HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM')
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:31:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: cc.1992Apr11.133121.54392
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Apr10.001906.12148@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>>Now I ask you, what is so terrible about the Mormon temple ceremony?
>>Why is it so dangerous that it needs to be exposed, contrary to the
>>wishes of its participants?
> 
> You tell us... :-)  
> Being secretive about things like this is HUGE cause for distrust.

Actually, I am impressed that Jay was able to tactfully explain
as many details about the temple ceremony as he did *without*
divulging those specific parts that are most sacred and not to be
discussed outside of the temple itself.

Having been through the temple ceremony myself, I can verify that
Jay's explanations about it are true, and plainly and accurately stated.

But I know nothing about Free Masonry (though I'm curious) to add
any meaning corroboration with him there.  But from experience,
I'm more likely to trust Jay's statements (in general), unless
someone else could demonstrate their more informed opinion.

-- 
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 17 Apr 92 11:59:10 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <18284@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>Kent Sandvik writes:
>>So if you follow the true religion, why are you then so angry and sad?
>
>Why do you and so many others believe that for a religion to be true,
>following it will put a permanent smile on your face?

You mean it won't?  I am disappointed.  All the airheads on TV have those
nice smiles, and the glazed over eyes.  They look like they haven't
a care in the world.

>You seem to be looking for a drug not a religion.

There really isn't much difference.

>I don't believe it is possible to be totally vulnerable like
>this without Christ.

I couldn't agree with you more.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: dcs@witsend.sci.com (D. C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Prayer and Religious Activities in the Public Schools 
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 17:20:59 GMT
Organization: Absolutely nobody but me

  [ Sorry about the References: line; this stupid
    newsreader won't le me edit the headers -- dcs]

In article <7APR199213263042@rosie.uh.edu>,
  cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774) writes:

>Perhaps I can make a statement which will shed some light:
>  If I were to post the following, what would your reaction have been?
>  "I think exposing kids to various faiths is great.  
>   Why don't we start Christianity on the first school day of next year and
>   spend 10 minutes educating the kids on the basic aspects of the religion.
>   The next day we proceed to another religion and spend an equal amount of 
>   time on it.  And so on until we repeat religions.  Of course, this would
>   probably take several years and expose the children to hundreds of 
>   different views on god, gods, goddesses, and the lack of the same.  Just
>   to be fair, agnosticism and atheism (which are not technically religions)
>   should be presented as well.  Just think, our kids could graduate school 
>   with a knowledge of the hundreds of faiths, anti faiths, etc around the
>   world."
>
>  My gut reaction is that most parents would have a cow.  They want religion
>in school but they want *their* religion or some generic version of it.  It 
>amazes me how a religious parent would want to pass the religious training of
>their children over to some college graduate who stands a higher likelyhood of 
>not believing in religion than they do.

Some of us have been around since *BEFORE* the Supreme Court's 
(O'Hare) ruling on school prayer.  One of my high-school teachers 
demonstrated the idiocy of it all by leading prayers to some 
bloodthirsty warrior type (Moloch? Odin? I forget).  The supporters of 
teacher-led prayers were forced to give in and cancel *all* of them 
because they couldn't pretend to be complying with the First Amendment 
if the district *wrote* a standard mandatory prayer, and they would 
rather have no prayer at all instead of his flavor.

Ain't turnabout wonderful?

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                 dcs@witsend.sci.com ---
--- There never was any correspondence between my views and SCI's ---
From: charyma@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.comics
Subject: Re: SANDMAN: LUCIFER'S NAME
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:22:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: wkuvx1.1992Apr7.112217.1234
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1992Apr6.203827.14703@eskimo.celestial.com>, alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
>>>In article <REUS.92Mar23165135@klein.euromath.dk>, reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen) writes:
>>>
>>>|>Last night I was reading issue 22 of _The Sandman_, and I came across a part
>>>|>where Morpheus said that Lucifer was also called Samael when he was still an
>>>|>angel.  I have never heard the name Samael before and was wondering if this
>>>|>referance can be found in the bible.  Anyone who knows, either post the 
>>>|>answer
> 
>      The term Samael means "Blind God" and can be found in the Gnostic
> versions of Genesis (which are most likely to be the origional version)
> I would recommend reading the "Nag Hammadi Library" for references. 
> Anyway, the story goes that the ranting jealous angry being lording over
> the garden of Eden was not the true origional creator and spirit of love
> but a defective created being.  When he made the statement "I am a
> jealous God, there are no other Gods beside me" a voice came from above,
> "you are mistaken, Samael".
>       It is mostly likely the contradictions between the origional
> version of Genesis and the one that is accepted today is why Israel has
> not released the Dead Sea Scrolls for translation.
> 
The Dead Sea Scrolls have been translated the most part (well over 99%)
 and The Gnostic version of
Genesis dates so late that it is almost certainly NOT the original
I laughed at the drivel in the previous post so much that I hope
the author flames me  just so I can be more explicit in e-mail.
(No smiley, come on FLAME away)  BTW, The Nag Hammadi Library 
in English is editted by James Robinson for any one who wants to
check for themselves.

> -- 
> ****************************************************************************
> * Dave                          *               The Alpinist               *
> * alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com *            DARE to be stoopid!           *
> ****************************************************************************
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:43:09 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:


>      TOP 10 BIBLICAL REASONS FOR BELIEVING IN THE DIETY OF CHRIST
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
>10. (1Cor 8:6)
		Wake me up, when you start. 

	 	Btw. Does "DIETY" refer to the diet of Jesus ? As far as I know,
		he ate bread, fish and drank wine. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:35:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23251
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <MIB.92Apr8111651@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
(Michael I Bushnell) writes:
> Further, Jesus didn't follow the Sabbath laws himself, and, further,
> the Torah was never intended for any but the Jews.  Whether Jesus
> abrogated the Law for Jews is all but a null issue today; it never
> applied to Gentiles in any fashion, before Jesus or after.

So why did then Jesus follow the Sabbath rules and attend temple
ceremonies - just for fun?

Cheers,
Kent
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons to believe in Jesus
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:46:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1333@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox) writes:
>
>You asked for 10 reasons to believe in Jesus. I have to suggest then that
>you read a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh Mcdowel.
NOT!
Heh.
Talk.origin's own Jim Merritt did a rather conclusive shredding of
this precise book over on alt.atheism or maybe sci.skeptic. I suggest
you buzz over to t.o and get his name, then ask him for a copy.
Basically, there are more logical flaws in Josh McDowell than you can
count.

>There are far more that 10 reasons for believing. Not to mention the best 
>reason. It is written that you will not go to heaven except through your
>belief in Jesus.....:)
Duh. If I don't believe in Jesus, then I clearly don't believe what
is written about him, therefore I don't believe that believing in
him will take me to heaven.(assuming, that is, that I don't believe
in Jesus.)

Considering what you seem to think a logical argument is, I'm
not surprised you find J McD convincing.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:28:08 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>> 	"Neither am I telling YOU by what authority I do these things."
>> 
>> 			- Mark 11:33

>	Andreas, you are equating yourself with Christ here - are you
>as great as He?  Do you have the same authority as He?  I find your attitude
>very condescending, besides the fact that you've quoted this passage completely
>out of context.

	Certainly I'm not. No, I don't. 

	No, it was not out of context. Pharisees weren't eager to know the Truth
	but to find a reason to accuse Jesus in front of the people. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Erin Anderson <erisande@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: The After-life
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:20:59 -0500

	Question...  If there is such a Being as God, or whatever they
call him now, IF he exists, Then how can Hell be posible?  My eartly
father would not want to punish me for the rest of my life, why would
the Heavenly Father (who MUST love me more than the earthly father)
put me in punishment forever?  Even if it is because he wants you to
learn your lesson, isn't it a bit far to take it?
-- 
Erin Anderson    -    Socks    -    The Robe, The Ring, and The Romance.
ARC's Philosopher, Dreamer, & Stand-up Comedian.
		       (Lis's Hero on call 24 hours.)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:31:19 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr8.200221.29072@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu
(John Muehlhausen) writes:
> In article <22576@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

> >The interesting note is that there are many individuals - including me - that
> >have personal happiness and joy, and are not tied to any particular religion.
> 
> Do you think much about death?  :-)  Do you think the soul survives death?
> Is a non-commital stance the safest?  It seems to me that the thing to do is
> find the most credible religion and jump it from behind and wrestle it until
> you are sure it is the best bet (maybe encountering truth somewhere in the
> fight) and then hope you were right.  This is my main problem with atheism.
> I think I have done just that and have found what I believe (or rather KNOW)
> to be the truth: salvation by grace through God's son Jesus.

I don't think eternal life is a good proposal, this is based on the 
human egoistic idea of living forever.

> >Either we are freaks, or then the emperor has no clothes. Even if I'm a friek
> >by other definitions, I'm a happy freak. Freedom is not to tie yourself to
> >ancient nomadic norms.
 
> Freedom is the ability to joyfully do what you know is right, which I feel
> that I have in Jesus.

Each one is able to define personal freedom, for me it is not following
blindly ancient social and cultural norms.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:04:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.131643.22736@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	That was not my INTENTION. I wanted to point that many people know
>	hardly anything about the Bible and we must start from the begin-
>	ning. Hebr. 5:12-14

Which is?

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:43:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.230323.21664@wam.umd.edu> reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston) writes:
>>More to the point, there are facts which are both true and unpleasant.  The
>>best choice is to believe them, even if you don't like them.  If God sends
>>you to Hell for not bowing to him five times per day, then you bow to him
>>five times a day [....]
>And just how is one to determine if that is a *fact*, Ken ?

Well, you can't.  But David Hatcher seems to think that, even in theory,
the truth of the facts claimed by Christianity isn't important.  That's what I
disagree on.

>>You have no way of knowing that this hypothetical brain-meddler hasn't meddled
>>with the brain of all the prophets either.
>Well gee; let's just start supposing any old stupid thing that we like, eh ?
>Let's suppose that the Bible is the product of your boogeyman's friend Billy.

For "experiences", it's consistent for the particular experience to be a
delusion of some sort, while everything else is what it seems to be.  If you
want to hypothesize that I don't exist, you have to explain away the people
who claim to have met me, the presence of my name in the telephone book, etc.,
until you ends up saying that just about everything in the universe is a
delusion.  This is because events in the real world are connected with other
events in the real world.  But to hypothesize that a totally private
experience is a delusion doesn't require extending the hypothesis at all.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:51:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr8.235156.28506
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr8.221335.750@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.195454.27979@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>So God intended for some males to stick their !@#$!@ up another males
>>#$@#$234.... To what end?  I think it is _very_ clear that this was not
>>intended behavior.  As always I refer only to the sex act.  Sorry to be
>>graphic about it.
>Graphic? What? Stick their finger up another man's nose, stick their
>tongue up another man's toes, what?
>
>Sorry, it's not clear to me.
>-Ekr
>
You forgot the smiley :-)

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:17:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.233934.25498@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>Celebacy is not the only option.  There is also marriage.  I 
>can't have sex untill I get married without offending God.  I am not
>even allowed to lust.  Why would it be any different for a homosexual?

It's spelled "celibacy".

Most gay couples would be happy to marry each other.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: MORALITY IN GENERAL...
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:43:56 GMT
	<1992Apr15.000627.25549@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<MIB.92Apr15100626@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr16.105303.12969@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<GOEHRING.92Apr16125609@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <adams.703453030@spssig>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>Pardon my butting in, but I think John's way off base....

I tend to agree with you, if for different reasons.  :)

>No, your not.  And the way I read the Scriptures, you get to plan
>your own life.  It is on the last day, at judgement, that you must
>justify yourself before the Lord.  God lets us say No.  If you do,
>you run the risks.  [of course, you don't see any risk here, if I
>understand correctly!  :-)]

You do.  And it is your acceptance of my right to take that risk
(which you perceive, but I do not) which I wish Christians in general
would take to heart.  Religion is a personal affair, solely a matter
to be decided for oneself.  Attempting to project one's own religious
beliefs onto another is foolhardy.  I quite honestly can say that I do
not comprehend your decision to be Christian.  On the other hand, I am
quite sure you think I have no sensible reason not to be Christian.
I see no point in either of us attempting to convince the other to
change our respective decisions on this matter.

[massive deletions]

>Without evil there can be no good.  Without hell, there can be no
>heaven.  Without damnation, there can be no salvation.  Without sin
>there can be no redemption.

I was thinking more of the importance of realizing that great good can
come out of utilizing the vast emotional power contained in negative
emotions (as well as positive emotions), if only we utilize this power
properly.  Denying this power is foolish, and can be damaging to one's
self.

--
No responsible person attempts to absolve himself of the bad effects of his
actions by blaming the actions of others.  Irresponsible people, of course, do
it all the time.
	-- Chip Salzenberg (chip@tct.com), news.groups
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 03:40:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.112900.25967@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774) writes:
>>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
>>Which animals fly?
>>Simply the animals that do fly?
>>I'm not saying that there are no religions that advance the cause of lying,
>>stealing, etc.  I am saying, you are not answering the question.  ...
>	The religions of the Great Babylon, The False Religion. 

But what _are_ they?  Don't they have names?
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:05:03 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <adams.702153918@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> >Wasn't this after Paul was thrown from a horse and hit his head?
> 
> Yes, Paul had fallen to the ground.  But right after this report, we read
> in Acts 9:10-18 about God's command to Ananias.  Barnabus also testified to
> Saul's encouter with God. (cf Acts 9:27)

You know, if someone would fall off a horse today, and then tell people
that Jesus spoke to him, he would certainly be shipped to the nearest
hospital.

Sometimes I don't understand why religion automatically accepts ancient visions
and sightings, even if they could be considered today to be created
by accidents and otherwise suspect.

Even if it would be shown (extreme case) that most prophecies 
by Daniel were based on drugs, I'm sure it would be considered to
be valid facts by those who assume everything is black-and-white.

Cheers,
Kent
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:35:56 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <22575@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.201632.17913@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>>Try to resist the Bible-reach reaction:
>
>  It sometimes seems like some people don't even have their own thoughts. 

In Hebrews 1, we see that God in times past spoke through the prophets, but
in these last days he spoke to use through his Son, whom he has appointed
heir of all things, by whom he also made the worlds.  Who being the brightness
of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things
by the word of his power, whe he had by himself purged our sins, sat down
on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being much better than the angels,
as he hath by inheritance objtained a more excellent name then they.  For
unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son.  Unto the
Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.

How can we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? (Heb 2:3)  

Oh, you might note that the Son, Jesus, is called God here in Hebrews 1.

Sure we can have our own thoughts, but what makes them worth while?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |