HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Which is best upgrade in J/C/I, or should one upgrade at all?
Summary: Was Jesus a HATE monger? Well, what did He say in His own words?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Aug20.094736.12757@phillip.edu.au> <BtAn60.BqC@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:31:56 GMT

Dogma Test: Luke 14:26

In article <1992Aug20.094736.12757@phillip.edu.au> 
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
<  I assume you are saying that I must hate my father, mother , wife and
<children, brothers and sisters etc??? Look again Paul, this is another classic
<misquote of scripture seen before on this newsgroup. Jesus is saying that we
<must love Him more than anything/anybody else see Matt 10:37-39 which is a
<parallel verse .. and do us all a favour, don't misquote v35 as in the context
><of the paragraph, it makes sense and is *NOT* contradictory!!

Interesting that you should select Matt 10 to refute the word of Jesus
in Luke 14:26, I just re-read it and it is, ah, I'll just say interesting, 
even v34-36. Oh, and I don't think it's out of context and doesn't make 
sense, but then again I do not consider any of this to be the word of God. 
It is all the word of Homo sapiens sapiens, the one with the pen. 
Luke 14:26 and Matt 10 should make this quite clear. Contradictions only 
appear when one tries to claim that scripture is the direct word of God or 
even an accurate record of what Jesus may have said in Aramaic. When one
becomes dogmatic about dogma, one leaves the light. Dogma is to learn
from, that is why the creater chose to create humans with brains, to
think as free people, not to serve as non-thinking slaves of dogma or
even as slaves to any master. The Lord delivered us all FROM slavery.
Why do you cling to shackles, shackles of dogma?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:02:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.170723.25800@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>:   judgement is upon us because we sin and disobey god.  the punishment
>: for sin is death.  jesus bore that punishment for us all.  those who
>: accept his offer are saved.  standard christian line.  i personally 
>: don't know for sure what happens with those who don't hear of jesus, but
>: it's moot because i know of him and i am judged on whether or not i
>: accept his salvation--not on my actions in life beyond choosing him
>: or not.

   Wrong, you are not judge only on the fact that you accept his 
   salvation.  You must accept his savlation and follow the word of
   God.  You will still be judged based on your actions after you 
   accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour.  

>You say that what happens to unbelievers is moot.  What if your God
>condemns them to hell where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth?
>Is hell preferable to being tortured?  Should a woman rather be raped
>than go to hell?  Is hell worse than being skinned alive?  Would you
>worship a sadistic god who would send an unbeliever to hell as long
>as he treated you special?  Would you play god a lulliby to drown
>out the screams of those being gassed?
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Nibley, genius or fool
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:11:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug14.153820.23260@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
*><HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
*>> Glenn would have us believe that Hugh Nibley is a fool.  Let us
*>> examine how qualified Glenn is to make such an assessment by
*>> comparing Glenn with Hugh Nibley:
*>>
*>> 1.  Hugh Nibley has a Ph.D. from Berkeley.
*>>    Where did Glenn get his Ph.D.?
*>
*>When did education, degree, or place of learning become the determinant
*>of one's 'foolishness'?  My dictionary says:
*>
*>  'Fool - A person lacking understanding,
*>          judgment, or common sense.'
*>

To me, this type of name calling is disturbing.  Glenn was good
enough to retract his use of the word "fool".  But appearantly you
do not want to give up the name calling.

Now that we know what your dictionary says about the word fool, what 
does your Bible say about the word? 

My Bible says:

"Whosoever shall say to his brother ... Thou fool, shall be in danger
of hell fire"

Robert
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14373 talk.religion.newage:3891 sci.physics:13186
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:34:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National University of Singapore

What does quantum mechanics have to say about right and wrong in human
society? Nothing.
What do the opinions of a superhuman being have to say about right and
wrong in human society? Also nothing. If you believe [correctly] that a
"superhuman being" like quantum mechanics is disjoint from moral
questions, then logically the same applies to all other superhuman
beings. So there is nothing wrong with people founding their faith on
physics. That is not where the error lies. The error lies in believing
in God in the first place. :)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:30:27 GMT

Young Jeff writes:

>This is a fairly common course taken when Christians witness to others.
>Things were terrible until I found Christ, etc.  I find this to be a
>thoroughly uncompelling.  It sounds like they are saying that God is
>intentionally placing snags in that person's life to guide them in the
>right direction and realize God's presence.  Does he provide a 
>similar service for Hindus and Buddists?  Are we lab mice who God
>delivers electric shocks to until he provokes the desired response?
>What about those of us who aren't so unlucky?  I haven't experienced
>dispair to a sufficient degree to cause me to accept the presence of
>the Christian God without sufficient evidence.  Of course, tomorrow
>God could invoke the trials of Job on my life, but what if he doesn't?
>Would you argue that God gives everyone equal chances to find him?
>If he doesn't, whould you still call him 'just'?

  two things.  one is that your premise that god intentionally torments
us to bring us to him is unsound and not supported in any scripture.
rather suffering comes from being distant from and rebellious to god
and under the influence of the devil's temptation in this world.  through
suffering, though, christians often end up closer to god merely by leaning
on him to be lifted out of the burden.  

  second thing is that i don't wish the trials of job on you or anyone
and i wish it didn't take similar crash and burn experiences for me
to turn to god as a first rather than a last resort.  rather god's offer
of a relationship with him is available to all who'll accept the offer
of his son to bring us to him.  so yeah, it's available to anyone who
wants it.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:47:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.153342.24183@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>: I will also note that you really haven't
>: given me any reason to think your concept of gods fits most people's concept
>: of gods.)
>I think most people consider the pagan gods to fall within the
>definition of gods.  Just because they don't believe the existance
>of them doesn't exclude them.  After all, I accept the premise
>that God fits the definition of a god, but I don't believe he exists.

Trying to distill what the distinction is between a "real" god and something
that's just an angel, I conclude it's a matter of relative power.  Consider the
Greek gods: some gods can act against the wishes of other gods, not because
those other gods _let_ them, but because though they're more powerful, they're
not _so_ powerful that they can absolutely control the lesser gods.  In
Christianity, the only way Satan or angels can do anything "against God's
wishes" is if God lets them.  If a god is a powerful being at the top of the
chain, then Hermes is a god but Satan is not.
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: paal-sb@hsr.no (Paal Steinar Berg)
Subject: Genesis - fact or fiction
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:35:07 GMT

In my view the genisis is a simple explanation for the people living thousands of
years ago, and must be looked upon in that way. I believe that the evolusionists
have a better explanation of the way it realy happened..


Paal....
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - Church teaching on masturbation
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 13:29:37 GMT

kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ) writes:

>Regarding masturbation:

>  9. The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation
>constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or
>expressly denied today.  It is said that psychology and sociology
>show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development,
>especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and
>serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately
>indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self ("ispsation"),
>because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to
>the loving communion between persons of different sex which some
>hold is what is principally sought in the sue of the sexual
>faculty.

>  This opinion is contradictory to the teachings and pastoral
>practice of the Catholic Church.  Whatever the force of certain
>arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have
>sometimes been used the theologians, in fact both the Magisterium
>of the Church -- in the course of a constant tradition --- and the
>moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that
>masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act [19]. 

Oh dear. Sniff, sniff. Well, they cried their eyes out about the fact
that Sun didn't go around the Earth like they thought so, but that
didn't make it right. I get the image of a lot of clerical types in
diapers plugging their ears and screaming "I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY!
MASTURBATION IS WRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONG!"

And don't tell me that priests don't masturbate. 

[unintelligible bumph deleted - if they can't repect other people's
intelligence, I'm not going to give their's any]

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Deuteronomy 18:20-22(was: Perfect Prophets)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:25:50 GMT
Keywords: methods in determining prophetness


Willard, you have had some fun with my literal and emphatic use
of Deut. 18:20-22, and said it was childish(not adultlike), simplistic,
and leads me to be without a bible, the word of God.
I disagreed as stated in another article.

Now I would like to know how you use those words in the passage
in your adultlike manner and how that helps you to know a
true prophet from a false prophet.

I reposted the verses below which you posted earlier in the week.
 
    Deut 18:20-22
    20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not
    commanded him to say or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods,
    must be put to death.
    21 You many say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not
    been spoken by the LORD?"
    22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take
    place or come ture, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That
    prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

BTW, unscientific messages aren't includud in here, I will need to
forgo that for now.

barry--
From: nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent)
Subject: Re: Catholic Church on marriage (was Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - CDF's 1986 Instruction on Homosexuality)
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI
	<NUGE.92Aug17101830@newport.med.ge.com>
	<1992Aug18.212408.3335@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:49:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.212408.3335@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

> In article <NUGE.92Aug17101830@newport.med.ge.com>
> nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent) writes:

> >  1. You may take advantage of the natural process of cyclic fertility
> >     (and the knowledge of which sex acts would be fertile and which
> >     would be infertile) but you may _not_ do something to rob an
> >     otherwise fertile sex act of its fertility.

> If you are allowed to take advantage of the knowledge that some sex
> acts aren't fertile, this means that sex acts which are known in
> advance not to be fertile are allowed.  This in turn seems to get
> rid of most Church objection to masturbation and homosexuality.  So
> are you _sure_ about this?

   I am sure about what I said. It follows directly from Humanae Vitae
n. 16 which I originally quoted. My wife and I have been working with
Cabholic couples preparing for marriage for 7 years. The Church
definitly enodorses Natural Family Planning, for the reason stated in
Humanae Vitae.

   This does not mean that every 'sex act' that is known in advance to
be infertile is moral. It refers to those that take place between a
married couple, that are infertile because the female is naturally
infertile at certain times. I haven't studied in detail the Church's
position on masturbation or homosexuality; I would expect there are
moral objections other than fertility or the lack thereof.
--
Jim Nugent

nuge@med.ge.com

nugentj@med.ge.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent)
Subject: Re: Catholic Church on marriage (was Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - CDF's 1986 Instruction on Homosexuality)
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI
	<1992Aug11.040301.29841@s1.gov> <Bt0AGI.Kts@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<1992Aug15.133306.13511@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:18:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.133306.13511@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie
(Paul Moloney) writes:

> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

> >   Loren, these are the same incorrect assumptions that I have already
> >corrected in previous posts, but I'll go over it one more time.  The
> >Catholic Church does not teach that in every sexual act a couple must
> >"try to produce kids."  The Church teaches that "_in any use whatever
> >of marriage_ there must be no impairment of its natural capacity to
> >create life" [Pius XI, _Casti Connubii_].

> So why do they support the rhythm method, huh? That sure as hell
> impairs marriage of its natural capacity to create life.

> Well, actually, it doesn't, which I suppose is the reason noone
> who seriously didn't want a family would use it.

        Modern fertility awareness methods, referred to as Natural
Family Planning, are very different from the calendar rhythm method of
the 50's and before. They usually achieve about the same reliability
as barrier methods, but can go much higher if you are very careful.
They are not as reliable as the pill.

        As for why fertility awareness is ok but artificial birth
control is not, here is the relevant section from Humanae Vitae:

  "In this proposal [fertility awareness] the church remains
  consistent with herself and with her own teaching. It is one thing
  to allow married people to take account of the periods when
  conception cannot take place. It is quite another to employ devices
  which directly obstruct conception ... The two cases are totally
  different. In the first, the married are taking legitimate advantage
  of an opportunity provided by nature itself. In the second, they are
  placing an obstruction so that the natural process of generation
  cannot take place. There is no denying that in each instance the
  married couple by clear mutual consent, for acceptable reasons,
  decide against another child, and are making sure that there is
  little chance of one being born."

  In other words:

  1. You may take advantage of the natural process of cyclic fertility
     (and the knowledge of which sex acts would be fertile and which
     would be infertile) but you may _not_ do something to rob an
     otherwise fertile sex act of its fertility.

  2. You are (surprise!) allowed to limit the number of children you
     have. The church doesn't teach that you have to be a baby
     factory.

    I'll admit the distinction in 1. is subtle, and it is
controversial even within the Church.

--
Jim Nugent

nuge@med.ge.com

nugentj@med.ge.com
From: jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Biblical errors
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:46:51 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Originator: jmeritt@rod.mitre.org


I've had a little success with the historical error collections (send more,
including things like anachronisms), now how about flat-out biblical errors?
Things like the famous "pi=3" and "grasshopper with four legs".


-- 
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:08:14 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>No, but if you look at the scale :
>>>|----------+----------|
>>>^                     ^
>>>+-Absolute Hate       +-Absolute Love
>>>Then your emotion towards Jesus is to be so close to Absolute that any
>>>other 'love' on the continuum seems like hate...

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Hmm, is this another example of word inflation? So, your love of Jesus
>>is so great that you HATE everyone else including yourself? 

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>NO! NO! NO!  By ***COMPARISON*** your love for everyone else ***SEEMS***
>like hate.  Jeesh.

Hmm, you must be a real devil at parties. Don't you feel at all sorry
for the poor lowly humans who must put up with your "***SEEMS*** like
hate"? Why does this remind me of, "This is gonna hurt me much more than
it hurts you"? What's with this sturn task master, slave driver idea?
Didn't you read where the Lord delivered us peoples FROM slavery? Under
your definition, would Hitler be a model Christian? After all, he surely
did HATE all humans, even himself, in ***COMPARISON*** to his love of
Jesus. If love of Jesus means hate of human beings in comparison, what
does love of the Devil mean? Love of human beings and hate of Jesus? Why
does this seem so mixed up? How can you practice brotherly and sisterly
love if you have such an absolute love of Jesus that in comparison you
HATE your brothers and sisters? Why does this make absolutely no sense?
Are you sure you are worshipping the right Jesus?

>>What kind of god would demand this kind of absolute attention? 

>An absolute God.

Or perhaps an absolute Christian Devil?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Creating a FAQ (Was Re: Study of Numbers 5)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:53:30 GMT
 	<12961@inews.intel.com> <1992Aug13.002134.16131@cs.yale.edu>  
 	<Bsxoq3.8pB@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <geWkbQ600WBM05jF5M@andrew.cmu.edu>  	<adams.713797645@spssig> <BszLnx.LFt@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <adams.713797645@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
><I posted these notes in original post on this topic (ie this thread
><originated with me).  I posted from the Ryrie Study Bible the verses and
><notes...;-)  I even commendted on the fact that it was published by Moody
><Publishing....and they are about as pro-life as it is possible to be...
><We've come full circle....

>Yes, indeed we have. And your post was quite thorough and well referenced, one
>could hardly ask for more, but some people, when you hit them over the head
>with a 2x4 say that it was really 1 7/8 x 3 7/8, see what I'm saying? Some
>people just can't read the writing on the wall, even when it is revealed. Some
>people are just beyond reason, their brains were shut down long ago. Maybe
>you should put this stuff together into a FAQ? And it is important to point
>out the Bible is most certainly not anti-abortion or pro-choice, it is
>clearly pro-abortion or perhaps some would prefer pro-induced-miscarriage,
>at the option of the husband of course.

I'm working on a FAQ for this group.  This is one of the topics....I plan
to include both sides (or however many).  Once I get the basic document put
together, I'll take comments.

By the way, I'd be interested in what kind of areas we should cover in
this FAQ...mail or post...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558