it.
 
The FAQ file has a comment to this as well.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: BoA Papyrus (SLCM-9/92-intro)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 22:51:28 GMT

Once again, Willard entertains us with colorful verbage in a futile
attempt to refute the Tanner's article on the review to Larson's
BoA expose'.  I'm curious if Willard writes any other fiction, or
perhaps children's books to come up with such colorful and entertaining
language.  I must admit, that I am quite impressed with myself for
typing all of that original article!  I had no idea I had done that.
I am grateful to willard for telling me these things (repeatedly).

Instead of wasting my time answering for the Tanner's, against
Willard's shallow arguments point by point, I'll just make a simple
recomendation.  Read the posted article.  Read it more carefully,
than willard, and with your eyes open.  Pick up a copy of "Reviews
of books on the BoM" and read the reviews the Tanners are refering to.
Also, pick up a copy of Larson's book, and read that.  You will find
that once again, Willard blows smoke in our faces (a most obnoxious
and perhaps toxic habit).

What you will find, is that over and over we have been lied to in
this newsgroup by those who would deny reality and attempt to defend
the Book of Abraham, which is completely dead.  It has been pointed out
over and over and over that NO "real" scholar will buy the BoA that
is NOT mormon, and even some Mormons, those with some shred of
scholarly integrity also dismiss the BoA.  Read the article.  Look
into it for yourselves.

God Bless,

Glenn

-- 
=============================================================================
= 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.                =
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:31:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.170350.28076@HQ.Ileaf.COM> raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:
>In article <30420@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>   The first thing to realize is that Satan is a fallen Angel
>   Satan is the opposite of Michael, not of God!
>                                     ----------
>   The Old Testament gives us an idea that Satan convinced a portion
>   of the Angels that he was above God and by worshipping Satan, they
>   were all thrown out of heaven and reside here, though unseen
Where does it give you that idea? It doesn't give ME that idea.
Chapter and verse, please.

>		Mephistopheles ... ruthless, sleepless, unsmiling,
>                concentration on self or humorous, civilised, sensible
>                and adaptable 
Non serviam.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 19:31:53 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>We either have a situation where
>a) Human beings with limited minds don't understand anything at all
>concerning the holy trinity
>or
>b) the trinity concept is clearly understandable as a doctrine for
>finite minds

Clearly this is a false dichotomy.  Among the other possibilities is,
for example, "Human beings understand a thing or two about the
trinity, but not everything."
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: A Sharp Contrast to the Song of Solomon
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:56:24 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>So what, in practice, is the difference between saying that sex is only for
>procreation, and saying it's for procreation "and the happiness and unity of
>the couple"?

If it were for procreation alone, you would not be permitted to enjoy
it.  Since it is for both procreation and happiness, you are allowed
to enjoy it, but not too much.


Keith
-----
   "What is sin?  Practically anything in the world worth doing."
               -- Thorne Smith, _The Night Life of the Gods_
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christmas
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:37:01 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov21.035933.6630@news.ysu.edu> af027@yfn.ysu.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>
>With Christmas coming up some of my friends and I were wondering
>how people perceive the bitherth of Jesus Christ>.  Was
>Christ born of a virgin, did God become man in Christ?

In my understanding, yes to both, but I have to add a couple of explanations.

The conception of Jesus was, I believe, virginal, but that does not necessarily
mean that a physical union with Joseph did not happen.  Note that Mary says
that she "knows not a man".  The loss of virginity is not so much a physical
thing as a soul-spiritual thing.  One can imagine that the Holy Spirit 
used the physical instruments of both the bodies of Mary and of Joseph to
cause the physical aspect of conception to occur, and yet they both remained
virginal as far as consciousness, passion, and so on is concerned. Note
that in this case the prominence and importance of Joseph's blood lineage
becomes clearer.

The birth of Christ in Jesus, the manifestation of which first occurred
when Jesus was about thirty, is another aspect of the greater phenomenon 
which is referred to as the Virgin Birth.

I would rephrase the second statement to say that the Christ became man in 
Jesus, and that the Christ Jesus was and is the Son of God.

Greetings of the Advent season,

Gerry Palo (73237.2006)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21951 sci.skeptic:20139 alt.politics.homosexuality:7561 alt.pagan:13255 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9060 alt.rush-limbaugh:10320 alt.conspiracy:12424
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.pagan,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Measure No. 9 and Fundamentalist Nightmare
From: rbunge@eis.calstate.edu (Russell K. Bunge)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:51:43 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

Sorry deary, Russell K. Bunge did NOT write the following post.  Drieux,
when you edit your posts make sure you properly attribute
the poster.

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

> rbunge@eis.calstate.edu (Russell K. Bunge) writes: > 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    THIS IS WRONG WRONG WRONG AND AGAIN WRONG

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) actually wrote: 

> The SCARIEST part about all of this OCA stuff
> is how WILLING they are to JUMP IN BED with
> the ModernSeXularHumanists, when CLEARLY
> the enemy who NEEDS to be ADDRESSED is not
> the AlMighty Homosexual Conspiracy, but
> the GREAT SATANIC KABAL in WASHINGTON that has
> prevented the Restoration of OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS
> to CONCUBINES AND SLAVES!!!!!
> 
> CLEARLY ALL GOD FEARING CHRISTIANS MUST STAND UP AGAINST
> these EVIL forces and STAND AGAINST the GREAT SATAN!!!!!
> 
> It is NO MERE CONSEQUENCE that President Elect Clinton
> is KNOWN as the BabyBooomerBeast - bbb - and THUS CLEARLY
> has the MARK OF THE BEAST UPON HIM!!!!
> 
> 
> ciao
> drieux
> 
> ps: I hope this simplifies how to tell the TRUE BELIEVERS
> from those who are a part of the GREAT SATANIC KABAL!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:37:24 GMT

In <11516@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

>How do you know?  Suppose God has decided to damn all Christians and
>save everybody else.  Or to save all atheists and damn everybody else.

Then God would be going directly against his word:

"God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting
life." John 3:16.

Michael
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc