HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Get a Clue (was: Get a Life)
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 23 Jul 1992 12:26:37 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Jul22.173330.23164@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:

>Jesus was and is sinless, and forever will be.  You should   "Face it".

As the man is almost 2,000 years dead and the concept of "sin" is
what you make it to be, the above statement has less impact than a row
of farts.  Face it yourself, Mr. Gross, your Jesus can be tricked out
to be whatever one chooses to make him, a god for all churches.

>..............................  I just happen
>to think that if God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit collaborated on a book
>that is the authoritative word of God, and that book says that
>homosexuality is UNNATURAL, that it is unnatural.

What you believe about the bible does not automatically make it so.

>For all you scholars who have read "between the lines"
>and have theorized a different interpretation, my sincere apologies.
>I read the book as it is written, no more no less.

Take a head douche, Mr. Gross.  If the bible were as clear as
you opine Christianity would not be the welter of conflicting churches,
traditions and cults that it is.  There does not seem to be any other
major religion which is as confused about its heritage and its
beliefs as Christianity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Carroll              Somewhere, beyond both space and time,
<SECBH@CUNYVM>            Is wetter water, slimier slime...
                          And in that heaven of all their wish
                          There shall be no more land, say fish.

                                                 Rupert Brooke
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.sf.written
From: dstein@rhea.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Subject: Re: Going Back in Time to Meet Jesus Christ -- What Would You See?
Reply-To: dstein@rhea.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 15:58:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.165329.7984@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
elwin@gamma.phys.clemson.edu (Lawrence E. Brown) writes: 

|> If you want a wonderful experience. Check out Moorcock's _Behold
|> the Man_.  Nice period piece and a fascinating exploration of
|> the what William James calls the will to believe.

   This story was recently translated in the Czech SF magazine IKARIE.
   It was the first time I could finish a Moorcock story, as his style
   seems to have adverse effects on my attention span.  I haven't seen
   the English original, so I'm not sure if the story itself was well 
   written or if it improved with the translation.

 - David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not a native speaker of English, so I'm not sure what I wrote.
Flames will be ignored unless you post them in perfect Czech.
================================ - David (the metamathician) - ===
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Michigan
	<LAURAF.92Jul24082753@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1992Jul24.192301.21979@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
	<1992Jul27.174443.2701@sdf.lonestar.org>
	<LAURAF.92Jul28114123@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1992Jul29.100842.15432@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:56:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.100842.15432@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:

   Yes. It means quite simply that our knowledge of the human body has not
   reached that level. It does not require us to immediately think "Oh dear
   I cannot comprehend this. God exists, QED".

   I cannot comprehend how people would want to eat an oyster. Do I then need
   to postulate the existence of a God who makes people eat oysters?

I would love to comment on this but I don't follow your logic at all?  If
sarcasm is how you wish to converse then I wish not to continue.  However, if
not please help me understand your logic here.

Laura
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Get a life
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:38:11 GMT
 <1992Jul27.173403.25964@dg-rtp.dg.com> <adams.712335912@spssig> <sbuckley.712393156@sfu.ca>
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>>Jesus died for those who believe not for every human.  
>>What?  This is way off base.  He died for ALL, so that sins might be
>>forgiven.  Whether or not we chose to believe is the issue.  All people can
>>access the salvation presented by Jesus!

>   unless you don't believe and accept his sacrifice.

Which you are perfectly free to do.  That't the point.  There is nothing
forcing you to accept this, and you haven't.  That's between you and God.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:46:30 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:


>>> (Steve Adams) writes:
>>> I am pro-choice.  I object to abortion on religious grounds, 
>>> yet refuse to impose my religion on anyone else. 

>>(Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>Steve, I applaud your justification for remaining pro-choice
>>despite your moral stance on abortion.


>Isn't this simply saying:
>"I believe this activity is wrong, but I support your right to do it"?

>Would you also say:
>"I am convinced that polluting is wrong, but I am pro-choice on pollution.
> I will not impose my anti-pollution morality on you." ?
>(Maybe a bad example, but you get the point)

>Shouldn't one support or oppose an activity based on their moral convictions?
>I would think if you are truly convinced an activity is WRONG, that in all good
>conscience -- you must oppose it. 

