HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How many Christian Gods are there?
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:24:22 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Sep28.134212.29854@hsr.no> david-s@ifi.hsr.no writes:

>I can tolerate you, but not the things you do, that's the difference.
>
  Funny, that's exactly my opinion of most evangelicals.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:37:48 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <4dsC02zI24Lt01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <16671@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep23.000948.22140@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>>
>>>1.  We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the _only infallible_,
>>>authoritative Word of God.
>>>
>>
>>Would this mean that if someone believed in evolution instead of
>>the Adam and Eve story or rejected the idea that all life except
>>two of each type of animal Noah had on the Ark became extinct
>>at the time of a global flood in 3000BC, they aren't a Christian?
>
>Absolutely irrelavent to the current discussions

'Tis not!  In many of these discussions there is the charge that
since the Mormons don't believe every word of the Bible
then they aren't Christian.  Are you saying that you now are dropping
the Bible as an issue?







-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 25 Sep 92 00:30:25 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: sirius.itd.adelaide.edu.au
Originator: daemon@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au

In article <1992Sep23.002129.26283@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

(Miles back, like about fifty articles or more)

>>>You don't like me using the word "false". However, I have a legitimate concept
>>>which I wish to express, even if "false" is not the proper word for it.  What
>>>word _should_ I use?

>>Myth is neither true nor false, it is metaphorical.
>>Does that answer your question?

> No, it doesn't.  The concept that I wish to express is clearly different from
> the concept expressed by the word "metaphorical", even though both concepts
> happen to apply.

You looking for 'fable'? This is how I treat the bible. Definatley not true
but not overtly false either. A creation designed to have a moral
to it's story of which we ought to take heed. Some of it I do.

Though I am an atheist, I am not so pig-headed to just chuck the bible
out without giving it a good read, getting a great laugh and learning
from some of the morals contained therein.
     ^^^^

> Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
>      INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

-- 
John McVey, Whyalla, Uni S.Aust  9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
       +------------------------------------------------------+
     --| Obligatory disclaimer : UniSA hates my opinions...   |--
       +------------------------------------------------------+
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Arrogance (was Family values defined)
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:27:09 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Oct2.121525.21951@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
|In article <69627@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>No.  It is a word of promise and warning from the Lord to His servants.
|
|Well obviously if there is a God of love, those fighting against hatred and
|bigotry are his servants. Lets see how this applies to Christian GBL's
|fighting the forces of hatred and darkness.

You have confused works with gaining merit with God.  Jesus tells us that
he will say "DEPART FROM ME I NEVER KNEW YOU" to those who say (note iss
say) "Lord, Lord" and "we cast out demons and healed the sick in your name".
Obviously, these supposedly good works didn't gain favor with God. Jesus
said people have to hear his words and PUT them into practice.  Doing
to gain favor is not the goal.  It is the heart.  Jesus said I will
tell them plainly to depart from him you evil doers, for he never new them 
(Matthew 7:21-23.)

Is God not a going to judge one for one's wicked deeds?


The rest of your comments presume your works are the determining factor
an so you imply you are the one's serving God.  Check out what Jesus said.

|>   John 15:18   "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
|
|No comment needed.
|
|>   John 15:19   If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As
|>      it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the
|>      world. That is why the world hates you.
|
|No comment needed.
|
|>   John 15:20   Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than
|>      his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If
|>      they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.
|
|Think about this before you support the thugs in Oregon. 

I don't know enough about this group to support or denouce them.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:35:58 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <16672@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <2azy02.I23ud01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>>respond and say, "we believe these things too".  If they define their
>>terms when they say this you will most certainly see why Mormonism does
>>not fit into the guidelines of orthodox Christianity by any stretch of
>>the imagination.
>>
>I don't think many Mormons would think of themselves as orthodox
>Christians.  There is no question that Mormonism is a pretty
>radical form of Christianity.  But it is too restrictive to

Well that is the whole basis of the discussion.  Looks like we have
reached a conclusion then.
                                               (don't you mean "A" God)
>classify a religion that considers Jesus to be God and Savior
                                    ^^^^^
                                   (which Jesus?)
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:25:06 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Sep25.042456.18239@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>> From: johnf@HQ.Ileaf.COM (John Finlayson)
>..
>> This discussion is starting to sound
>> rather like the theological wrangling between Jews and Samaritans 2000
>> years ago, the latter claiming to be a part of the chosen people, the
>> former trying to exclude them.  I think Jesus posed a more appropriate
>> question in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
>
>     I think your comparing apples to oranges.  You are correct about
>the arguments concerning who were the chosen people, but a parable about
>a good Samaritan does not equate to them being the chosen people.
>Consider:
>

I'm afraid you missed the point.  Unlike you and the Pharisees,
Jesus didn't care doodly squat about what the theological nature
of the God the Samaritans worshiped was.  What was important to Jesus
was who loved his neighbor.  The point of the story was that
those who professed the correct religion and righteousness weren't the
true neighbor to the man.  Your harangue (as well as your other
behavior here) shows that you can read the Bible day in and day out 
and yet not have a clue as to what it is talking about.  



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<69731@hydra.gatech.EDU> <13685@pogo.wv.tek.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:47:57 GMT

In article <69731@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>Depends on the situation - I can see why one would not want a homosexual
>representing one's company.

I see. And this bigotry you are displaying, would this be one of your
examples of family values? Is homophobia a family value you will be
teaching your children? What other fine examples of "Christian Love" do you
have for us?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: NIV Translation Question
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc  
Summary: Another translation of II Kings 23:29  
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 21:09:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.191024.29927@linus.mitre.org> szobell@mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes:
>In II Kings 23:29, the KJV states that Pharoh Neco went against
>the King of Assyria.  I have reason to believe that other foreign
>language Bibles at the time agreed with the KJV on this. The NIV 
>states that Neco went to help the King of Assyria.  A fragment 
>from Mesopotamia translated in 1929 contradicted the KJV stating
>that Neco helped the King of Assyria.  My question is whether the 
>writers of the NIV used information outside of Biblical sources 
>to arrive at this translation.  Could someone with an NIV Study 
>Bible look into this?  Also, how do other translations deal with 
>this passage?
>
Steve, the New Jerusalem Bible verse reads "In his times, Pharaoh
Necho king of Egypt was advancing to meet the king of Assyria at the
River Euphrates, and King Josiah went to intercept him; but Necho
killed him at Megiddo in the first encounter."  The footnote refers to
the meeting by saying "And not 'against the king of Assyrio.'  Nechao
(609-595), called Necho in the Bible, marched in 609 to the assistance
of the last king of Assyria, driven from Babylonia and then from Haran
by the Medes and Babylonians.  Josiah wanted to prevent the joining of
the Assyrians with the Egyptians since he calculated that the kingdom
of Judah would profit from the final ruin of Assyria."   It would seem
that Necho wanted to help the king of Assyria, and Josiah wanted to
prevent this.....
Shalom,                          Len Howard
                                 tas@pegasus.com
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:23:03 GMT
	<1992Oct1.220526.4645@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: voodoo, running from my magic, Lynch Mob: the gorrillas in the mist

In article <1992Oct1.220526.4645@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>You can't prove a universal statement with one example, and to show that one
>metaphor cannot be true or false does not prove the same about all metaphors.

How do you prove a universal statement?

Here is one way:
Here is my theory:
METAphors are neither true nor false, they are of course METAphoric.
Do you have an example that proves my theory wrong?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dale.lature@cccbbs.UUCP (Dale Lature) 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: ECUNET
Date: 26 Sep 92 02:42:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS - Cincinnati, OH - 513-752-8248
Reply-To: dale.lature@cccbbs.UUCP (Dale Lature) 

Anyone out there heard of ECUNET? It's an interdenominational
(ecumenical) bulletin board for , well , anyone, but I don't know how to
access it.  Any knowledge ot there about how?  Anyone heard of it?
I'd like to try it out to see what's going on elsewhere.  I also
wouldn't mind if someone would respond to what I said in 14403.
                                                     
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: LDS canon and temple
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:20:58 GMT


A brief end note during this latest war of words. A member of the LDS
church stated that LDS canon is the foundation of LDS doctrine, to which
Robert Weiss sarcastically asked, "In which of these writings may we find
the Temple Ceremonies?" As incredible as it may seem, in fact one may find
rather lengthy "Temple Texts," that is, lengthy passages that are commenting
on the Endowment Ceremony, in the New Testament and in the Book of Mormon.
Of course the passages in question do not identify themselves as Temple
Texts, and it has taken me a lifetime of prayful study to recognize
those passages (Those with eyes may see and those with ears may hear). I
frankly am not ready to make an issue of it or to try and prove it to
someone who is simply curious or really doesn't care. My only point,
and I say this jokingly of course, is that most Anti-Mormons who express
the same sentiments as Mr Weiss simply show me that they have neither
eyes nor ears :-).
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 26 Sep 1992 22:23:07 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <1992Sep25.145121.10957@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
gs008b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ( gregory thomas stevens) writes:

>I have faith that other people actually
>do have emotions.  This is faith because I have no actual logical or
>evidential reason to believe it,

Sure you do.  You have first-hand experience of your own emotions.
You have tons of circumstantial evidence about other people that can
best be explained by the idea that they have emotions.  Et cetera.

>yet still hold it to be true

*How* true?  You do not hold it to be beyond doubt, do you?

>Everyone must have faith in something.  Once we grant our own complete
>subjectivity, we grant that we must assume a universal [...]

Assume *provisionally*, right?  That's not faith.

>Some people have faith in scientific method.

If anyone holds the validity of the scientific method to be completely
beyond doubt, then he is in fact violating the scientific method!

>we all know how annoying it is to be around someone who always says,
>"Well how do you _know_?" when you're trying to have a useful conversation.

Yes, it's annoying.  So you wind up educating them about what's
happened in epistemology since Descartes and Hume.  No big deal.

>HOwever, consider learning something.  You assume and have faith in a lot
>of things

Assuming and having faith are not the same thing.  Faith is not merely
the belief in something that is less than certain.
--
Brian Holtz
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:54:48 GMT

In article <BvELxt.MyE@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.150659.15178@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>No, Mr. Harvey, you didn't.
>>I asked a simple question, which needed simply two words. You did not
>>answer it. Your posturing is simply annoying, particularly when combined
>>with your amazing ignorance.
>Posturing? I ask you, who is posturing? Who is ignorant of whom? 
Which word didn't you understand?
You are posturing.
You are ignorant.

>*I*, not *YOU*, answered your question. Get it?
No, you did not answer my question.

[More blather deleted.]
I repeat my question, Mr. Harvey:
The metaphor:
Kent types so fast that he is the keyboard.
The cases:
1) Kent is a fast typist.
2) Kent is a slow typist.

Clearly, the metaphor has a different status in cases 1 and 2.
Kent seems inclined to say that in case 2 the metaphor is false.
You seem to object to this.
There should be, however, some words foo and bar such that we can
say:
In case 1 the metaphor is foo.
In case 2 the metaphor is bar.
In case 1 the metaphor is not bar.
In case 2 the metaphor is not foo.

My question to you was that you supply word substitutions for foo
and bar. You did not provide them. Hence you did not answer my
question.

-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 26 Sep 92 11:47:20 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <ksand-250992171439@wintermute.apple.com>
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>In article <1431@esl.ESL.COM>
>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) wrote:
>>
>
>I agree that the non-Christian notion of God not being omnipotent
>will change the rules. However, it will also downsize the issue
>of God to a level of a scientist with very powerful tools to create
>universes. In other words, if our grand-grand-grand children are
>able to create quantum bubble offspring universes, are they Gods
>or not?

Why not?  Perhaps God will show us how if we return to His presence.
That seems to me like a good reason to find out if God exists.  He may
have some prerequisits for that course of study.
                                                                    
Mark
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:09:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct3.214248.3078@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> It is trivial that you can prove that metaphors are neither true nor false
> by starting with a statement that metaphors are neither true nor false.  This
> is hardly news.

That logical fallacy is used to prove a great many lunatic ideas. For
instance, this statement is false. Try that one.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Heaven (was Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day)
Summary: no, I've been there
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:41:08 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep30.174134.11019@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>, gorski@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Tom Gorski) writes:
> In article <Sep.30.12.21.57.1992.11950@ruhets.rutgers.edu> farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep30.132125.8199@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>, gorski@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Tom Gorski) writes:
> >> --Tom G.
> 
> >The truth is, you don't even have to die to get there.  It's simply a 
> >different state of awareness.  You can see evidence of it by observing
> >a being who is in that state of awareness.  You can "know" it by
>                                                      ^^^^^^
>                                     what's with the quotes here?
The quotes are there because I don't mean knowing be means of reason.
It is an intuitive knowledge, because it is beyond reason.
> 
> Your heaven sounds like different animal than the original poster.
> Wish you fellas would get together on your terms.  Yours sounds like
> a personal thing, whereas the other heaven sounds like a big country
> club run by God.
> 
> In either case, you're both offering hearsay, something you've read or
> heard someplace, and only the unusally soft-headed would believe either
> of you word-for-word.  Don't you agree?  
> 
> --Tom G.
It is only hearsay in the sense that you hear me say it, and don't
experience it.  But I'm not just repeating what someone else has to
say about it.  The idea of God's country club is there for people who
don't want to think about it hard enough to realize that the bliss of
eternity is not something you can even conceptualize.  Even calling it
bliss isn't right, but for the sake of communicating, I will use this
term.  And I would never dream of having anyone believe me word for 
word.  I am a scientist, and the approach I take is that: if I can't
test it, within my own experience, it's useless mumbo-jumbo.  But I
will not reject out of hand what anyone else tells me they have 
experienced.  If it is the kind of experience that sounds worth
having, I may take appropriate steps to experience it myself.
While I am not a Christian, I think a couple of quotes from the bible
about sum up what I have EXPERIENCED. I think Jesus said "The Kingdom
of Heaven is within" (maybe he didn't, I'm not sure :-)), and I think the
big kahuna himself says "Be still, and know that I am"
-- 

"Ask me a riddle, and I [should] reply,       Lorenzo Farris
`Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie'"     farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu
                -Winnie the Pooh          
[bracketed addition mine]
From: jeffjc@cs.mcgill.ca (Jeffrey CHANCE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Lots of questions
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:09:58 GMT
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada

waddell@firnvx.firn.edu (Kathy) wrote:
>
>The main point, I think, that defines newage (which Jeff did not include) is
>that this new age isn't here yet but that we are raising our consciousness
>to prepare for it.  Many prophets, historcal and more recent, have fortold
>of the rebirth of the earth by "fire" which will bring about a new age.  I
>think this rebirth is soon (in our lifetime, if we are lucky) and that this 
>message is being received or re-emphazied by many groups at this time so
>that we can prepare for it.  

I disagree with you here. The "new age" is not an event, it is not
something that can be prepared for and that will occur regardless
of what we do. It is a product of evolution that occurs simultaneously
with the evolution of our own consciousness. And also very important,
it is extremely gradual. If people were to start encouragaing widespread
hatred and anger, then this better age definately would not come about.
You can't separate it from what we as individuals do with our conscious-
ness, because that's what it IS- it is that sort of world which is
emerging is direct correlation to the increased light and positivity
which is becoming established in our own consciousness.


Jeff
--------------------------------------------------------------
|    Jeff Chance                       | That to which you   |
|    Dept. of Chemistry                | give your attention |
|    McGill University, Montreal       | becomes stronger in |
|    MAIL: jeffjc@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca | your life.          |
--------------------------------------------------------------