HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:31:48 GMT
Summary: Unscientific Prophet

In article <20L002.N2fQt01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>That "true prophet of God (the big man)" said that it [the sun] was
>[inhabited]. The moon too!

We have dwelt previously with Oliver Huntington's remarks and have shown
that they were not even his recollections, rather the third hand remarks
which he uncritically picked up from Philo Dribble in 1881. 

We have even shown that Oliver Huntington's recollection of his blessing
at the hands of Joseph Smith's father was significantly in error. It
turns out that Huntington (based on the blessing records) was actually
blessed by his father.

But most important, I once asked if a man could hold unscientific views
and still be considered a prophet. In addition to the numerous examples
of unscientific statements made in the bible, don't forget that the Lord
set down the rules for determining clean and unclean animals in Lev 11.
They are recorded as though God uttered these words. But after setting
down the criteria in v 3-4, God (according to this passage) them makes
a critical mistake"

   v 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof;
   it is unclean for you.

Sorry, the rabbit does NOT chew the cud, and never has. Did God make a
mistake? Did Moses attribute to the great creater an unscientific knowledge?
Does that invalidate Moses' claim to be a prophet?

If the criteria is that prophets must never make unscientific mistakes,
then I feel very sorry for the state of your faith. Even Rev. J.R.
Dummelow in his _One Volume Bible Commentary_ was not so quick to judge
a prophet:

   Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men
   each with his own peculiarties of manner and disposition - each with
   his own education or want of education - each with his own way of
   looking at things - each influenced differently from another by the
   different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration
   did not involve a suspension of their natural faculities, it did not
   even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into
   machines - it left them men.

   Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of
   their contemporaries ... (p. cxxxv)

I find anti-Mormon criteria for prophethood so restricted that I suspect
that if a prophet from former times arose, they would be the first to
stone him.
-- 

              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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec09.233339.23836@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu> 
	<1992Dec11.054012.10468@microsoft.com>
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:31:38 UTC

In article <1992Dec11.054012.10468@microsoft.com> 
jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
>is empty.

That's another one of those Christian pickup lines, isn't it? I never
realized what players you Christians are. Yo! I got your Jesus, right
here! Now, let's disco! Yo! Check out the way I can point my finger up
and them point my finger down, way too cool, huh?
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Jews Hate Proselytizing
Date: 13 Dec 1992 20:01:46 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes, in part:

>                                             In Judaism, even the
>atheist who behaves in a decent and kind manner will have a place
>in the world to come.  

     I wasn't aware that in Judaism there is a "world to come".  
     Can you supply a reference?

>                                                           As the
>concept of God in Judaism is one of a loving God, ......

     Since when?  As I read the Old Testament, the god shows a lot
     more cruelty, vindictiveness, and vanity than love.


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: What would you have said?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:23:46 GMT

In article <Bz67u4.J2A@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>>The Bible teaches that Christianity is a call to receive eternal life and
>>a call to become Christ-like. It does not say, that giving your life
>>to Christ results in immediate perfection. In fact, it says that the
>>Christian can expect to grow in spirit throughout his life. 
>Yes, but Christ never killed.  Thus, it is *never* Christ-like to kill, and 
>thus the statement that Christians kill more than they are killed is a pretty
>well-pointed critique of Christianity.

I suppose I am arguing on the wrong side again, but even aside from questions
about fig trees, many Christian groups believe that Jesus was God, and we all
know examples of God killing.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Defining the kingdom of God
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:51:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec14.022116.28700@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> 
> Mr. Sandvik suggests that unless I can show valid each of the
> assumptions I listed in my simple counter-example to his claim
> "there's no logic in Christianity", I walk the "same thin line of
> reasoning Christian philosophers are (in)famous of".
> 
> I fail to see the relevance.  If Mr. Sandvik agrees that what I
> presented was an example of logic in Christianity, then he must
> withdraw his claim.

You used logic, but the premises you used can't be verified true
or false. In other words the outcome is exactly how you want
it to become. Or 2 + 2 is 5 indeed, because the + notation has
a hidden notation that it adds one more value.

I would really like to see something more formal, logic-wise before
I gladly accept statements. Once again, I don't have a Masters
in Logic 101, however there are limits to what one could believe
or state using logical conclusions.

Or, we all agree what 1 is, but few could agree what the original
sin is. Or if it even exists.


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
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:03:40 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Dec14.135452.1344@lut.ac.uk> A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk (Alan Robinson) writes:
|In article <SUOPANKI.92Dec11010230@stekt2.oulu.fi> suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi writes:
|>
|>...because hot looking Chirstian babes will have sex with you.
|
|Thinking about it (I am the original poster), it worked for me.

If sex is your god, then I guess this makes sense.

|She did, we stopped being Christians, and got married (in a register 
|office [civil ceremony]).

If sex is your god, then I guess this makes sense.

|Maybe we were blinded by our sin (pre-marital sex [GOSH] but what 
|is worse, guiltless lovemaking or Christian 'were not doing it
|honest guv' substitutes including everything your granny 
|never did ?)

Is it wise to forsake God for any sin?  God is always there
waiting for you - remember the prodigal son parable.  The young
man left his father and spent his fortune and morals, but the
father welcomed him home with open arms and had a party for him.

There is rejoicing in heaven, when one sinner repents.

|Maybe we wised up and got on with our lives.
|
|Alan.

I pray you do seek wisdom and turn back to God, who loves you
and gave himself for you.  Sex is not some cure-all, much less
do either of you thing it is worth losing eternity with God
so that you can have 'guiltless' sex, if you really do.

Worship the Creator and not the created thing (i.e., each other.)

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
                          --|--   
Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
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 02:07:43 GMT

ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield) writes:
>Perhaps he, like I, is one of those people who is able to think for himself
>and realize that christianity is not for everyone.  I do not fear the
>christians or their beliefs in eternal damnation.  I want nothing to do
>with a god that would even consider the idea of damning someone for
>eternity.  I do not fear change, I relish it, that is why I changed from
>being christian to being pagan.
		 	  ^^^^^
I hate to nitpick, but this is the DUMBEST word in modern spirituality today.
ANd so many (not you) of these 'pagans' are about as true to their 'beliefs'
as the average Christians.  Yeargh.

Matt I.


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec20.030245.9794@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 1992 09:08:11 UTC

In article <1992Dec20.030245.9794@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <BzJD0s.9r9@world.std.com> 
rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>>Take prospective translation and turn to Isaiah 7:14. If you find the word
>>"virgin" therein, consign the translation to the flames. It is NOT a
>>correct translation from the Hebrew.  The word in question is ALMAH which
>>in Hebrew means a young woman of marriageable age, not virgin, although a
>>virgin of marriagable age could be so designated. The Hebrew word for
>>virgin is B'TULAH which is not in that verse from Isiah.
>You have conveniently ignored that in the OT Hebrew culture the two are
>synonymous.

No they are not! That's why there are two different words. A young woman who
is pregnant can not also be a virgin, (except in pagan mythology), but she may
be of marriageable age, in other words young, or she may even be married.

>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. 

>It is not stretching it to call all such women of this
>time period virgins, in my opinion.

Then the term means nothing, only young marriageable woman. A virgin is
*specifically* a person who has not experienced *sex*. If that was the
intention of the writer, that is what would have been written. Virgin
was *not* written. Perhaps your Revelation 22:18-19 may be of some assistance
in this matter?

>Besides, you will never find a
>translation without such minor errors.  Thats what notes in the border are
>for, and you would have to burn every translation if you were this strict
>with all of them.

You call this a MINOR error? Really!

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. Do
you really consider this being strict? What does the Christian
Revelations 22:18-19 say again? Or does this not apply to translations
of the original Bible languages? Are you really this lax with THE WORD?
Is this the essence of Christianity? If it's good enough for King James
it's good enough for me? And what has become of that search for the
truth? How have you been led astray?
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 13 Dec 92 21:02:17 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec10.160147.12581@samba.oit.unc.edu> Steve.Gross@launchpad.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
>---- Why should any Christian here answer it?  Noone would believe it
>anyway, and the Christian would be flamed and reflamed for saying it. 

First things first.  What was the question?  What was it that was sought
-- reasons for believing that the claims of Christianity are valid or
reasons for practising Christianity once one has bought those claims?

Just about all the answers were of the type "you should practise
Christianity (worship the Christian God) because God did/said ...",
which is of no use for someone who doesn't believe that said god exists,
never mind did or said any of those things.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23592 alt.atheism:23358 alt.slack:3408
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:00:50 GMT
Organization: not very organized
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <schnitzi.724097538@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>Fortunately, the hole is also about the size and shape of a large pepperoni
>and sausage pizza and a six-pack of Mooseheads.

	Unbeliever! This hole can only be filled by the devine Ale!
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Why Jews Hate Proselytizing
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:45:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   There have been various recent efforts to link Christianity to 
Judaism.  These efforts range from the repeated use of the phrase   
"Judeo-Christian" to groups of evangelists refering to themselves
as 'Jews' for Jesus.  All of these efforts, calculated to convert 
Jews to Christianity, are doomed to failure.  These efforts prove
that those who do this know little or nothing about Judasim.

   To begin, there is much about how Christians worship that Jews
regard as idol-worship.  From the Jewish point of view, Christian
prayer is wierd and demeaning.  Jews actually do not have visions
of God, let alone any sort of icons.  God is considered as beyond 
anything that we mortals could possibly grasp.  The very thought, 
that "Jesus is Lord," assaults the basic concept of God for Jews. 

   Moshiach(messiah) is not a supernatural being.  He is supposed
to be a man, and only a man.  For this reason, it is not possible
for the Jewish messiah to be born, die, and be resurrected, so he
can try to get right what he never accomplished the first time.

