HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Reply-To: starpath@bard.mit.edu
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:30:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.052700.16@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca  
(Eric Roberts) writes:
> In article <1ictd2INNjbr@shelley.u.washington.edu>  
sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> >One more time, more   s l o w l y ...
> >(a) If the death AND SUFFERING of the four year old is a result of
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >her own sins, please explain what this four year old did
> >to deserve it.  I can't think of anything, and I have a 
> >busy imagination.
> 
> Maybe he was so good that God chose to reward him by getting him out of
> here?

You forgot this part, or are you suggesting that such suffering
doesn't really occur?  Moreover, suggesting "maybe" isn't really a  
response.  I mean, "maybe" the child was going to be captured by aliens.   
If you are implying that whenever suffering occurs, we are to assume that  
this is to prevent greater suffering later, then I'd be nice to show WHY  
you think this is the case.  (Remember the Bigger Picture here is about  
the possible justice/injustice of God, so watch out for the logical  
fallacies that may lie ahead.)


--
David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I rebuke Satan in the name of Jesus and I bind that demon that has
you so lost.  My brother, the Lord is going to deliver you from pride
and haughtness.
	-- Roderick Moten to Eric Sieferman on talk.religion.misc
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:45:56 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu


starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth) writes:

>	The sad part about human sociopsychology is that whenever people  
>are pressured into situations that they really don't want to be in (like  
>gay folks in straight marriages to keep the dogs away), really nasty  
>things happen.  "Traditional family values" traps people into doing things  
>that they really don't want to do.  Anyone want to guess at the ratio of  
>Christian to atheist parents that beat their kids?

Since you pointed out what you believed to be a logical fallacy, I think 
I'd better take the time too.  Now this last question sets up a Straw Man.
You've diverted away from Family Values to Atheist v. Christian child
abuse.  Similar I suppose, but not the same.  This is also similar to 
a Two Wrongs Make A Right.  You also don't provide any answer to a 
question you seemingly know the answer to.  Or maybe this is rhetorical?  
Or an honest request for information?

>> However, I've always heard that the opressed Church is the best!
>	This is a psychological tactic used to make oppressed Christians  
>feel better.  Do you think that only oppressed Christians will be in the  
>Rapture?  What does Jesus say about this?

No, this is opinion based on historical record.  The persecuted church
is a much leaner, committed church (the principle: 'If you can't stand
the heat...' applies) ; due to the spiritual make-up of the persecuted 
church God is a lot free-er to work in the lives of His people.
In the opinion of some, including me, this is a good thing.  The wheat
is separated from the chaffe.  It is not a psychological ploy, it has 
historical precident for the Church in the the Book of Acts.

No, I don't think only oppressed Christians will be in the Rapture.
Jesus didn't mention a Rapture per se, but he did say the 'elect'
meaning either specifically, Christians or more generally, those whom
God has called to be saved will be gathered together.  I'm assuming
he's not going to miss anyone who needs to be gathered--so ALL the
elect are going to go, not just oppressed ones.  But, just prior
to the verses where he mentions this gathering of the elect, Jesus
does fore-tell a time of great tribulation prior to the gathering
of the elect; so maybe all the elect at that time will be oppressed.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<ksand-211292190446@wintermute.apple.com><1992Dec21.162627.27379@csrd.uiuc.edu><1992Dec24.050037.8184@microsoft.com>
	<1992Dec29.020114.5071@microsoft.com> <TORKEL.92Dec29123836@
	<ksand-060193104710@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:00:45 GMT

In article <ksand-060193104710@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com 
(Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >My personal interpretation of a logically valid argument is one where
   >the outcome is clearly a known statement.

  Right! So now you merely need to come to terms with the fact that this
personal interpretation of yours is not at all what is meant by a
logically valid argument in logic, mathematics, or philosophy.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:37:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.023324.25160@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>But where would Organized Religion Inc. be without such methods, or any
>>other dogma, such as communism ? If say we taught kids to think freely
>>until they were say, 10 or 12 then let them decide on there own ? Or
>>then at that age, gave an open-minded class in school of all the
>>different religions and beleifs in the world, it would be interesting.
>
>Try the the U.S.: Unitarian-Universalism fits the bill nicely.

My Jesuit high school (St. Louis University) did this, with a course on     
world beliefs, even atheism. Needless to say, not many of my fellow alums
attend the "magic show" every week.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:14:45 GMT
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible

drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:

>ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:

>>This is why I'm going through the effort of creating a system of Ceremonialism
>>which is all in English.  The whole point of my system is to have something
>>simple, clear, and meaningful.  I don't have too many good sources to draw on
>>in CM. :) :(

>Have you done any reading in the works of William Gray?  He relates the paths
>of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life to English letters, and the elements to the
>English vowels...etc...

I haven't read Gray previously.  I may have to now, even though I don't 
consider the Kabbalistic Tree of Life to be simple when it is meaningful or
meaningful when it is simple. :)  I also didn't mention that I am trying to
draw all the elements of the practice from the common ground of Western 
Culture.  This knocks out Kabbalah.  (Also, it is, from what I've seen of
Judaic Kabbalah, against the intent of Kabbalah to use it for manipulation in
the ways which are so common in CM these days.  It was created for mysticism,
rather than magic, from what I've read.)  Still, I'm likely to learn at least
*something* from reading a new perspective on CM.  Thanks for the info.

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,alt.atheism
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 10:27:30 GMT

In article <parsons.726832938@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>
>>sorry, yes, i am embarrassed by the poor expression.
>>i see Pat Robertson only rarely and yesterday was one of
>>those days and i am very worried about what's going
>>to happen in the next few years. the death of the country
>>itself seems within the realm of possibilty. something
>>at least as bad as the 60s.
>
>Well the death of the country it may very well be, but it won't be
>due to Pat Robertson.


Yes it will be.  He is part of the Anti-Christ movement in this country.
And it really scars me.

Also the 60's weren't so bad.  I mean it gave us the Civil Rights
and it gave us a conscience.  Before we just treated Blacks
sub-human and we believed any and everything our govenment told us,
just like the Soviets...Strange isn't it?

>
>-- 
>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs._1984_
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:28:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.112338.9851@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>I may be mistaken, but I think that the last time that Picard is asked
>about the lights, he stands silent for about 20 seconds, and then

when the interrogator's superiors come in, reveal that the Enterprise has
not been destroyed but that Picard is to return there, thus restoring his
courage and hope, he

>yells somewhat incoherently: "There... are... four... lights!" Then
>he staggers out in his nifty jammies.
>
>My conclusions are largely based on this final act of defiance. If,
>in fact, I misheard old Picard, then I'll revise my opinion. Maybe

No, you didn't mishear him.  The circumstances, however, may contribute to
a slightly different interpretation...>

>"As private parts are we to the Gods: they play with us for their sport!"
>  -- Blackadder

:-)

-- 
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
From: Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Jesus Said He is the Almighty God
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:53:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.171809.17134@news.ysu.edu>, af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
> 
> 
>                   Jesus Is The Almighty God

Oh goody! My favourite subject . . .
  
> Did Jesus ever claim to be Almighty God?
> Let's examine the Word of God.

I assume you mean the Bible? The problem with this is that Jesus
didn't write any of the Bible. The Bible merely preseves what
some followers of Jesus in the century after his execution
*thought* he said. We have no assurance that anything in the 
gospels can be genuinely attributed to Yeshua himself. All you
can get from the gospels, therefore, is what his followers 
believed, not what the man claimed.

******* SCADS AND SCADS OF REVELATIONS QUOTES DELETED ***********

Whoa! Hold yer horses there Frank ol'buddy. The Book of 
Revelations claims to be a vision in which the narrator sees
some very strange things, including the heavenly Jesus as 
Messiah. This is, of course, a literary convention of the jewish
apocalytic genre, and the purpose of the work is actually to 
impart theological ideas in a powerfully allegorical form. In
other words, these aren't the words of Jesus, they are the words
of the man who wrote this book. Of course, you believe
differently, but if you want to convince us then you can't 
assume we share your assumptions.
  
> Who does the NT picture as "coming"?

The messiah, who in the jewish world was either to be a human
ordained and annointed by Yahweh or a heavenly angelic being
sent by him to free Israel and prepare for Yahweh's rule on
earth.The messiah was never concieved of as Yahweh in human
form, the only reason modern christians confuse 'messiah' with
'God' is that early, non-jewish christians first began to make 
that confusion doctrinal in the late first century AD. 

***  ZILLIONS OF REFERENCES TO A NON-DIVINE MESSIAH DELETED  ***

So they believed Jesus was the Messiah who had risen from the
dead, had gone back to heaven (for reasons which are not 
entirely clear) and would be zipping back down to earth at any 
moment (the guy's like a goddamn yo-yo!) What has all this got 
to do with this jewish rabbi who some claimed to be the messiah
being a god? (Here's a hint Frank: you got to prove that
Messiah=God, because in Jesus/Yeshua's jewish context, it don't)

> It should be clear to the unbiased observer that Jesus Christ
> is the LORD God Almighty!

And if we aren't convinced by this series of jumbled quotes
which have been wrenched out of their social, cultural, religious
and literary contexts, then we are just too 'biased' right?
Come on Frank, try again. I'm dying to be convinced.

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "What does science tell us about God?" (Time Magazine)
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:01:22 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <ksand-231292160136@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>In article <1hanpkINNfmb@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar
>pearlstein) wrote:
>>             The essential conflict between science and religion is in 
>>        how one arrives at conclusions.  Religion generally is based on 
>>        authority: a person, a book, or a set of traditions.  It has 
>>        Eternal Truth, coming from authority, which its adherents stick 
>>        with regardless of any evidence.  Science is based on reason 
>>        and evidence.  It does not recognize absolute authority, 
>>        considers "truth" to be relative and tentative, and takes the 
>>        attitude: Don't tell me, show me. 

>Someone please update me, but I'm sure religions exist that has
>the same attitude: "Don't tell me, show me". (Zen) Buddhism is one of the
>few action-oriented religions I'm thinking about.

>Kent

As it does not postulate a god, Buddhism is a special case.  It gets lumped 
in with religions although it is really philosophical/psychological system.
Zen comes closest to practical science: your mind is the lab...
"Magick" is similar, but here some schools do postulate a god or gods.

Spot the missing indefinite article above (why did I prefer typing this over 
editing the error?)


  No Trespassing: 4/17ths of a haiku.     D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk   fax 6040
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The Lost Ark (was Re: The meaning of "pagan")
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1ijvfrINNm1h@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Date: 9 Jan 1993 02:26:47 UTC

In article <1ijvfrINNm1h@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen) writes:
>In article <fXGHeGr@quack.sac.ca.us>, 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) said:
>>Yes, but no body should freak out now, because it's safe and sound in a
>>secret location in Ethiopia.
>The location of what purports to be the ancient Ark of the Covenant in
>Auxum in Ethiopia, despite the dramatic statements of that hugh
>pot-boiler which has been in all the bookstores, is not particularly
>secret, and there is some earlier published literature on the subject.
>The basic Ethiopian text was translated by Budge in the early decades of
>this century, under a title something like "The Queen of Sheba and her
>Son, Menelik," and probably has been reprinted  -- Robert

Oh, that one, him just a ruse. But no shame, no body hurt. Secret one
OK, rest in peace now. Go back to cutting cane, Breton's got to have
sugar for Indian tea break. I go watch Indiana Jones.

---
Had big travel plans but Western Economy got you down too? No worry, Jah
Guide Economy Special: Babylon by Bus! We get you true the valley, yet
fear no evil.
From: d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jihad in Islam (was Re:Islam Revealed #1
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:38:15 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <1993Jan10.204803.20891@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan10.130329.28120@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
|> 
|> Ok, do you agree then that Salmon Rushdie deserves the death sentence ?

My personal opinion is yes. But there are a lot of other Muslims who wouldn't
agree with me on this point.....

|> Who decides on what is evil and what is good ?  

There can only be one answer from a religious perspective and that is God
*alone*.

|> 
|> >In an Islamic state, it is the Caliph who orders jihad when certain
|> >circumstances prevail.
|> 
|> How do you distinguish the political motives of this person ?  

You can never know that to 100%.

God has given us a brain to think with so it is ultimately up to each one of
us to try and figure out if the Caliphs orders are in accordance with the 
teachings of God. If the Caliph suddenly orders something which is not in 
accordance with this then we shouldn't obey him.

There can only be *ONE* God and it is to Him  *only* we submit ourselves 
too....

|>Do religion and politics mix freely in Islam ?

Every society has a constituion and in a *true* Islamic society this constitution
is the Laws in the Quran and the Sunnah. Whatever is decide in the frame of this
is up to the people and the state. 

Peace
Gani

********************************************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(SAHIH MUSLIMIN)" ... I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) saying: 
He who amongst you should see something abominable should modify it
with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do 
it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength 
enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhort it) from his heart, 
and that is the least of faith."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
********************************************************************
Date: Tuesday, 5 January 1993 18:26:30 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <root.726185202@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)  wrote:
# 
# pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
# 
# >In article <root.726157205@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
# >>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
# >>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
# >>>>the one, true way, and is the sole possesor of God's truth.  Christianity,
# >>>>Islam and Judaism sure do...
# >>>This statement is not correct. This kind of dogmatic thinking is largely
# >>>limited to the two great conversion religions: Christianity and Islam.
# >>Hardly 'not correct'...first of all, I said 'most,' and secondly, all three
# >>of the ones I pointed out fit the bill (ie those that make up >95% of
# >>western religion.  In any event, a religion is basically a system of
# >>truths, which generally rejects other systems of truths.
# >
# >Judaism does not reject other religions or Gods. The LORD of the Hebrews
# >is the only LORD - of the *Hebrews*. Judaism is not a conversion religion
# >and there is no after death penalty or reward.
# Uhm, my reading of the OT seems to say that YHWH is 'THE' God, and no other
# God's may come before Him...I may be wrong, but I was pretty sure that
# Hebrew monotheism denied the existence of other Gods...

  If you're referring to the Second Commandment, please note that it
  is directed to the Children of Israel, and not to humanity in general.
  Thus, everyone else is bound only by the Noachide prohibition against
  idolatry, which is quite a bit less stringent.  Several major-league
  rabbis have ruled that Islam, for instance, is just peachy for
  anyone who isn't Jewish...

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Islam Revealed #1
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:25:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.084142.14441@netcom.com> zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim) writes:
>>>In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
>>>(5:51)" O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians
>>>for your friends and protectors:
>>It certainly sounds like it.  (Nor does this "better" translation sound any
>>better then the "incorrect" one.)
>The word in the Quran is "awlia" which means ally NOT friends and certainly
>not protectors. Whether the injunction was for muslims of the time (in view
>of treason by the jews) or extends to others, I can't say. It is also meant
>to refer to muslims as a whole and not an inividual basis. The verse above
>is incomplete since it explains that they (being jews & christians) are allied
>to each other and don't have the welfare of muslims in mind.

Does it really matter _what_ the reason given in the verse is?  So it says that
Muslims can't have Jews and Christians as allies because they don't have the
welfare of Muslims in mind.  So?  How can you possibly consider that better
than just saying it without giving a reason?  If I tell my children not to make
friends with blacks, is it _really_ any better if I add "oh, that's because
blacks are shiftless, lazy, and dirty"?

>>>Verse (5:57) explains it better:
>>>In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
>>>(5:57)" O ye who believe! Take not for friends and protectors
>                                         ^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^-see above
>>>those who take your religion for a mockery or sport, - whether
>                                                ^^^^^-games
>>>among those who recieved the Scripture before you, or among
>>>those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have Faith
>>>(indeed)."

Again, what's the difference?  I believe in freedom of speech.  I do not
consider _any_ religion immune from what some others might call "mockery".
(What is mockery?  Is "Satanic Verses" mockery?)
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: March for Life
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:53:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan5.134638.13391@bsu-ucs>, 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes...
>Is anyone goin to DC January 22, 1993 for the March for Life?


	Tentatively, yes.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan