HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:25:47 GMT

In article <ksand-211292190005@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> In article <1992Dec21.234517.28840@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) wrote:
> > I believe J experienced the full weight of _all_ human sin and
> > conditions when he became sin on the cross, so in that sense he
> > did experience all and more. 
> 
> So we are dealing with a mystical transformation that will never
> be explained, and all we have to rely on is the doctrines defined
> later? 

That's what the word says about him. Rely on him.

barry--
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:49:47 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Dec22.182156.3513@bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|In article <fWWqowy@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
||> In article <78703@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
||> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
||> 
||> I don't care either way! I want an accurate translation, that's all,
||> nothing more and nothing less. If the Hebrew says virgin, fine, but it
||> does not! GET IT! THE HEBREW DOES NOT SAY VIRGIN! It does not matter what
||> you or I want or don't want it to say! IT DOES NOT SAY VIRGIN! GET IT?
||> IT'S A FACT! Do you understand the meaning of fact?

By the way, aren't facts with respect to the context and meaning
of words subject to the one stating the viewpoint?

|Well, when Richard sees a fact he gets an uncontrollable urge to explain it 
|away! (Sorry, Richard..I tried to resist)

Could it not also be said that when some people see a supposed opportunity
to show the errors of Christianity, they JUMP at the chance. :-)

|Merry Xmas all!

Merry Christmas to all.  I wish you the full benefit that God gave to
the world through the birth of Jesus the Christ, the Lord.

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
From: pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Any Great Old Ones worshippers around?
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:18:23 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

See subject.

-- 
---
Thus spake Kalmoth the Dreaded, Bane of the Forests of Gnoy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:41:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec28.014653.8227@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <ksand-271292163856@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>>1. As we are created in the image of God, and we both love and hate
>>of various reasons, I don't see the problem of God's hate as something 
>>profound. If we are capable of hate, so is he as well.
>
>This argument suggests that God is capable of sinning.

If you mean that if God is capable of what we're capable of...I believe 
He is.  Jesus was tempted in the desert. If He wasn't capable of sinning,
then His temptation was bogus. 

He could sin. He doesn't. 

If you are disturbed that God hates - "Be ye angry and sin not" - some 
things should be hated.

-jen

>--
>"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)


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: merz@ips.id.ethz.ch (Andreas Merz)
Subject: New Years Message from Sri Chinmo
Organization: ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:20:40 GMT


        God is dreaming,
        Newness singing,
        Oneness blossoming,
        Fulness dancing.
        Hope no more gropes,
        Life without slopes,
        Splendid depths and heights
        Transform bondage-nights.
        God is dreaming...


This is the New Years Message from SRI CHINMOY for 1993.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:46:16 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Dec16.050936.19689@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>In article <17836@pitt.UUCP>, geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>> 
>> This is the problem.  I can't worship such a being who would doom
>> people for eternity because they have the wrong notion of what
>> His nature is.  This is not a loving God.  What it is that attracts
>> you to a wrathful God, I don't know, but it doesn't attract me,
>> and it didn't attract Jesus, from my reading of the Bible.
>> 
>I don't know about the doomed when the boom is lowered part.
>I do wonder how the Lord would handle people who lead his people
>astray by a foreign gospel such as Joseph came up with. Especially
>the temple works which to me are dead works if they are not
>required by the Lord for any purpose. He did say something about
>a mill stone, but I cannot guarantee the context. 

This is completely off the point and unresponsive.  Whether or
not Joseph Smith was a prophet or not has little to do with
the abhorrance I find with such a concept of God as some profess
here.  Do you truly revel in worshiping such a God, and if so,
why?












-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Straw Poll: Mormon Specific Newsgroup ^Repost^
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:21:28 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

I'd like to conduct a straw poll.

Since most of us will be going on break for the holidays
(including me), I'll continue the polling a few weeks into
January so that everyone that wants to gets a chance to
participate.

I will post a summary of the results.

Don't post to the net.  Email your reply to: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
(Replying to this post *should* do the trick.)

-----8<---If--you--cut--here--you--will--ruin--your--monitor--->8-----

Questions:

1a.  Do you think that a separate newsgroup should be created for
     discussing Mormon specific things on Usenet?

1b.  Why or why not?


2a.  If you do think that a Mormon specific newsgroup should be
     created, should it be moderated?

2b.  Why or why not?


3.   If you do think that a Mormon specific newsgroup should be
     created, what hierarchy and name should the newsgroup have
     and why?


4.   (Optional)  Just to get an idea of who is providing feed
     back, what is your religious persuasion?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: WITCH was PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 02:45:52 GMT

In article <fW4bZE#@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>It was the Xtians that changed the meaning of "witch" in the first place.
>>When?
>>Are you trying to tell me that some group called themselves witches first, and
>>then some Christians got together and decided to use this word to mean "devil
>>worshipper"?
>BINGO!

I was under the impression that despite claims otherwise, modern-day worshippers
that call themselves witches generally started their religion in modern times,
rather than having a direct connection to ancient worshippers.
--
"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)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Choosing a Bible translation
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 07:45:33 GMT

somebody writes: (saved w/out header - sorry)
>Do
>you really consider this being strict? What does the Christian
>Revelations 22:18-19 say again? Or does this not apply to translations
>of the original Bible languages? Are you really this lax with THE WORD?
>Is this the essence of Christianity? If it's good enough for King James
>it's good enough for me? And what has become of that search for the
>truth? How have you been led astray?

Personally, I would love to have a perfect translation - but this is not
possible.  As I said, this is the type of thing that should be scribbled in
the border if you really care about the discrepancy, which I have done.
It is not something to ditch a translation over, and yes it is minor.
Whether it was meant to say "young woman" or "virgin" has absolutely no
bearing on my relationship with God.

My own personal conviction is that IF the Bible is REALLY the word of God, He
can manage to keep it meaning what He originally meant it to mean.  There is
no such thing as absolute meaning even given a perfect translation, as the
_real_ meaning is the form it takes in the reader's head.  Enter the Holy
Spirit, which will allow a person to believe the truth, even as love would
dictate.  Don't ask me what that means, I just typed it in a daze as it is
2am.  

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
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: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 08:27:50 GMT

gene@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Dr. Gene De Lisa) writes:
: 
: It's time for some facts.

That remains to be seen.

: Pagan is the term that early xians used in a derogatory sense for non-xians.
: You cannot be a xian pagan any more than you can be a non-xian xian!

By your definition. There are many who would disagree with you. Why should
a pagan not be able to include the Christian pantheon, if he/she wishes,
into his/her religious practices.  For that matter, since there are atheist
pagans, why couldn't a pagan practice a version of Christianity?

: Being a pagan does not mean that you follow x,y,and z but that you don't
: believe in the xian, islamic or jewish god. Period.

Being a pagan does not mean any of that. Many pagans pratice various
religions. However, the two are not identical - regardless what the
Christian dictionary composers write.

: btw., it really doesn't matter if you agree with this definition.
: You don't even have to agree what "red" is a color either.

Of course not. However, if you change your definition to match that of
most of the pagan community, you will find far more people agreeing with
you. One of the first things to learn is: there are no absolutes.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:55:56 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <TORKEL.92Dec24184319@lludd.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> In article <1992Dec24.050037.8184@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com 
> (Bob Sarver) writes:
>   >/(skinner)
>   >/If I apply Mr. Sandvik's test for logic, I must declare Euclidean geometry 
>   >/illogical.)
>   >Don't be deliberately stupid.  
> 
>   There was nothing stupid about Greg Skinner's comment. I haven't
> followed the discussion, so I don't know just what "logic in
> Christianity" is supposed to mean, but in so far as it is a matter of
> whether or not there are logically valid arguments in Christianity, this is
> independent of whether or not the assumptions of Christianity are true
> or even meaningful. Many people have held, using the concepts of logic
> in a perfectly standard and proper way, that the axioms of (some part
> of) mathematics have no interpretation at all, although the proofs in
> that part of mathematics are logically valid.

I agree this is a personal dilemma, concerning straight lines, for
instance,
nobody has seen them. However most people agree that these axioms could 
be used.

In the case of Christianity I argued that attributes such as good, evil,
trinity, original sin, the holiness of Mary and so on can't be valid
attributes, because we can't even agree upon them. Any logical constructs
that are used to describe anything based on such things are IMHO doomed
to fail because we can't verify if they are right or wrong. Yet again
this was one of the modern philosophical trends where the issue of
metaphysics is toned down because nobody could actually verify such
statements. Then again physicists seem to fall into this same trap
concerning theories of how Big Bangs start.

Anyway, if we accept that we could use premisses we can't verify, we could
as well use Tolkien symbols and draw conclusions based on these. In other
words aren't we opening a huge can of worms?

As for logic and Christianity, I would like to see how logic is applied
into describing how trinity works, this is a really small and nice 
exersize that could show if Christianity has logical elements or not.

Cheers,
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,alt.pagan
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: "What does science tell us about God?"
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:13:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.221450.21428@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>>If the universe is the Universe, where is 'behind'? When mover and
>>moved are discerned, they are relegated to membership in a set.
>>Neither can be that set's universe. 

>Yes, but what if the universe is to some multiverse as a house is to a
>city?

Then it should not be called 'universe', as I understand the word. It, like all
the other universes and their containing multiverses, is simply a member of
a set. What shall we call this ultimate set, then, if 'universe' is taken?

My interest in this is not in batting words around, though. I think that
religion that is not founded on a sense of primal unity, that is concerned
with the comings and goings of differentiated members of the 'set', is, to
one degree or another, missing the big picture. Even in talking about it,
I separate myself from this unity, smashing it to shards. So, I'm going to
shut up now, and stitch the fabric of unity back together, and meditate over
a steaming pile of fettucine alfredo. Happy holidays.

--
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,alt.pagan
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:47:45 GMT

lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:

>Where the hell did the ancestors of people who have had the craft
>passed down get it if Gerald Gardener wasn't even born yet?

two points here:

1. I haven't seen *any* evidence supporting anything resembling Wicca before
this century.  The two Fam-Trads I know come from Christian families that
caried on these magical traditions *without* them being tied to any religious
practices.

2. Your statement doesn't say anything about these persons serving a *religious*
function.  I never argued that there weren't witches previously--I simply stated
that I saw no evidence that they were preist/esses in the past.  In the
various culture which I have seen anthropologists describe witches in, the
witches were all outside the religious context.  (This does not prove that
these practitioners are identical with the European practitioners, but it does
prove that many cultures (maybe all?) have magical practitioners who are 
independent from the religion.)

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
"We are secretly replacing the fine quartz crystals this medicine pouch maker
usually uses with Folgers crystals.  Let's see what happens...."
                                      --DACCrowell
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:21:56 GMT

In article <fWWqowy@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
|> In article <78703@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
|> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

|> 
|> I don't care either way! I want an accurate translation, that's all,
|> nothing more and nothing less. If the Hebrew says virgin, fine, but it
|> does not! GET IT! THE HEBREW DOES NOT SAY VIRGIN! It does not matter what
|> you or I want or don't want it to say! IT DOES NOT SAY VIRGIN! GET IT?
|> IT'S A FACT! Do you understand the meaning of fact?

Well, when Richard sees a fact he gets an uncontrollable urge to explain it 
away! (Sorry, Richard..I tried to resist)

Merry Xmas all!
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 31 Dec 92 04:52:02 GMT
	<TORKEL.92Dec29064938@brahma.sics.se>
	<ksand-301292174155@wintermute.apple.com>
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <ksand-301292174155@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
 (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >So are we just now agreeing on logical conclusions when we can't even
   >agree on the premisses?

  We are not talking about the truth of conclusions, but about the logical
validity of arguments.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:14:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.224401.9789@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>step 1. "I believe X" = "X appears true to me." Only a skilled practitioner
>of doublethink can believe something that appears false to them. If you
>deny this, consider: can you believe in Ahura Mazda? No? You can't make
>yourself, can you?

Hmm...is that a compliment or a criticism?  'Cuz I've got no problem doing
that right now.  My life is based on that ability, to a large extent.

>step 2. One has no control over what appears true to one. A thing either
>seems true or it doesn't. One can look for more info, but the new info will
>either seem true or false and you can't do a thing about it. Sometimes
>one might want very much to believe something, but it just seems false.

Off the wall, but did you watch the STTNG double-episode, "Chain of
Command?"  Sometimes one might want very much to believe something, and
it becomes true.  Picard's closing line says it all.

>step 3. Therefore, belief is not an act of will! One cannot accept Jesus
>in the way you mean as an act of will.  Your doctrine _precludes_ free will.

Well, since I disagree with both of your previous statements, I'm gonna
have to disagree on this one too.  I have found belief to be very much
an act of will.  It is that realization that first drew me away from
traditional Christianity.  I can believe anything I _want_ to believe.
Realistically, I want to believe something that's going to fulfill me
more often than not.  Christianity didn't.  Satanism did.

I see where you're headed here, though, except I disagree with the
underlying premises.  The very fact that my will can detemine the
believability/unbelievability of something seems to cancel out the
claim of ANY of them to be objectively true.

>I operate "as if."  I live as if I knew what I were doing, mainly to
>avoid getting tossed in a loony bin. At times I forget that I know nothing
>and start thinking I _do_ know something. Bad move -- I start to take things
>seriously and get worked up about this or that bit of craziness, as if
>I really knew what was going on.

Interesting description.  I like it.

>>>We have already established there is ultimately no grounds at all for
>>>any belief. Obviously, then, people do not believe for rational reasons.
>>>We believe because we are scared little creatures who are afraid to
>>>die. 

Yet you also believe that you're going to die.  Do you have any more
proof of this than you have of anything else?

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:28:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.181936.22289@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>>>We are interested in self-
>>>definition, not PR, when we take this name.
>>>Same thing with the word "witch."  ...
>>But then what happens if someone else uses the word the old way?  If you see a
>>movie which shows witches as devil-worshippers, should you complain about it?  
>Yup. 
>>If you do, you're now complaining that the old use of the name gives you bad
>>PR; you're no longer engaging in self-definition.  You can't have it both
>>ways--say you didn't pick the name for PR, but complain about the PR you got
>>from it anyway.
>No, you're complaining about the misuse and misdefinition of the word. Tell
>me, should Jews change the name for thier religion, since for 1500-odd years
>the Jews were accused (whenever convienient) of killing xian babies?

No, because Jews called themselves Jews first, and it's those who define Jew
as "baby-killer" who are redefining words.  If _you're_ the one who's redefining
the words, you shouldn't then complain that the old definitions harm you.  Why,
of all the words possible, did you pick one which means "Satan worshipper" to
Christians?  And then _complain_ about the meaning?  Of course it means that--
you knew, when you picked the word, that it already meant something.

Can I go around calling myself a Nazi, and then complain that all those people
who use Nazi to mean genocidal fascist should change their vocabulary, and if
they don't do so they are perpetuating discriminatory stereotypes about me?  Of
course not.  If I decide to call myself a word that's already in use, I've
chosen to accept the consequences of people using the original meaning--I can't
demand that everyone change just for me.
--
"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)