I never said I didn't oppose it.  I do talk to people about the issue, and
try to convince them of the moral correctness of my opinion.   The issue is
just not as clear cut as say murder, or even pollution to use your example.
Clearly, it can be demonstrated that pollution is detrimental to people.
Murder is also detrimental, and deprives persons of their rights.  There is
NO agreement in society about the personhood of unborn children.  Until
this happens, we'll continue to have these disagreements.  I'd be happy if
there were never, ever a need for another abortion.   But until that time,
I refuse to impose my morals on someone else, particularly when there is no
legally identifiable person to be protected.  Romans 13 requires that I
follow the law of man, so long as I'm not personally forced to violate the
law of God (Acts 4 & 5).

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going Back in Time to Meet Jesus Christ -- What Would You See?
Date: 27 Jul 1992 18:31:47 GMT
Organization: Yes, a tree really did hit my car
Distribution: world
Reply-To: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird


In article 17713@maths.tcd.ie, pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:

~Actually, there's a very good Sf short story about package holidays
~to Jerusalem at the time of Jesus to witness his crucifiction. Can 
~anyone remember the title?
~
There was also a SF story about a guy who invented a time-travel machine,
went to go find Jesus and found out that Jesus was a congenital idiot, he
couldn't believe and guess what, he ended up being Jesus. . .The book is
called (I believe) "Behold the Man" or something like that and is by
Michael Moorcock.



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Old Covenant and New (was Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong)
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:25:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Put another way: those who are awaiting the ARRIVAL, and not the
return, of the Messiah, see themselves as children of the one and only
Covenant.
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada	                     
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: JW and blood
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:34:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.121150.6453@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>  That isn't much of a reference.  I don't even know who Denton Cooley is, much
>>less where he might have said it, in what context, etc.
>
>	One of the leading surgeons in America. 
>
     Nope, he is a mortician in Bovine, Missisippi. He doesn't know what to do with
     when they are alive   but now that they are !dead!   he's a real expert!



-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Twin Studies and Homosexuality
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:07:44 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul30.214909.11779@cs.yale.edu>
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>Hmmmm....Doesn't the fact that they are all multiples of 11 strike you
>as funny?

Not necessarily...they could be rounded percentages. It's too hard to
tell without the exact numbers in front of me. I don't even have the
reference article, but I do know that it was reported in Newsweek back
in January, and you can presumably find the proper reference there.

>Being born into the same family at the same time, rather
>than a year or more apart surely means that you have a more
>similar environment.

Not necessarily. Family dynamics surely aren't that simple.

>Can you briefly describe the [Kallmann] study, and if it looks interesting,
>I'll make an attempt to dig it up?

All I know is that there were 85 monozygotic pairs, and that they showed
"remarkably similar sexual behavior". I don't know the fraction of
concordance, not the fraction of reared-apartness, but you have the
reference...good luck!

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: lesley@pleasanton.EBay.Sun.COM (Lesley Smith - Test Engineering)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Jesus Would Gag
Date: 24 Jul 1992 19:00:34 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: lesley@pleasanton.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: pleasanton.ebay.sun.com


 Now..could you please answer a question for me? Why don't you beleive in God?

>	In Christ...
>		Lesley

However, I'm going to ask Lesley a question which I hope will serve as
an answer of sorts to hers:

	Why don't you believe in Santa Claus?

If you believe in God but not in Santa, please account for your different
conclusions. By the way, if your belief in God is based on scripture, no
problem. Take your bible, and do a global substitution of "Santa" in place
of "God". Now you have an authoritative scripture which proclaims the glory
of Santa.

	Simon, 

	My conclusions is that God sent His only Son Jesus Christ..to make a covenent with
	His people by His blood to forgive us of our sins, to keep us from going to Hell..for
	those of us who chose to follow Christ.

	As for Santa being inserted into the Word of God that is impossible...Santa (Chris) didn't
	heal the sick, make the blind see, or the lame to walk...there is no way..you could replace God.

	In Christ, Lesley

	


In the UK...
	Simon
From: jdoskow@ichinen.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Alignment of will, asking for help!
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:31:46 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Jul23.050232.8302@tronsbox.xei.com> moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:
>(There's little or no New Age content in this discussion so I've
>directed followups to talk.religion.misc.)
>
>Doug Thompson writes:
>>People with a religious understanding are usually eager to share it with
>>others. 
>
>While this is true of Christianity and other "one true way" religions,
>it's not true in general.  Buddhism, for example, has a long history
>of not proselytizing.  Only the recent fringe groups (e.g., Nichiren)
>have broken with this tradition.
>

The Lotus Sutra reads as follows

        "Then the Buddha addressed Maitreya Boddhisattva-Mahasattva;
        "Ajita!  If, after the extinction of the Tathagata, any bhikshu,
        bhikshuni, upasaka (lay man), upasika (lay woman), or other wise
        person, whether old or young, on hearing this sutra has accepted
        it with joy, and coming out of the assembly goes elsewhere to
        dwell either in a monastery or solitary place, or in a city,
        street, hamlet, or village, to expound [what] he has heard,
        according to his ability, to his father, mother, kindred, good
        friends, and acquaintances; and all these people, having heard
        it, accept it with joy and again go on to transmit the teaching;
        these others, having heard it, also accepting it with joy, and
        transmitting the teaching, and so in turn to the fiftieth
        [person]-Ajita!  I will now tell you about the merit of the
        fiftieth good son or good daughter, who joyfully receives[the
        truth].  Do you hearken well!
 
        [The Threefold Lotus Sutra - 1975 - Kosei, Tokyo pp. 269]

There are lots of opinions about what Buddhism is or isn't.  I submit
that a primary source such as the above has as much weight in
contributing to such a definition as any person's opinion.  

As to the "long history of not proselytizing" (ignoring the pejoritive
connotation,) consider this.  In the beginning, there was only one
Buddhist, Shakyamuni.  By the time he died, there were many thousands.

At the beginning of the first century AD, it is likely that there were
no Buddhists in China.  A thousand years later, there were tens of
thousands, at the least.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Everything I know I read on USENET.

Opinions expressed are those of the author.  jdoskow@Tymnet.COM
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Structure of Time (SUMMARY)
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:06:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.165232.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> 
hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
...
  Hanna-Maria said about two years ago that it is possible for neutrino to
move in time, if you are able to knock neutrino's spin axis to opposite
direction. She said also 5.5.1992 that if some object could knock all spin
axis of neutrinos in one side of radiation periphery then it could move in
time, such a way, that this object would appear in the other side of radiation
periphery. Hanna-Maria said also that this object must have samekind of cover
on its surface like "mirror" is (She said that it could be dangerous to try
to go through radiation periphery, because object could burn and there could
possible be no food to eat, and object could also remain in "wrong time".
She said also that if object moves a little from its original place in this
case then it could get to "Anti-World").
...
Biggest neutrino is green in Hanna-Maria's picture and it has a part (about
half) of its periphery violet. Middle size neutrino is violet and it has
several orange lines drawn crosswise inside of it. Smallest neutrino is green
and it is related to electron.
...
The "space-potato" is "living" in a way that it can go to every place
and God can "conjure" by aid of it all kinds that He wants ("conjure" those
"neutrino souls" to "princess", "prince", same kind of things than He can do
by aid of neutrinos).
...
  I would like to say that I believe that our God has spoken these things
through my 5 years old (28.4.1992) daughter Hanna-Maria, otherwise she must
be the greatest human genius ever born.
...
  I thank all readers for their interest about the subject. I hope that
I have arosen interest for the discussions about Big Bang and about
complicated structure of time. I apologize my clumsy writing style, it is
due to that I'am only an amateur physicist and astronomer. I think that
our space and our Universe is really worth to investigate further.
...
         "She said that she knows everything about the space."

---
Sounds like the birth of a new religion. You're gonna need some hooks if
you want to sell it. What kinds of free gifts will you be giving away and
what is the penalty if we refuse to accept the free gifts? And who will you,
oops I mean Hanna-Maria, be choosing as salesmen, oops I mean disciples?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Old Covenant and New (was Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong)
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:56:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.062911.21346@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Malachi.Robertson@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson) writes:
>I don't see how updating and replacing are consistent with fulfilling
>(which is the word Jesus used).  I don't remember 'updating' or
>'replacing' coming up.  In some sense wasn't the old covenant broken? 
>Also, what "laws" would bind a person to the old covenant? 

The Old Covenant is still around (the Law will not pass away, according to
Jesus).  But, by accepting Jesus' righteousness on ourselves (on credit, so
to speak), we become free of the penalties of the Law, namely death and
separation from God and receive life and communion with the Father.  This is
the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31) that Jesus sealed with his blood.  So we are
no longer bound to the Old Covenant but to the New Covenant (which is why those
Christians who advocate some sort of legalism are wrong).

I would recommend Paul's book of Romans and the anonymous book of Hebrews for
further study on this question (Hebrews is especially good at comparing the
two covenants, showing the supremacy of the New over the Old).

  -- Scott @Brandeis

     "Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
	                     -- Matthew 15:4

          "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on 
                       to the traditions of men."
                             -- Mark 7:8  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:51:44 GMT

---
lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
|corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
|   Ok, Laura, but how do you know the Bible is Jehovah's Word?  Because
|   the Watchtower told you?  Because you were raised in the "truth" (like
|   I was)?

|Creation is evidence enough for me.  I cannot comprehend how 
|man could just evolve.  Humans today cannot create life or duplicate 
|the healing process of the body.  Does all this not account for something?

Argument by incredulity & ignorance is not persuasive argument.
Your personal inability to comprehend something says nothing one
way or the other about its truthfulness.  So your argument indeed 
counts for nothing.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Allow me to say that the arguments with which you have supported this
extraordinary application have been as frivolous as the application was
misjudged.  You have widely mistaken my character, if you think I can be
worked on by such persuasions as these."  Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "Evidence" of god
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 17 Jul 92 16:10:45 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <1992Jul10.153233.2934@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>I could state it this way: Suppose that I doubt
>the evidence, that I think it is biased (say, NASA just wants money)
>and does not reflect reality.

In that case, with a little research I could pose to you an experiment
to test your hypothesis.  The experiment was actually performed by
[Aritosthenes?], and involves the use of a straight stick, a ruler,
a reliable timepiece, and the ability to travel.  The experiment can
be reliably performed by just about anyone, and the results seem to
be predictable and consistent.  The experiment serves to demonstrate
that the world is, indeed, a curved surface along its north-south
axis.  

I challenge you to describe an experiment similar in its simplicity
and reliability, which serves to show that the Christian God exists.

Finally, evidence which is not reliable cannot result in judgment.
When one ponders a decision, one discards those pieces of evidence
which cannot be validated, and which are not therefore reliable. 
Once one has come to a decision, when one says "The evidence for
[] is [] and []," one does _not_ include those pieces of evidence
for, which were discarded as unreliable (unless, of course, one would
like to be beaten about the head and shoulders needlessly).  One
includes only those pieces of evidence which led one to the decision.
This is why, when speaking of "evidence for," there is an implication
that one means "reliable evidence for."




-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:42:14 GMT

akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:

>tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>(The whole passage is somewhat confused, because of the multiple
>meanings.  The beast has seven heads, but it is also one of the heads.
>The seven are seven mountains, but they are also seven kings.)


	They refer to 7 world powers of the history ( Dan. 2:31-45 ; 7:1-27). In 
	verse 24 one of the ten horns humiliates three other horns. What power 
	took lead from these in 1500's - 1700's: Spain, France, Holland,       
	Britain ? That is the 7th power. Britain conquered the Great Armada of
	Spain, beated France in colonial wars and Holland become insignificant.
	The Anglo-American power gave power to the image of the beast: The 
	League of Nations. The head was wounded in WW I, but it became cured.
	Today it is ruling the world everywhere - in Iraq, in Panama and in 
	many other countries plus economically. I'm writing this with an 
	Anglo-american computer and Anglo-american editor (which refuses to
	understand German letters like "{" or "|"). The harlot is riding 
	with the kind acceptance of the kings of the world. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc