HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daw@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Dave Webb)
Subject: PLEASE HELP ME!  I need your advice!  Help me keep this love alive!
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:18:02 GMT

I desperately need some help and advice.  I have been dating a Jewish girl
from New York for the past 2 months and have developed a wonderful relationship
with her.  We have spoken of marriage and spending the rest of our lives 
together.  We see each other as often as possible, I've been to New York several
times, she's been down here (Baltimore) and we went on vactation together to
Florida.  The problem we are now facing is her parents.  They are conservative
jews and forbid her to date non-jews.  Well, too late for that.  The problem we
now are facing is when and how to tell her parents.  She confided in her sister
(she has three) and the one sister she confided in told her that the news of her
dating a non-jew would kill her parents.  She said that they would never accept
me and for her just to end it now before things get any more serious.  She also
mentioned something to her father directly.  The exact words were, "Dad, what 
would you do if I dated someone who wasn't je
					     wish?"  Her father's response was,
"I'd throw you out of the house"  (She is 24 and is living with her parents
until she finishes school next May)  Well that was that.  So now the choice she
is forced to make is between her parents and myself.  She has already told me 
that she can't give up her parents because they've always been there for her
and she can't hurt them after all they've done for her.  She is very confused
and needs some direction.  She loves me and doesn't want to leave me either..
the feeling is mutual.  I hurt for her because of everything she has to go
through.  We kind of broke up this weekend because she didn't want to hurt me
more later.  It was a very sad time.  That really wasn't what she wanted, so
we decided to continue our relationship as it was.  I need to hear as much
advice and suggestions as you all can come up with.  Things I've decided:
She should contact her rabbi and have HIM help her break things to her parents,
We need to come up with a very positive way to introduce me to her parents.
I've thought of conversion and her sister thinks that even that wouldn't do any
good for her parents acceptance.  Anyway, I'm very in love with this girl and
can't stand the thought of losing her... especially since things are going so
well.  PLEASE help me!!!  What choices do I have?  What choices does she have?
Suggestions? Hints?  I'm DESPERATE!  Help me to keep this love alive!  PLEASE??

			Thanx in advance,
					Dave Webb

        je



Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17327 alt.atheism:18136
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: LDS Syllogism? ( was Re: Arrogance (was Family values defined))
Keywords: Luke14: 26: Followers, obey His word!
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct2.012022.29318@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:02:35 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts):
>No problem.  I don't preach myself - rejection of me is rejection of  
>the Lord, for I preach Jesus as Lord and me his servant.

In article <1992Oct01.184422.38915@watson.ibm.com>  
jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:
>let's rearrange: "i preach jesus as lord and me his
>servant.  therefore, rejection of me is rejection of
>the lord."  sounds like unmitigated arrogance.

In article <1992Oct2.012022.29318@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> 
johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>     Uh oh. Next thing you know, the LDS are going to be using the above  
>syllogisms as follows:
>     "Joseph Smith didn't preach himself - rejection of Joseph Smith is  
>rejection of the Lord, for Joseph Smith preached Jesus as Lord and him His  
>servant."
>and
>     "Joseph Smith preached Jesus as Lord and him as His servant.  
>Therefore, rejection of Joseph Smith is rejection of the Lord."

So, this means Richard Pitts isn't a Christian, right? So, if he's not a
Christian, what is he?
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Thebes (was: I'm God.)
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:55:03 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Jim Merritt quotes my response to a Josh Mcdowell claim, that Thebes was
be destroyed and never again had native rulers:

>> 7. Thebes-Memphis
>> 	destroyed, no more native rulers
>
> Memphis is the old Egyptian capital city near Cairo.  It is where the
> pyramids and Sphinx are located.  While I would not call it in any way 
> a thriving city, it is definitely ruled by Egyptians.  
> ...
> Thebes is now a prosperous Greek city called Thivia, located northwest of 
> Athens.  The greeks do now rule the city.  

For the sake of completeness on my part, I wish to point out that I now 
know that there were two Thebes; one in Greece, and one in Egypt.  This 
though does not in any way help the Josh Mcdowell claim that Thebes would be 
destroyed and have no native rulers, as the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes 
is now the modern city of Luxor, and is ruled by the native Egyptians. 

I apologise for not being more complete last time.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Knowledge consists in understanding the evidence that establishes 
    fact, not in the belief that it is a fact.
				Charles T. Sprading
				American Writer
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:36:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <BvCxEM.9v0@inews.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> You and I share some responsibility. We are our brother's and sister's
> keepers. Now, that doesn't mean we can fix it like that. The starvation is
> caused by politics. The starvation in the US is caused by politics. I'm
> sure you would want to help, if there was a way. I would gladly give half
> of my salery and savings if that would mean an end to physical violence
> and starvation and homelessness in the world, but I'm afraid it is much
> more complicated than that. Unless you know of any ways to solve these
> problems? So, that's the long and short of it. We are responsible, but what
> can we do? I'm open to any suggestions.

I agree that it is we human that are responsible for the mess on this
planet.
This because I don't personally believe in a Biblical style creator.
However,
if a theist still argues that someone created this planet for human beings,
this being is responsible to make sure that those who live here have an
easier time. If this is not the case, then we humans are considered to
be rats in a huge experiment.

> Because we were created with free will. This is what it means to be a free
> human. Freedom doesn't mean Disney World. It means you have the choice and
> you have the options, you select your life and you must live by your choices.
> This IS the Lord's Kingdom right here, right now. We can make it either 
> Heaven or Hell, but we must live by our choice, it is our own doing. It is
> not easy walking the freedom walk and talking the freedom talk, but we must
> if we are to realize and actualize Heaven, right here and right now. Now do
> you SEE what life is really worth?

If you maintain that a possible God created this place for us humans to
express free will, you can't avoid the 'landlord' issue. You could write
billions of words that just tries to go around the issue of responsibility.
I have a feeling you yourself are not sure about why God does not 
intervene when things are bad down here. If you still maintain that
we have free will, and it's our own problem, think about it when the
roof is leaking and you want to have it fixed by your landlord.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:45:49 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <70217@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> |Any number of the numerous bystanders that were around when "Jesus"
> |presumably performed his feats.
> 
> How many bystanders do you know rush home and write about what they
> just saw?  Not many - people close to a movment write about it, along
> with those who are opposed to it, in general.

I would do it! Immediately, it would be the biggest thing I would have
ever witnessed in my whole life. For the rest of my life I would tell
it and re-tell it. I don't think miracles such as rising people from the
dead are taken for granted, exactly. 

> |Right.  No evidence that he *did* rise from the dead, only that his
> |followers *believed* him to have risen from the dead.
 
> This is from the pen of Josephus.  Why would he report it at all?  There
> is evidence from those who were with Jesus.

So what, reporters report daily that there are people who believed they
saw Elvis. Your logic would imply that Elvis is actually alive, or what.

> Dr. Kennedy states that the evidence for Christ is 
> overwhelming.  For those who honest seek the truth there is 
> abundant evidence.

Children also believe in Santa Claus, and there's overwhelming
evidence that such a being exists. 

Could we keep these postings short, please? I don't think many are
keen to read long-long postings.

Cheers,
Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Tyre still exists today (was: I'm God.)
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:00:54 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Richard Pitts tells us how his convictions are strengthened by Dr. D. James
Kennedy's book: _Why_I_Believe_.  Specifically Richard tells us that he is
greatly impressed Mr. Kennedy's evidence on the successful prophesy about
Tyre:

> [1]Why I Believe the Bible:
> The Bible gives many predictive prophecies. ...
> 
> Examples: The cities of Tyre and Sidon, two great cities on 
> the Mediterranean Sea.  Exekiel prophesied that Tyre would 
> be destroyed and never be rebuilt nor inhabited.  Sidon was 
> to be brought down, but continue to be inhabited.  Sidon was 
> attacked and many killed, but still exists to this day.
> 
> Tyre on the other hand was at its height at the time of the 
> prophecy.  It was to be destroyed, made like a rock, have 
> its building stones thrown into the sea, and be built no 
> more.  Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon fought against the city for 
> thirteen years and took it.  Many former inhabitants fled 
> for an island and made a new city of Tyre.  Two hundred and 
> fifty years later the city walls still stood, but Alexander 
> the Great came and took the old buildings and dumped them 
> into the sea to build a bridge to the new Tyre, in order to 
> take it.  He did - the old city was stripped.  Today the old 
> Tyre is like a rock and a place to spread fishing nets to 
> dry.

Now I want to make clear Richard, that I am not attacking either your theology
faith in your god, but I am greatly offended by Mr. Kennedy's playing fast and
loose with the truth.  You see Tyre's name has been slightly altered over two
millenia and is now called "Sur"; it is now a coastal Lebanese city of about
10,000 to 15,000 people.  It has prospered repeatedly since Biblical times
(eg: Under both Roman and Muslim Rule), and there was a significant Christian
population even in the 2nd century.  In fact the Church father Origen is
buried there.  These fact is easily checked in any Encyclopedia Britannica,
and thus it would seem that Mr. Kennedy does not expect his audience to check
his "facts".  If Mr. Kennedy is so blatantly wrong where one can easily check
his "facts", then I would have to ask why should one have any trust in him in
his more obscure assertions, or why he should have any credibility at all?
Thus I would conclude that, if this is representative of level of his
scholarship, then he is no better than Josh Mcdowell, and is thereby a fraud
and a charlatan. 
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    The historian must not try to know what is truth, if he values his
    honesty; for, if he cares for his truths, he is certain to falsify 
    his facts.
				Henry Adams, American Historian
				"The Education of Henry Adams"
From: yohan@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 30 Sep 1992 08:56:26 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu


Wrong Mr. Harvey.  The only reason scientists hold mathematics to be true is that
is has been verified by countless observations.  Christians base their life on
a few feelings they have that are generally a result of upbringing or from the
tnedency to attribute everything they can't understand to god.

Jon Newton
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: What is LDS doctrine?
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:14:44 MDT
Organization: Utah State University
Reply-To: scotth@filenet.com

Forwarded for: scotth@felix.filenet.com

-----------------------------START OF MESSAGE--------------------------------
Subject: Re: LDS: What is LDS doctrine?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Expires: 
Reply-To: scotth@fritz.filenet.com (Scott Hopson)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Keywords: LDS 

In article <Bv9pHw.BLt@acsu.buffalo.edu> you write:
>In article <92271.111327HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>, HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET writes...
>>What is Mormon "doctrine?"
>> 
>>1.  The LDS canon - the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of
>>Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price - are
>>the foundation of LDS doctrine.
>
>Bill,
>
>	In which of these writings may we find the Temple Ceremonies?
>
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Temple Ceremonies are too Sacred to be made known to unworthy persons and
therefore secret and not published in the Standard Works.

This is part of the "Don't cast your perls before swine" concept.

Arguing what is and is not doctrine can only be done by those persons
who practice the doctrine. Outsiders cannot view the various concepts of
doctrine in the proper frame since they lack the more complete understanding
required by the doctrine.

You can't learn algebra until you first learn arithmetic, you can't learn
arithmetic until you learn to count, you can not learn to count until you
learn the set of numbers.

The LDS Doctrine is taught as "Precept upon Precept", meaning that you
must learn the small things before you learn big things.

You must build upon the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ which is 
faith, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins.


It is silly and often quite foolish to try and tell people what they do or
do not believe. No One knows better what you believe than you yourself.

Anyone who professes to know me better than I know myself is a fool and sets
himself up as equal with God. Only God knows me better than me.

If the "ANTI's" spent 1/2 the time researching their own theology as they
spend trying to condem others they would probably become Atheists.

-------
Scott Hopson (scotth@filenet.com)

----------------------------END OF MESSAGE-----------------------------
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:55:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <fTg7Sxw@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
wrote:
> I did, but I guess it went right over your head. Did I ever tell you
> that my dog is always barking? But doesn't he remind you of Toto? Learn
> from dogma, but please don't be dogmatic. There is a whole world out
> there beyond true/false reductionism. Word! Check it out! Out like BUSHit.

You still haven't answered my question why you think that metaphors
can't be classified as true and false. I still maintain there are
metaphors that could be logically deducted to a true and false statement.
Remember my turtle?

Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: inspecti@carnival.lbl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: jws & "new light"
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:19:56 GMT
Reply-To: inspecti@carnival.lbl.gov ()
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: carnival.lbl.gov

In article <1992Oct1.212345.23790@walter.cray.com> jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) writes:
>I hesitate to haze Your August Personage, but this really belongs 
>in talk.religion.misc. Behavior like this among religious groups
>is too common to be bizarre.
>



not only are you wrong, but you have demonstrated the fact
that you have absolutely no fucking idea what this newsgroup
is in fact about.  get thee hence.


inspecti imperious
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:10:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <69009@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> In article <ksand-220992180945@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Same is true of AA, Hinduism, atheism, or any other human organized
> >belief system. What's the difference, then?
> 
> We have the evidence of God as revealed through Jesus of Nazareth 
> described in a volume of writings that no other writings can touch.
> The Bible has many predictive prophecies and they have are are coming
> true.  Other religous writings do not make such predictive prophecies.
> To my understanding, the Koran does say that Mohammed will return to
> Mecca, but the Bible tells us that Jesus will return from the grave
> and he did - there is a little difference in the magnitude of prophecy there.

Sigh, I guess you are aware that Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other organized
human religions and movements have evangelists whose life changed after
they joined the particular organization. Nothing's new under the sun.
To use the statement9 that something is true because the religious script
clearly shows that, is to acknowledge at the same time that all other
religions that have religious scriptures are valid. So you imply that
Mormonism and Islam are valid then, as well.

As for returning from the dead, Mitras did it, Osiris did it. So you
also imply that these mystery cults are valid, or what.

> The OT points to Jesus the Christ and the NT reveals him as the fulfillment
> of the OT and tells of his return.  Many other historians have records
> about Jesus and his death at Pontius Pilate's hand.  I'm going
> to try and post some of these over the weekend.

Please do so, I'm especially interested to see historical evidence
that points out that Jesus rose from the dead, and did miracles. If 
these are missing, you don't have any objective evidence about your
religion.
 
> The one who have faith are blessed, said Jesus.  However, the 
> claim that Christianity is full of LOGICAL holes is more of an
> opinion than substantiated, since one keeps saying "well that is
> not enough evidence or that is invalid evidence."  It is more of
> a decision not to accept the evidence than LOGICAL holes.

Let me give you a simple logical hole, Jesus was born by a *virgin*,
yet it was important to list out his ancestory line from his *father*
(twice, and they are even different :-) ).

Is this a logical problem, or slight misunderstanding?

Cheers,
Kent

Example of common sense, part 1:
Reporter: What would happen if science discovered some fact
          that contradicted Buddhist doctrine?
Dalai Lama: The doctrine would have to change.
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Faith
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:48:19 GMT

In article <BvGGy5.5Kv@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.202608.21493@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>I'm not asking the usefulness of faith, I'm asking the usefulness of the
>>definition.  That's not the same thing.  If you "had no faith in your car
>>starting", I could just as well say that this means that you "had faith in
>>your car not starting".  This seems to indicate that either way, it'd be
>>something that is called faith.  A definition that calls it faith no matter
>>what you do seems fairly useless.
>I say I am not a slave, I am a free man. And then you say, a ha, then you
>are in fact a slave of freedom! So, one is always a slave, no matter what one
>might try to do.

I would indeed say that that meaning of "slave" is fairly useless, unless you
want to distinguish degrees or types of slavery.

Do you care to distinguish different kinds of faith?
--
"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 (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:43:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep29.191741.59274@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>In article <BvBIpt.Fnr@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
>psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>[...]
>> 	Could you amplify this? How does one know, using the 
>> following, that something is from God?
>> 

[D&C 50:19-24 deleted]

>When one receives the word of the truth, he not only gets is from
>the one preaching, but the Spirit also confirms the words of the
>one preaching and/or preaches the truth can can expound upon to the 
>receiver in a very personal way and in ways that one the receiver
>can understand.

	So let me get this straight. We have been talking about how to 
discern when a prophecy is true or false. Jason, I seem to be reading 
you as saying that if there is a subjective feeling towards something 
that is being said, that this feeling is the basis on which we discern 
the veracity of a prophecy. Is this correct?

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:40:42 GMT

In article <fTmDrbc@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Lousy? Is that the word you prefer for bar?
No. I prefer Mr. Sandvik's false, but I'm prepared to go along with
your attempt to remove that word from discussion, because what
symbols we use to discuss this is irrelevant.

> What would be your word for
>foo?
True. But as I said, I'm prepared to go along with whatever symbols you
provide, assuming you provide SOME, which is what I asked you to do.
Which you STILL have not done, despite much verbiage.
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."