HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:41:50 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <C0H38n.Hzo@rice.edu>
   swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.013543.8389@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
   billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>This might have some meaning. I will have to check my Bibles. Maybe our
>>scholar at Brown will comment on this - from primary sources - not the
>>politically correct babbling (for the time) if the KJ version (which is
>>frequently the basis for more recent versions.
>  It's from the Revised Standard Version. According to the preface, most of
>the Old Testament is based on Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. This is an
>edition of the Hebrew and Aramaic text as current early in the Christian era
>and fixed in the sixth to the nineth centuries by Jewish scholors of the
>Masorete sect. (If you find this helpful, you're one up on me.)

I don't know if this is old news or new news to you guys, but excluding the
changes that are being made to NEW translations (such as NSRV and the new
Tanakh bibles, and others) based on the Dead Sea Scroll manuscript copies,
ALL translations of the Hebrew Bible come from the same two manuscript 
sources, the Masoretic text and the Septuagint.

The Masoretic manuscript is the earliest surviving copy in Hebrew (excluding
the DSS mentioned above), and is the product of the Masoretic Jews, the
grammarians of Tiberius, roughly sixth century to the completion of the
text dated 1009 CE.

The Septuagint, the 3rd century BCE translation from the Hebrew to the
Greek, was completed for Ptolemy II of Egypt. "Septuagint" means "seventy",
and refers to the ancient tradition that it was completed by seventy 
Jewish sages in seventy days. It is considered a "radical" translation,
and reflects many glosses and misunderstandings of the source text.

Unless I'm mistaken, most translations of this century do NOT rely on the
KJV, and instead go back to the Masoretic or Septuagint as a source.

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
From: 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: 1/6/93   God's Promise in Psalm 18:30
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:58:34 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <1993Jan6.044054.10320@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>
>>	As for God, his way is perfect:
>>	the word of the LORD is tried:
>>	he is a buckler
>>	to all those that trust in him.
>>
>>	Psalm 18:30
> 
> 
> 	Ah, yes, the Lord's way is perfect.
AMEN
> 	If you prosper, it's because he wants you to.
> 	if you suffer, it's because he wants you to.
> 	Anything you see can be explained away in terms of him.
> 	Anything you do can be rationalized
> 	if you read the Bible enough.
> 	Why is it you can't even _conceive_
> 	of existence without a deity behind it?
HOW CAN THIS BE?  HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR EXISTENCE?  WHO CREATED YOU?
WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE?

> 	What would it take to make you even _consider_
> 	that your god is not perfect, or not even real?
I HAVE CONSIDER IT, AS HAS MOST CHRISTIANS, BUT WE CANNOT CONSIDER ANYTHING
ELSE BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE I AM.

THE PEACE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST BE WITH YOU!!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: An End to All Arguments
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:08:03 GMT

barclay@hpa.rf.no (Barclay Stevenson) writes:
>			 An End to All Arguments

Okay, so perhaps it is the end to all arguments, but for one good
reason that doesn't happen to be the reason you think:

>Reading some articles here in this group shows that some talk from their
>intellectual understanding of God without knowing him in person.
>Like in this natural world, it's only when you live with a person that
>you really get to know them. So it is when you have the Spirit of Christ
>in you, it's then that you understand and experience that God is good,
>loving, and not willing that any should perish.

I have searched long and far for this god of yours, but I have not
found him.  I have prayed with an open mind and an open heart, yet he
has not come.  If only he would reveal himself to me, I would eagerly
believe in him and devote myself to him, but he hides himself from me.
Why is this?  What would you have me do now?

>The fact remains that the Bible is not for arguments, but is Truth that
>can set you free by accepting it whether you are Jew or heathen, pagan,
>Witch or witch, or reject it and remain under Satans' dominion.

I am under no one's dominion save my own.

>We can never expect to know God fully, but he does reveal himself
>sufficiently in the Bible so that we can be rescued from hell to Heaven.

The Bible also reveals some pretty nasty things about your god;
besides, it's not even historically accurate.  I'd prefer for your god
to come to me and tell me things to my face.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: schlicke@math.TU-Berlin.DE (Wolfram Schlickenrieder)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Galileo Galileo's "OK, OK, I AM WRONG"... (?!?)
Date: 8 Jan 93 12:22:40
Organization: FB3, TU-Berlin, Germany.
Distribution: soc
NNTP-Posting-Host: jerichow.math.tu-berlin.de


	
	Hi Folks...

	Since Galilei was "forgiven" by John-Paul-#2 just recently I
	am looking for the words he had to say in front of the
	inquisition tribunal (is that an english word?) in order to
	avoid being tormented for the rest of his life; something that
	basically meant "Ok, Ok, I was wrong; Yes, the Earth *is* the
	center of the universe and everything; No, I will not publish
	any of my material any more; Thank you, Sir.".

	I'm especially interested in finding the *latin* "original"
	text -- is that exists at all...

	Any kind of help with this is greatly apprechiated!!!

	...Wolfram

-- fnord.
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Thank you for your responses  :)
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:56:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan8.165146.14614@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes...
>And, oh yes, I've figured out and have been told quite vehemently how NOT to
>post to the alt.atheism group.  It seems that I've riled them up quite a bit, but 
>I honestly can't say that I'm bothered by it.  However, I won't abuse the net
>any further by posting to them that don't want to hear.

As one who frequents a.a (and an atheist who has responded to many of your 
posts), I personally wasn't offended by your posts there.  While it does
technically violate the a.a charter, without such posts a.a would become 
pretty dull pretty fast ("anyone have any good recipes?").  

Personally, I like sparring, especially when heads stay level.  Keep it up.

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Islam at a Glance
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:35:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.171226.20288@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
>
>Let me start by pointing out that Yahweh *is* Allah.
>
  I can see why it might be comfortable for muslims to believe this, 
  but it is not true.

  Yahweh is a prononced form of the unspoken name of God. Allah is 
  somebodies idea of what God might be. In terms of the god's of the
  middle east, Allah is a lessor pagan God.

  YHWH create men and women in his own image. Allah is both sexless and
  has no image. YHWH spoke face to face with Moses. Allah told Mohamed that
  Moses misdelivered the messege. God/YHWH said that Jesus was his Son.
  Allah said that Jesus was not the son of God, because God had no sons.


  in short YHWH/God is not Allah, he is greater that Allah


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An End to All Arguments
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:49:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan6.134204.12312@hsr.no>, barclay@hpa.rf.no (Barclay Stevenson) writes...

>Jesus said that we cannot even understand earthly things, how then could
>he start to explain heavenly things for us.
> 
>Paul explains it like seeing through a glass darkly.
>Don't critisize the view when it's your eyesight that's the problem

OH! OH! OH!  MR KOTTER!  I KNOW!

What if Paul's eyesight is worse than mine, Mr. Kotter?

Wearing a light prescription,

Mike

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Thank you for your responses  : ) 
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:18:14 GMT

In article <C0KBn6.5rz@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.211847.28021@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
>
>> No, you have been asked not to preach on alt.atheism, not quite the same
>> thing.  Intelligent discourse is welcome, unsupported assertions are not.
>
> Except, of course, when the unsupported assertions are made by atheists.
> (note -- this is NOT a defense of random [or systematic] abuse of your
> group for xtian apologesis.)

I think this is a tad unfair, Michael. An atheist poster on a.a. spouted
stuff recently about how, in his experience and judgement, atheists were
more `intelligent' than Christians. He was rounded upon by the heathen
hordes dismissing his observations as at best irrelevant, and demanding
rigorous studies in the time-honoured "put up or shut up" fashion.

In my less than rigorous observation, this happens rather regularly on a.a.

>Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
>mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
>			 They built by rivers and at night the water
>			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An End to All Arguments
Date: 7 Jan 1993 20:20:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, barclay@hpa.rf.no (Barclay Stevenson) says:

>			 An End to All Arguments
>			 -----------------------
>
>God is a good God, God is righteous and God is just. This is the basic
>nature of God (God is love).
>If you do not agree, then your God is just a god.

How do you know that your god is not just a god?  Your god has shown many
reasons to consider it to not be good.  Your "scripture" is full of such
stories, from the destruction of sodom and gomorrah all the way through
the death of his "son" by torture.
>
>It is because of the earthly limitations of our brains (and thence pride
>in our hearts) that we can start to argue if God is unjust,
>or doesn't care.

Within our earthly limits we can still recognise injustice when it is so
blatant.
>
>Jesus said that we cannot even understand earthly things, how then could
>he start to explain heavenly things for us.
>
>Paul explains it like seeing through a glass darkly.
>Don't critisize the view when it's your eyesight that's the problem
>
>Reading some articles here in this group shows that some talk from their
>intellectual understanding of God without knowing him in person.
>Like in this natural world, it's only when you live with a person that
>you really get to know them. So it is when you have the Spirit of Christ
>in you, it's then that you understand and experience that God is good,
>loving, and not willing that any should perish.

What if we did know god and decided that such knowledge was openly harmful
to our selves?
>
>But, this can be like explaining what colour is to a blind man.
>The Bible says "Lean not to your own understanding"
>
>There is a great chasm between Christians filled with the Holy Spirit and
>unbelievers that cannot be crossed by the bridge of intellect, reasoning, or
>consensus. There is only one bridge, the one already supplied by The Lord and
>Saviour Jesus Christ accomplished through his sacrifice on the cross, and by
>faith you cross it.

What about former believers? 
>
>The fact remains that the Bible is not for arguments, but is Truth that
>can set you free by accepting it whether you are Jew or heathen, pagan,
>Witch or witch, or reject it and remain under Satans' dominion.

THere are many things in the bible atht are patently untrue, must we
somehow suspend our own knowledge and believe something which is known to
be false?
>
-- 
When subtlety fails us we must make do with cream pies.
                                                    --David Brin
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:10:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.93Jan5112134@bugs.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> In article <ksand-040193164356@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
>  (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
>    >I think I'm trying to make a more deep point about validation of 
>    >statements than something like 'plain truth'. See earlier postings.
> 
>   You can make whatever deep points you like. However, as long as the
> purportedly deep points are made by rejecting, using some undefined
> and non-standard terminology of your own, the perfectly clear and
> correct remarks on logic and Christianity made by others, what you are
> doing is babbling.

As with any other argumentation, the justification and definition
parts are important. So you need to justify your conclusions about babbling
in order to show the point. And don't use ad hominem attack for this as
well.

Or in other words, we have not even agreed on the term 'babbling' --
which shows my point about making conclusions based on agreements on the
premises.

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
Subject: Re: JESUS DIED AND IS RISEN
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:43:08 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:

>JESUS HAS RISEN!!!!

Interesting.  So what's your point?

-- 
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: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: World Views: Vedic vs. Western
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:15:58 GMT

In article <LaTqwB2w165w@kalki33.uucp> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>

>> > Sadaputa Dasa (Richard L. Thompson) earned his Ph.D. in 
>> > mathematics from Cornell University. ...
>> 
>> In terms of reinforcing stereotypes, this is as bad as the
>> black American college students who recently visited Japan
>> on a school trip and were caught in mass shoplifting.  Why
>> does mathematics seem plagued by more than its fair share 
>> of wackos?
>
>More useless complaining. You want to discuss the issue, or just thumb
>your elevated nose at it?

Kalki, you're a fine one to complain about others dodging the issue!
A couple of months ago, over in talk.origins, Kalki was complaining
that no one had ever seen one species evolve into another.  This is
untrue, and I e-mailed him examples of observed speciations from the
t.o FAQ file.  No response, though several times I tried to goad him
into discussing the issue.  I can only assume his question was a
rhetorical device, not a request for information.

So don't start getting all holier-than-thou, when you're guilty of the
same sort of behavior.

SD
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Time: (was Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead)
Date: 8 Jan 93 12:15:51 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Stephan Fassmann, Software ($stephan@sasb.byu.edu) wrote:
: One of my favorite quotes, though I have forgotten where it is from, is:
: "Time was invented to keep everything from happening at once."

To anyone: please email me if you can give a source for this quote! I
have been looking for the source for some time. Thanks.

Chris Ho-Stuart    cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Sean's delusional nature 
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:27:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.135300.9967@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <root.726423512@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>>>In article <root.726333839@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> 
>>>Is this an illusion?  Perhaps.  In which case I have no choice but to
>>>believe in free will... ;-)
>> 
>> That's Sean's point, and it describes me, too.  Free will appears to be, at
>> least somewhat, of an illusion.  But it's one I'll keep for the moment.
>
>If you guys are so free, then explain this: how do you decide to make
>a decision? Or do decisions _just happen_? Heh heh... *evil laugh*
>
>As Stephane Mallarme (aka God) put it: a throw of the dice will never abolish
>Chance. All thought emits a throw of the dice. 

Precisely. Steve, and most other people (I would hazard) who believe in the
concept of moral agency, require the concept of `free will': at least a
`limited free will'.

The fact remains (as it always does for Sean (much as he might protest)
and any non-schizophrenic) that we all act as if we have free will, and
in the end isn't that all that matters?

Dano
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
	<TORKEL.93Jan5112610@bugs.sics.se>
	<ksand-060193112728@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:03:30 GMT

In article <ksand-060193112728@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com 
(Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >I would like to know your point concerning
   >this very important issue

  In view of your explicit statement that

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

it only remains to point out to you that this personal interpretation
of yours is not at all what is meant by a logically valid argument outside
your articles.
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:31:57 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <0cLv02wc30Jx01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>Women being priest can hardly be considered and "essential". I am talking
>about who God is, "lds=a big man; Christiandom=a spirit".And who Jesus
>is (lds=brother of Lucifer; Christiandom=Creator of ALL things).  These
>are essential doctrines.  Woman and baptism are _not_ considered
>essential doctrines.
>

So you can capture the essence of Mormon teaching about Jesus in
"lds=brother of Lucifer".  You are truly a case, Tony.

>>I am not aware of a single Mormon author who has taught that Jesus was
>>a created being.
>
>I am not aware of a single one that didn't.Perhaps you have references
>to support your claim?

Well, if you aren't aware of a single one who didn't, it should
be easy for you to produce some evidence in the form of a
statement that Jesus is created.  After all, you are the 
one that made the assertion.  I challenged you, so the obligation
of proof is yours.

Joseph Smith taught that all of us existed from eternity, and none
are created.  Are you saying that a special exception was
made for Jesus?  You need to get your heresies straight!

>Well, which is it, are you "co-eternal with God"?  Have you existed
>as long as God has?  Or were you created as Spirit children?

Joseph Smith's teaching was that the essence of man is not created. 
There was never a time at which we didn't exist in some form.
There was a spiritual birth similar to the physical birth that occurs
on Earth, but the intelligence that makes up each individual person,
including God, is not created.  Birth and creation are not the same
thing.  Creation in Mormon theology is more like organize.  Creation
ex nihilo is denied.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:46:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec31.053053.20239@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> You can't say it's true or false, indeed.  But it's still _valid_.  To be valid
> logic is not the same as being true or false; valid means that the conclusion
> follows from the premises.

OK, if we can't state that a premise is true or false, how could we
then draw a conclusion about the logical validity of the outcome?
In other words we agree upon premises in the case of science and
formal logic/mathematics, but in the case of metaphysics some believe,
some not, and the qualification ultimately depends on the personal
world view. In other words everything is logical if it makes sense
for me... Intriguing...

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