   And finally, the concept of God crucifying his own son for the
sins of any other person, let alone all of humanity, is, from the 
Jewish point of view, totally unacceptable.  It flies in the face
of everything that is important in Judasim.  Judaism teaches that
salvation is achievable by how one behaves.  In Judaism, even the
atheist who behaves in a decent and kind manner will have a place
in the world to come.  Since people of any creed have the ability
to behave in a holy and humane manner, Jews beleive that ANY good
person can go to heaven.  As the old ad slogan for the kosher rye
bread claimed, you don't have to be Jewish...

   If, as Judaism teaches, one can achieve salvation by behavior,
then Jesus would have died for nothing.  This is the basic reason
that Christianity can never accept Judaism.  Judasim holds that a
person is responsible for his or her own salvation.  We also view
an act such as the murder of Jesus as cruel and barbaric.  As the
concept of God in Judasim is one of a loving God, the reason that
is given for God's sacrifice is not acceptable to Jews.  To us it
is repugnant in the extreme.  It flies in the face of all that we
Jews hold dear.

   I hope that this is not regarded as judgement of Christianity, 
for it is not.  Please consider this as simply an explanation why 
Christianity can never find common ground with Judaism.  It is my
hope that this will shed light on why Jews are so deeply offended 
by, and resentful of, Christian proselytising.
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:14:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.020127.16844@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.054331.11993@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
[...]
>> Because it answers the wrong question.  I was questioning the inconsistency
>> between Jesus lacking sin, unlike humans, even though he was supposedly trying
>> to be a human.  You replied he had to be sinless in order to do a second thing
>> (be a sacrifice), which even if true does not answer the question of how he
>> could be sinless while doing the first thing (be like a human).
>
>Apparantly J wasn't trying to be human, he was human in every
>sense of the word(and I'll qualify this time)except original
>sin. It would be logically impossible for him to have original sin.
>He most certainly could experience humanity without original sin. 
>Original sin just says humans are born with a propensity to disobey
>God and what god wants of his people. If J was born with this
>propensity, he could not qualify to buy back his people through
>the eternal sinless(spotless)sacrifice.

If "Original Sin" is what you claim it to be, then I would consider it to
be a very central part of being human.  That being the case, why do you
believe J could certainly experience humanity?  I agree that he might be
able to experience certain aspects of it, but I wouldn't agree that he
would be "fully human" unless he had *all* the tendencies that we humans
have.

On the other hand, if "Original Sin" has no effect on our behavior (i.e.,
we'd behave the same anyway even if we didn't have it), then (and only
then) I would agree that J could be "fully human".


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:38:15 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

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?

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sle@cray.com (Stan L. Eads)
Subject: Re: In response to Jack Carroll on Hinduism?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:16:53 CST

In article <1992Dec8.154118.2454@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
>In article <1992Dec08.043116.25012@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>> >to replace it with a Hindu temple?
>> 
>> Simple.  They weren't Real Hindus.
>
>I dont think so. The mosque was demolished by Hindus and 
>Hindus alone. The fact is that the once glorious "Hinduism 
>is in a state of utter decadence. 
>
>> --
>> Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
>
>RKP

Ravi,

I have just returned to the US after 3+ years in India.  I'm very sad
to see what's going on there now.  But you know as well as anyone how
communalism is used as a political weapon in India and vicinity.  It
no more reflects the values of Hinduism/Vedanta than the crusaders
represented Christianity, or Shiite terrorists represent the values of
Islam.  The uneducated masses dwelling in poverty are easy prey of the
corrupt politicos in India, and this is what is demonstrated by the
tragedy now occurring there.  Fanning the flames of communal hatred
keeps these few in their positions of power, and the game is their
excitement.  Don't play into their hands by adding your breath to the
fire.  Work instead to make real change.  And education IS the key.

Stan
From: norrdahl@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Kai Norrdahl)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Finnish Bible Translation
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:39:43 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Alan M Feuerbacher (alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM) wrote:
> Would any Finnish speakers help me out with translating a
> passage from two Finnish bibles?  The more responses the better.

> KR33:
>    Silla nain sanoo Herra: Vasta kun ne seitsemankymmenta
>    Baabelin vuotta ovat tayttyneet, mina katson teidan puoleenne
>    ja panen taytantoon teita kohtaan hyvan lupaukseni ja
>    palautan teidat tahan paikkaan.

  For this says the Lord: Only after those 70 years of Babel have
  been fulfilled, I will look upon you and fulfil to you my
  good promise and bring you back to this place.

> 
> KR92:
>    Nain sanoo Herra: Kun Babylonian seitsemankymmenta vuotta
>    ovat kuluneet, mina otan teidat jalleen huomaani.  Mina
>    taytan lupaukseni ja tuon teidat takaisin omaan maahanne.

   This says the Lord: When the 70 years of Babel have passed,
   I take you again to my care. I fulfil my promise and bring
   you back to your own country.


                             Translated by
                              Kai Norrdahl
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc