HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:34:05 GMT
	<adams.724856783@spssig>
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.

In article <adams.724856783@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>John M. wrote:
>>>A "young woman of marriageable age" had better be a virgin or
>>>she would be killed.
>>Questionable. I don't recall Mary, mother of Jesus being killed for
>>being with child out of wedlock. 
>This (accroding to the Bible) has more to do with Joseph than anything
>else.  Even before the visit of the angel, Joseph planned to keep things
>quiet and not have her punished.

I would imagine this to be the typical case. If a young, unmarried woman
was found with child, she could be stoned to death if someone felt the
need to accuse her. However, if someone took responsibility for the
woman and child, I don't think she would be punished. The story of Mary
is a prime example.

>>JPS (ISBN:0-8276-0252-9) translates this correctly. I'd be surprised
>>that *all* other English translations see virgin here, but given the
>>less than stellar history of Christianity, perhaps I shouldn't be. 
>They do not.  NRSV (New Oxford Annotated edition) translates it as
>'young woman' with the text note "(q)Gk the virgin".
>ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) (among others) uses NRSV 
>as their default text.

Good. I didn't think *all* English translations made this mistake of
adding to the text as John M. stated.

Fireworks aside, I wonder about this "Gk, the virgin." Presumably the
Septuagint translated the Hebrew incorrectly into the Hellenistic Greek
for virgin. But, maybe there was only one Greek word for a young,
unmarried woman or what we would call a maiden in English. In English we
have the two terms maiden and virgin, they are different but related
concepts. Is the same true of Hellenistic Greek? In any case, we are
back to a core problem in Christianity; that being putting far too much
faith in the Septuagint which is known to be a flawed translation of the
original Hebrew. At least the NRSV has sufficient fidelity to The Word
that they are willing to go against what presumably has become the
standard Christian practice of adding to The Word.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24057 alt.atheism:23886 alt.slack:3519
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 17 Dec 1992 01:55:59 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):
 <1992Dec09.233339.23836@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu>
 <1992Dec11.054012.10468@microsoft.com> <1992Dec11.140927.21058@cs.cornell.edu>

In article <1992Dec11.140927.21058@cs.cornell.edu>, rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu
(Roderick Moten) says:
>
>Answer:
>
>To be Christ like and obtain a relationship with the Father.
>

  I dunno, I don't feel any attraction to MY father.  If you want to
bed your old man, that;s your own sick buisnines.


--CR
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<lj4i1kINNoak@news.bbn.com>
Date: 19 Dec 1992 05:16:59 UTC

In article <lj4i1kINNoak@news.bbn.com> dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>In article <BzH27D.HBI@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, 
ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>> Using a different name would have a more positive effect, especially 
>> amongst cynics who have *way* too much fun with the word pagan.
>Oh for crying out loud, here I decided not to call myself a witch because
>too many twits were going to give me grief over it, and now some twit tells 
>me there'll be problems with "pagan" too.  When will it end?  "Hi, I'm
>a tree-hugging pantheistic nature worshipper, but I call myself a 
>pan-Presbyterian so my mom doesn't panic."  What words *wouldn't* they
>have fun with?  Maybe a Scientific Discordian, huh?  Do you think
>cynics would have fun with that one?

Ah yes. It's so difficult to be politically correct in this day and age,
isn't it? What if you called yourself an atheist-pagan-heretic-gnostic?
No doubt someone would find that belittling. Well, you can always call
yourself Dawn Hardin, human-being. I have no doubt that is really what
you are.

>(do you get the impression that I don't care what cynics think of me?)

Yes! And good for you! It's not easy being an authentic human being, is
it? Ah, life in The Village, what a crackup. Be seeing you!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:27:36 GMT

In article <1gb5htINNvl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
) 
)	Can god give PI EXACTLY ? Someone wrote me some Email and pointed out
)that if we ask god to tell us what PI is, he will spend all his time 
)saying it (it is a radical # I think) and not be able to butt his holy
)nose into our lives......

Most likely the Graphic Omniscient Device has a multitasking OS...  after
all, the Spectacularly Reverend Pat Robertson seems to be logged in all the
time, simultaneously with all the rest of those thieves, and G.O.D. still 
has time to persecute us heathens.  Reciting digits of pi would just slow
other processes to a crawl.
-- 
"Pascal is a toy language."      | hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
             --Brian Kernighan   | WWIVNet 1@2750  WWIVLink 1@12754
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 00:24:47 GMT

In article <11995@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.163418.21086@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>
>>OK - I`ll bite:
>
>Bite not, lest ye be bitten.  In this case I'll bite back.
>
>>You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
>>
>>Jesus died for your sins.
>
>This may be a good reason for spending two days of your life as a
>Christian, since Jesus remained dead (for your sins, as they say) for
>two days (actually a little less than that, but who cares).  But why
>do some people become Christians permanently, if the death of Jesus
>wasn't permanent?
>

Because He left all the sin in Hell to keep Death company...  Or something
like that! :-)

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: gcohen@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Gregory Cohen)
Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts
Organization: Florida State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 16:04:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.170237.21411@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> ecasey@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Edward Casey) writes:


Much deleted ... but that's probably for the best anyway

>
>I, for one, would gleefully follow the herd down to the landing site,
>watch as they boarded (were eaten by?) JHVH-I, wave bye-bye as it lifted
>for parts unknown, and then PARTYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
>
>
>Dr. Shigmar Ignatius Unmentionabilis, The Barbarian
>Dali Llama, First Discordian Church of the Sacred Moustache
>Impotentate of the Illuminati
>Anarch of the Whole World, etc.

But first take out the recycling

-GReg Cohen
gcohen@somewhere.somethingelse.myschool initials.edu
Please fill in with approapate letter-like symboles as your heart desires

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:00:25 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>  And so are many other spiritual traditions.	

>How do you reconcile Jesus' statement of Himself being the only way to
>the Father?  Jesus said the whole of Scripture points to Himself, yet
>people refuse to come to Him.
Which is exactly why I believe it can't be true.  One path for all humanity? 
Only one way of looking at the world, only one way of loving, believing, etc., 
which is 'allowed?'  No way.  Impossible.  God can do better than that.  If He
wanted us, truly wanted us, He's do better.

>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?
Just because something is written makes it true?  The Bible has never been 
validated, in my eyes.  Or am I supposed to accept it blindly?  If so, why
not accept something else blindly?  Because you told me it weas true?  Hah!

>I guess I'm asking what do you mean by truth - do you see no contradictions
>between these spiritual traditions among themselves or with Christianity?
I see some.  And and I find several traditions far more true when I look into
my heart, where even Christians SHOULD believe the word of God is written.

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack,talk.bizarre,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 00:46:20 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

bigdave@vermont.tdd.sj.nec.com (David Sweeney  x2987) writes:

> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
> cxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Christopher Fenton) writes:
> >|> 
> >|> fab doo's...mindless self-inflicted guilt...and all the fab 
> >|> glories of polyester... 
> >|> 
> >
> >When was the last time you read Romans 8 and Galatians 5. 
> 
> Galatians?  Whoa, if's been a few years at least!  That was one of my 
> favorite games back in high school--I used to play it for HOURS down at
> the local 7-11.  Man, I got blisters from that damn joystick, but I could
> play for more than an hour on one quarter.  And the music in the bonus
> stages was HOT!  Damn--they don't make games like that anymore.
> 
> As for Romans... I never got into those historical role-playing games.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Sweeney     bigdave@tdd.sj.nec.com
> (c) 1992 Witless One-Line Followups Ltd.


Gallatians 5?  I haven't seen that in years!  They just don't do jap 
animation series like those anymore!


Pope Charles

Have you compared Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 16, and John 20 lately?
How many discrepencies, mistakes, contradictions and errors can you find 
in these few short chapters?



--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 19 Dec 92 11:58:50 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Dec16.153859.16725@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
 ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
> From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
>>[Regarding Bruce R. McConkie's _Mormon Doctrine_]
>>
>>In article <BzBEvJ.5u9@javelin.sim.es.com>,
>> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>> You don't have to go that far, just try a desparate book store
>>> in SLC, and you'll find MD in the Missionary section.  Heck, they
>>> even have special missionary edditions.  (cheaper bindings,
>>> paperback.  Common binding with other books that have been
>>> repudiated by mormons on the net as not being appropriate for
>>> defining mormon doctrine).
>>
>>Ah, so not inexpensive binding is the indicator if what is
>>officially endorsed and what is not.
> 
> This is called equivocation.  Jason first states, with all LDS
> authority, that _Mormon Doctrine_ is *not* sold in the missionary
> section of Deseret Books.  When demonstrated that he is misrepresenting
> Deseret Books, the issue suddenly changes to "inexpensive bindings".

<sigh>

> 
> It is sad to see the lengths to which the LDS will stoop to 1)
> decieve the readers, and 2) distance themselves from the historic
> teachings of their leaders.   This becomes even more apparent in
> another note posted by Jason shortly afterwards, in which he tells
> us (plural) marriage is not a requirement for LDS exaltation.

Mark, re-read D&C 76.  I don't have it with me at the moment,
otherwise I'd cite it for you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 23:11:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.143138.9488@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>Here, I'll make up a simpler self-referential ideology for you.
>
>1. All people with green hair are evil. 
>2. Evil things must be destroyed.
>3. This belief (all the statements in this sytem) shall be named 
>   "Anti-Greenism."
>[...]

Just a small suggestion which might help the spread of your ideology
should you decide to try it out in practice: it isn't wise to call
the ideology anti-anything.  You want something with a more positive
ring to it.  The words you use must convey the idea that followers
of your ideology stand *for* something, rather than against something
else.  eg.  Pro-Life rather than Anti-Abortion.  So, you'll likely
have more success if you call your movement
      Pro-Red_Orange_Yellow_Blue_Indigo_Violet-ism.
Then your critics will obviously be guilty of
      Anti-Red_Orange_Yellow_Blue_Indigo_Violet-ism.
which clearly leaves you with exclusive claim to the moral high ground.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Daily verse BG 1.6
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:10:29 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <Fi5uVB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
wrote:
> 
>                                 TEXT 6
> 
>                         yudhamanyus ca vikranta
>                          uttamaujas ca viryavan
>                        saubhadro draupadeyas ca
>                           sarva eva maha-rathah
> 
>   
> yudhamanyuh--Yudhamanyu; ca--and; vikrantah--mighty;
> uttamaujah--Uttamauja; ca--and; virya-van--very powerful;
> saubhadrah--the son of Subhadra; draupadeyah--the sons of Draupadi;
> ca--and; sarve--all; eva--certainly; maha-rathah--great chariot
> fighters.
> 
>     
>                               TRANSLATION
> 
> 	There are the mighty Yudhamanyu, the very powerful Uttamauja, the
> son of Subhadra and the sons of Draupadi. All these warriors are great
> chariot fighters.

Interesting, I didn't know that! So the ancient Vedas also watched
cable, and they had a problem with people not working, instead following
soapies with famous heroes. Sorry, we really need more data to figure out
what this all is about, thanks.

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
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: RE: Anthony Rose
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:48:45 GMT
Return-Path: <amail.amdahl.com!rich.bellacera@juts.ccc.amdahl.com>

> From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> Keywords: The distortinons of a frenzied mind
> Date: 16 Dec 92 16:59:38 GMT
> Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
>
>    I may need to apoligize here, Tony's problem may not be entirly due to
>    the overworkings of simply a frenzied mind. It may also be due to his
>    inability to understand the technology with which we are dealing.
>
>    <Afterall, :-) Amdahl only makes IBM mainframe clones right :-) >
>
>    Puts me in mind, of a Garrison Kelnor (sp) monolog, you remember the
>    "Institute of Lower Technology, ya know, doors and doorstops..

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?

>   if anybody _else_ want to try and explain the nature of usenet discussions
>   and threads to Tony, be my guest. It's been fairly obvious that he
>   won't respond and/or read what I post.
>
>   Most of the newsreaders that read News (rn,mxrn,nn,trn) track the messages
>   with identifiers. The article to which you responded has
>   the idenfier 1992Dec15.141435.5962@infonode.ingr.com
>
>   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 first commandment said, "THOU SHAL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME"
>
>   I think that you worship at the alter of your own ego
>

I know Tony enough to say in his defense.... "NOT!!!"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:40:00 GMT

>|> fab doo's...mindless self-inflicted guilt...and all the fab 
>|> glories of polyester... 
>|> 

>When was the last time you read Romans 8 and Galatians 5. 

Umm...why should he?  Why should I, for that matter?              

Matt I.
From: isc20059@nusunix1.nus.sg (KOH YEN LING)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Genesis is literal
Date: 10 Dec 92 08:20:41 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

TAN CHEE LEONG (eng10459@nusunix1.nus.sg) wrote:
>YAP WEE KIAT (eng10461@nusunix1.nus.sg) wrote:
>: Did Noah really build an ark ?
>: Of course he did. I recently came across a book which traces the
>: location of the ark to the borders of Russia in the mountains. The
>: proportions of the ship matched that of the Ark which confirms with
>: descriptions in the Bible of the ark coming to rest on MOUNT Ararat.
>: 
>: So a SHIP did land in the Mountain, just as the Bible as described,
>: could it also not mean that JESUS was REALLY DEAD before he was REALLY
>: RESSURECTED.

Please please please state your sources.  Any idiot can claim to read a
book.  And any idiot can write a book claiming the existence of pink
unicorns.  Accuracy and truth, however, is a totally different story.

>: In that light we should give some thought to the literal meanings in the
>: Bible when Jesus says that He will REALLY be COMING SOON.

That SOON is about some 2000 years behind schedule.

>In fact, to add a note to that: the independence of modern Israel in
>1948 also testifies to the fact that the Bible is not just a compedium
>of tales and fables.  It's return to become an independent nation was
>predicted in Isaiah (if I did remember correctly).  During her earlier
>stage of nation building, engineers have time and again gone back to the
>Bible to look for old sites where it was said to be farmlands,
>wellsprings and other natural endowment God bestowed upon this nation.
>Today, Israel has transformed itself from a hopeless desert to a
>flourishing orchard.  This reminds me of the parable of the fig tree
>where Jesus mentioned that the tree will flourish once again when spring
>arrives.  This will also mark the end times.
>
>Although as Christians, we are well assured of our salvation, the Second
>Coming of Christ also marks a very important task for us: i.e. the task
>of evangelism.  Since the signs of times have appeared, shall we not
>step up our efforts in proclaiming Christ?
>
Well, if the return of Israel is supposed to be a testimony of the truth
of the bible, then I would suggest that Christians like you can forget
about entering God's kingdom.  The Israelis are the chosen ones, NOT
you.  Why delude yourself further?

In my grace,
Alison
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:09:11 GMT

bednarek@picard.med.ge.com (Dennis Bednarek Mfg 4-6971) writes:

>My guess is that Alan is one of the millions of poor souls that seems
>threatened by the fact that if he accepted God he would end up changing 
>his life.  Change is what he fears and his ignorance leads him to fear
>of the unknown.  If only his fear were of the eternal flames of hell
>perhaps he would open his mind up to reality.

Boy, I sure am glad all my nerve cells will be dead at the time.  Flames
tend to hurt a lot less that way.  Also, my bones will be rotting and
my lungs filled with dirt, so it'll be pretty hard to wail and gnash my
teeth.


------------------------------------------------------------
mark schnitzius           |  seeking guitar songbook for the
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu  |  clash's "london calling".  does
univ. of central florida  |  one even exist?  will pay top $
------------------------------------------------------------
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:47:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec14.025609.29035@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> 
> Kent Sandvik notes that he justifies his dichotomy (we understand all
> or nothing about the trinity) with his formal Lutheran training.  As
> he has been arguing against what is evidently not a Lutheran
> understanding of the trinity, I do not see why the discussion must be
> constrained by Lutheran doctrine.  I further fail to see why Mr.
> Sandvik would wish to constrain the discussion thus, having already
> suggested he has rejected his Lutheran training.

I would like to hear/see a logical explanation how the trinity
concept works, and you would see a born again Christian. I had
to use the Lutheran model of trinity as my basis, because I can't
keep track of all the variants in the Christian world, and one
is enough confusing.

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