HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Did Jesus Claim to be God (Finally?)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:39:33 GMT

In article <MIB.92Jul28142610@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.203850.493@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>   Hence, neither Son of Man nor Son of God is really a direct claim
>   to be the deity.  Not that you implied otherwise. Just trying to
>   clear things up a bit.
>
>The term Son of God, as used in the Gospels, clearly identifies Jesus
>as unique.
Quite true. He's the Messiah.

>  It is applied to him in ways different from its occasional
>application to other people.  The NT refers to our ability to be "sons
>of God" (1 John 3:1-2), so clearly that alone isn't it.  But the
>synoptics consistently give the impression that there is a uniqueness
>to the designation of Jesus.  I gave the example of Jesus' baptism.
>If that is roughly analogous to the anointing of kings in Israel (and
>I think it is), then note that kings of Israel did not have such
>striking supernatural events associated with their ascendency.
Of course not. He's the Messiah. That's special. He's a King
even greater than David.

>Also, the Gospels were not written in the time of the Ancient Near
>East, and the model of kingship in Israel was very different, as
>recorded by the sources available to the gospels' authors.  
Hmm...
I'm not sure what you mean here.
The model of kingship in Israel was very much like the model of
kingship in the contemporary ANE. I.e. that of OT Israel is much
like that of the rest of the ANE. As for NT, well, the messianic
ideology is an outgrowth of the idea of the divinity of the Davidic
King, which has its origins in very early times.

>Your wording here is very interesting.  I mentioned, only
>peripherally, that Son of Man was a title which carried connotations
>of divine authority and power, and you seem to agree.
Yes, that's right. But not identification as the deity.

>  You don't say
>anything about the title "Son of God", but then lump it in with "Son
>of Man" in your final paragraph.
Because Son of Man is more interesting. When one says, as I did,
that the Davidic King was considered to be the adopted son of the
deity, the significance I attribute to "Son of God" should be obvious.
Do you need me to walk through the logic?

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going Back in Time to Meet Jesus Christ -- What Would You See?
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:54:55 GMT

If you want to know what it was like, watch Monty Python's "Life of Brian".
The original title was Life Of Jesus, but some people felt that would be
too realistic. Always look on the bright side of life ...

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Predestination Mr. Adams
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:57:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.001934.28900@samba.oit.unc.edu> Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
>I submit Mr. Adams, that just because you haven't accepted this blessing,
>there is no reason to try and make someone else doubt it.  I'm sure you
>know all the catchy little verses I would point out here from Paul's
>writings. 
>
>You are an extremely educated man Mr. Adams, and I hope that you will look
>into this area intellectually as well as emotionally.  You will benefit,
>I'm sure.

Go fuck yourself and crawl back into that BBS of yours, you prissy,
sanctimonious twit.  Gad, I can't believe the morons who wander into here.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 23:50:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.180424.6522@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>> <10068@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) said:
>>>In article <84#x9g@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>><forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>><>From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
>>><>> 
>>><>> Can you list for me 10 merciful, loving, and sacrificial things that your 
>>><>> god did for humans that was not done expressly for gaining or maintaining
>>><>> converts.  In other words, he did them solely because they were to 
>>><>> please others.
>>>
>>>[stories from the Gospels discussed]
>>>
>>><But you can't attest to the motives behind ANY of these things.
>>>
>>>The motives are debatable, because the effect is both that people
>>>benefit from the deeds and that they are amazed by the tricks Jesus
>>>knows, and become or are reconfirmed as his followers.  Was the goal
>>>to feed the hungry/heal the ill and the side effect to impress the
>>>crowd, or was it vice versa?  Here's a difficult question.
>> 
>> Hard to believe an omnipotent being didn't realize the end results of his
>> actions.  If it was only to benefit the individual at that time and not to
>> gain converts later then I'm sure that this god could have kept these
>> "miracles" out of the bible altogether.
>> 
>> Gordon
>
>In fact, he did keep most of them out.

Ok, Suzanne, Prove this one.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: JW and blood
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:11:50 GMT

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. 

			Andreas
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Structure of Time
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:27:07 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc.

psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
: In article <1992Jul28.175239.10109@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com
:
: >You were asked a number of times to take your postings somewhere else
: >where they would be appreciated. You ignored the requests - you deserve
: >to suffer the consequences - whatever they may be.
:
: 		Try to keep this in perspective.
:
: 		You're talking about someone losing their job and
: livelihood as being less important than you having to hit the spacebar.

>I posted before that I thought a person losing their job over this was
>an overly extreme reaction.

>However, I wonder how well the person is doing their job, if it can be
>threatened by such a minor thing.

>Before anyone asks - I was not one of those that wrote to his employer.I
>also believe that using the 'n' key is the most appropriate response if you
>do not wish to read a posting.

>However, I still stand by what I said. A person should be willing to accept
>the consequences for their actions - even if they are more harsh than they
>expected.  When people complained and are ignored - I am not surprised that
>they went further and contacted the employer. The person making the postings
>should be intelligent enough to realize this could happen.

>Bill

The 'Space Potato' story is no more or less assaulting to the senses
than, say... Joseph Smith's fable concerning the Garden of Eden
being located in Missouri, or Noah sailing his ark from the
Carolinas.

Based on what you have said, it sounds like an LDs poster should
be as worried of reprisals as a man who believes his 5 year old
daughter is receiving cosmic revelation.  It sounds as though you
are saying: if you dont agree with an article, making the poster suffer
personal loss is a valid method of dealing with him.


Mark

<my employer had an opinion once, but I forgot what it was.>
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Get a life
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:29:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.173330.23164@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
>To this, I would respond, Get a life.

Something to think about, eh Steve? Maybe it's about time? 
Take that first step?

>I am indeed a sinner,

You said it, not me. Was it the homophobia that did you in?

>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.

And what book would that be?

>I read the book as it is written, no more no less.

Looks like you could stand to read it again. This time concentrate on 
understanding the words. Stop watching TV. And don't take any free gifts.


You played yourself, G!
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:19:27 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul29.020720.4894@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>In article <1992Jul28.215656.20946@macc.wisc.edu>
stmarys@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ted Babcock) writes:

>>But, while a homosexual orientation by itself is not a sin (to the 
>>extent that it is not under one's control), it _is_ considered a 
>>physical defect

>Mind presenting some evidence for this view point? 
>
>If homosexuality was a defect rather than beneficial evolution would
>have removed it long ago.

Uh, someone who believes that homosexuality is a "defect" is not very
likely to believe in evolution.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Look at the Father through Love 
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:29:54 GMT

David Hatcher writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:
> 
>>  exactly.  that is the message of the new testament--that jesus will 
>>reconcile us to god.  this covenant replaces the one of laws in the old
>>testament.  the new covenant is accepting jesus as our saviour.

>  Which is an act of love and which is why love is also the essence of the
>new covenant. 

  which, then, is the higher priority for you?

   1.)  getting in touch with the spirit of christ which you see as love

                  or

   2.)  inviting the person of jesus into your heart as the personal 
        manifestation of god, thereby knowing god's love through jesus.
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Hear Ye Him!
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:58:43 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Jul24.205218.12773@uwm.edu> glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
>
> [...]
> 
> Proof for the existence of God:
> God is love.
> I have experienced love.
> Therefore I have experienced God.

Very convincing proof by definition. Let's try another:

	Proof for the existence of The Divine 19-Dimensional Blue Banana:
	The Divine 19-Dimensional Blue Banana is love.
	I have experienced love.
	Therefore I have experienced The Divine 19-Dimensional Blue Banana.

OK, I'm now well on the way to putting my religion on the firm foundation
it so richly deserves. This will do nicely as proof that the D19DBB is
subjectively real to me. Now all I need is a good extension to Its objective
existence. And as if by magic....

> While experience of something might not be proof of external existence,
> I would say that considering that many others have told me that they 
> have also experienced love, it is proof that God is as real as anything
> that I can experience. 

Gosh, I think I've found the very thing:

	While experience of something might not be proof of external existence,
	I would say that considering that many others have told me that they 
	have also experienced love, it is proof that The Divine 19-Dimensional
	Blue Banana is as real as anything that I can experience. 

How are we doing so far?

Convinced? Good. See you in my church next week.


> I'd guess that you already know much of what I have said.  It's
> a shame others haven't experienced love.

A close brush with an elementary logic text might not hurt either.


> Glenn                         glenn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

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.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Terence`s homophobia
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:24:20 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
in Message-ID: <l6tp1pINNbjl@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> writes:

Hey like wow!  I'm famous now.  A string named after me...
>In article 22656@oasys.dt.navy.mil, lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
> 
>>(A) If there is no question about the existence of god then:
>>     
>>    (Pardon my French) Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice 
>>    (righteousness).  And all these things will be added unto you.
>
>This is of course merely your interpretation; yet you write it
>as if you were the voice of authority. 
Uhh.  pardon me.  but I don't think I'm the original author of the
above lines.  If there is authority in the above lines, it is not 
mine.  :-)

>...This attitude is most
>tiresome. In the original sense of the word, "sin" means estrangement
>from "god"; if that is the case, then certainly it is a subjective
>judgement. 

And do please pardon my French.  A good portion of my memory is
all in French.  And moreso, please pardon my translations to English.
     Car la parole de Dieu est vivante et efficace, plus aceree
     qu'aucune epee a double tranchant; elle penetre jusqu'a la
     division de l'ame et de l'esprit, des jointures et des moelles;
     elle est juge des sentiments et des pensees du coeur.  Il n'y
     a aucune creature, qui soit invisible devant lui:  tout est mis
     a nu et terrasse aux yeux de celui a qui nous devons rendre compte.

It's your turn to translate...

Terence
From: lesley@pleasanton.EBay.Sun.COM (Lesley Smith - Test Engineering)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Jesus Would Gag
Date: 23 Jul 1992 23:10:02 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: lesley@pleasanton.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: pleasanton.ebay.sun.com

	Hi Jonathan:

	I am a christian and I would like to share with you my views.

[From Jonathan Sheir)
	

 Televangelists have used it to make money.

Yes....and the root of all is money...Many have fallen...and Praise God for this!
It sickens me too and saddens me that there are so many people in the world who
put trust in these people instead of going to God themselves. At least that way
they will get thier prayers heard and not be taken.


Unless you follow what the Church believes God wants, you are going to hell. 
I follow the bible...it is the Word of God...the church is the body of people
who make up the church...beleive me..if I do not agree with something in the church that doesn't mean that I am going to Hell...my relationship Jesus is my personal 
relationship.


The thing that sickens me most about Christians is how many of them look down on
other religions 

I don't look down on anyone...I either reach out to them to share with them of my beleifs and hear
thiers...but it is God who choses them to come to know Him...As a christian we are to love our
fellow beings and reach out in love...as Jesus did.


or lifestyles Just because someone is not Christian does not mean they are inferior. .

Your absoultely right...I am not inferior..and if I don't approve of someone elses lifestyle
it is none of my business except if someone is being hurt...It is my responsible to share the
gospel and tell people of a better way to live...the Choice is up to them...not me.

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


	In Christ...
		Lesley
From: sobarr@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Carlos Saul Menem)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:01:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <LAURAF.92Jul31094451@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:

>CJ, I was not speaking out of ignorance.  After reading about the theories of
>evolution, they do NOT follow a logical, deductive, and concise pattern.
>
>Since you have concluded my argument null.  Tell me, why cannot mankind today
>duplicate the healing process of the body or conquer death?  Maybe, just maybe,
>these are something God does not want revealed to mankind.  Could this be true?
>Or would you rather put faith in mankind who cannot even direct his own steps?
>
>Laura


	Laura, mankind CAN aid in the healing process, even creating
immune responces in the body, and by reating synthetic antibodies
that can aid the body in defence of foreign objects.
	Also, since you have "read ABOUT the theories" (I wonder who
published them...WTBTS perhaps?) I'm sure you know that certain
points of evolution are correct such as genetic drift and selection
(allel expression).  I wonder just what points of the evolution you
will accept that arn't expressivly in the bible, but that have been
"revealed" to mankind.

chau

steve
From: mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Date: 22 Jul 1992 21:10:37 GMT
Organization: Rice University

[List of Bible versions deleted]

>   Most of these come very indirectly from the Latin Vulgate which
>   comes from the Greek Septuagint which comes from the Hebrew as
>   translated during a time when they really didn't know how to
>   translate, it's not easy you know.  It's hard enough for someone
>   who reads modern Hebrew to figure out what the writers meant in the
>   Hebrew they wrote in. With that in mind, the best English
>   translation of the "Old Testament" has got to be JPS Tanahk.  As
>   for the "New Testament", well you take what you can get.

>This is untrue.  ALL of these, including the KJV, were translated
>directly from the Hebrew.  The NRSV (and, I think, the RSV) included
>Jewish members on the committee for the translation of the Hebrew
>Scriptures.

I might add that the NIV also goes back to the original.  From the Preface:

"For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic text as 
published in the Biblica Hebraica, was used throughout."

It goes on to say they also consulted the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan
Pentateuch, etc. and have footnoted important differing opinions from
the Septuagint and Vulgate translators.

Ernest Mueller
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Give me a break Mr. Adams
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:17:08 GMT


Give me a break will you?  Does everything I say have to be as perfect as
what you say?  Is this an object lesson in theoretical speech?

You knew exactly what I meant, and still chose to give me flak about it. 
What's the purpose?  Of course I know about the verses that say love your
enemy, and all that, but as of yet, noone here is my enemy.  Only people
with opposing views.  I have to ask, who made you the mediator for this
group?  If I cannot write my opinions up to your standards then please
forgive me.  I will try harder.  But in the meantime, if you understand
the gist of what I am saying, how about laying off a bit?  I'd appreciate
it. 

I know you are probably much more educated than myself, but I should enjoy
the freedom to express my opinions however I see fit, without you looking
over my shoulder.  I have a father that does that, and quite well too.

I made no direct attempts to anger anyone, nor did I intentionally write
to offend.  Homosexuals or otherwise.  

I see your name alot here on this group, and I am impressed by much of
what you say, but in the future, please read all the way through my posts,
and send any comments or flames to my mailbox.  I'm sure everyone will
benefit from it.

They don't have to read your criticisms of my writing skill, and I have
the pleasure of reading what comments you have in private.

God Bless,
Steve.Gross


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
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
	<1992Jul24.141853.18546@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> <BrwJtu.KBn@apollo.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:08:13 GMT

In article <BrwJtu.KBn@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (#Walter Smith) writes:

   The recent exchange of postings brought on by Corey's publically posting
   an email message from Andreas has really shown how the Jehovah's
   Witnesses are in action.   For instance:

   Mark Sornson writes:

   >    "Christian loving niceness" may be extented by some Witness if
   >there's no evidence that it will be rejected outright; but Corey has
   >made me feel that sending him private mail of any sort is now just too
   >risky.

   Another example of where the mind-set of the Jehovah's Witnesses has
   abandoned the idea of mercy, love thy enemy, etc.  What is Christianity
   supposed to be all about?  Love your enemy, love those who persecute
   you, but not those you suspect might publically post your email?

I believe the point here is the principal of posting private email.  Yes, one is to love
their enemy.  However, would you like to associate with your "enemy" knowing he
hates you?  The bible does say in 1 Cor. 15:33 that bad association spoils
useful habbits.

   >Based soley on what Corey has
   >posted in public, what reason do any of the Witnesses looking on have
   >for having "dear" feelings toward Corey?

   Because that is one of the main things Christianity is supposed to be
   all about.  Love your enemies.  And as you yourself stated in another
   post, Corey's actions are making him a 'spiritual enemy' to JWs.
   With the attitude you have taken in your posts, and Mr. Siivonen took
   in his email, how can you guys love him?  What your mental stance is
   doing is setting the stage to internally justify writing the man off
   as an 'evil slave' or apostate.  This sort of mindset, which seems
   so prevelant among Jehovah's Witnesses, is one that promotes
   permanent division among people, not peace.

Neither Mark nor any other JW would "write him off" per se.  Wouldn't you agree that
only God himself could do such a thing?  One should love everyone not associate
with everyone.  Again, 1 Cor. 15:33 comes into play here.

Regards, 
Laura