HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith becomes a Methodist, despite God's command.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:37:58 GMT

In article <f75B02ly29Vd01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

|I don't think you read _all_ of my post Willard.  My point was that
|Joseph made an attempt to join, and started the process of becoming a
|member.  If he had not been asked to leave because of his moral and
|career ethics, he would have probably continued the process.
|
|This point of my letter was to point out that _after_ God appeared to him
|and told him not join any of the churches that they were an abomination in
|His sight, Joseph began the process to joining the Methodist.
|
|The Historical facts are there and the evidence is unrefutable.  The
|question is, how you are going to deal with it.

Tony, Joseph Smith was attempting to enroll in a probationary class.
You can interpret it either as Joseph Smith was attempting to become a
Methodist OR Joseph Smith was trying to pacify his wife's family. In
1828, Joseph Smith was already actively involving in translating the
Book of Mormon. That's WHY he was in Harmony in the first place! That is
WHY Emma's cousin objected to his enrollment in the probationary class.

Any attempt to ignore what Joseph Smith was doing in Harmony in 1828 and
insist the interpretation MUST BE "Joseph Smith was attempting to become a
Methodist" strains credibility. Don't sit there and try and say, "Well,
that's your problem." It is not MY problem, it's YOUR interpretation, so
YOU explain how the two things can be reconciled. Frankly if you have
to resort to "Joseph Smith was a two faced so and so" to extract yourself
from a problematic interpretation of YOUR OWN MAKING, then all I can say
is that you probably wouldn't be a very good professional historian (on
any topic).
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with MISinformation)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 15:38:13 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>  [...]  Let's
>compare them to the New Testament - 24,633 total MSS and 5338 complete MSS!
> [...]  In addition, these date to within 40-300 years of the autograph. 

Pretty impressive.  At least three major errors in only two sentences.  ;)

1] The total number of *all* greek manuscripts of the NT --down to the
18th[!!] century-- is on the order of 5000[*].  Moreover this number
includes _all_ documents with any material from the NT including very small
fragments and source that are not, strictly speaking, from the NT (like
lectionaries).

2] If we restrict ourselves to the first "300 years", the total number of
manuscripts is *much* smaller.  I don't have the numbers here in my office,
but I doubt that the total would reach 100.  Furthermore, the vast majority
of these early "manuscripts" are little more than fragments.  It is only
well into the fourth century that we get any complete NTs --and only one or
two of those.

3] At the other end of your range, it is unlikely that we have any
manuscripts from as early 40 years.

  o The earliest fragment of the canonical[**] gospels that we have is a
    palm-sized fragment of John (known by the name p52).  A proposed dating
    for this fragment places it at about 125CE (which admittedly _would_
    place it at about 40 yrs from autograph) however most datings place it
    at somewhat later in the 2nd century.

  o Other than p52 there are probably only three other manuscripts that
    have *any* claim to having been copied before or about 200 --and
    certainly not much earlier-- and these, too, are fragments.

 [* For more specific numbers, and break-downs according to type, etc.
    please see the books on the text of the NT by either Bruce Metzger or
    Kurt and Barbara Aland.]

 [** Fragments exist of a non-canonical gospel --the so-called Egerton
    Gospel-- which have been dated to roughly the same time as p52, and 
    possibly slightly earlier.]

NICHAEL                                                                __ 
nichael@bbn.com --                               Be as Passers-by.  -- IC


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20486 sci.skeptic:19063 alt.censorship:8605 alt.sex:35042
From: lee@ace.npac.syr.edu (Lee C. Brink)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:59:01 GMT
	<Bx7Lpp.Gw2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Nov5.101554.14585@newstand.syr.edu>
Organization: Northeast Parallel Architectures Center - Syracuse, NY
In-reply-to: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu's message of Thu, 5 Nov 92 10:15:54 EST

>>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 92 10:15:54 EST, greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) said:

JSG> In article <Bx7Lpp.Gw2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> chak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Buckshot Willie) writes:

>  If someone says something that unintentionally upsets, outrages, or
>otherwise violates what you find "right", then no insult has occured.
>One must try to insult someone.  Offense taken from an offhand remark
>is not the fault of the person that makes the statement.  It is the
>person that recieves and interprets the message incorrectly that is
>at fault.  An insult must be given, but offense can be taken from 
>anywhere.

JSG> See the dictionary definition of "insult" that I posted yesterday.  It
JSG> does not support your conclusion.


I guess it depends on the dictionary you use.  Webster's New World Dictionary,
Third College Edition, copyright 1988, page 701 says (In part):

	To treat or speak to with scorn, insolense, or great disrespect

Sounds like you have to have some malice behind the words used to insult.
By this definition, if there is no malice, there is no insult.
Of course, if the listener is looking for an insult, they'll inevitably 
find it.

Maybe we should pass laws to ban insulting speech.  That would solve all the
world's problems, right?  We could feel all warm and fuzzy inside all the time.
Throw in cradle to grave government protection, and we'll be all set.


>  I personally find PC language to be unwieldy, tiresome, unnecessary,
>and annoying.

JSG> Why do so many of you seem insistent on wrapping the question of using
JSG> gender-neutral pronouns in a blanket in "PC" positions?


Because the "PC" movement wants to change speech so it resembles "doublespeak"
from George Orwell's "1984."  If you can't express the thought, you can't think
it, and it helps the elite to keep control of the masses.

Why is it that people feel that I HAVE to be sensitive.  What if I don't want
to?  Should I kow tow to the gods of "PC" all my life?

     Lee

--
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Lee C Brink	             Office Support Co-ordinator at NPAC	   |
| lee@nova.npac.syr.edu      Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100  |
|			     315-443-1722				   |
| "Stimpy, move your butt.  It's a higher mammal" - The Ren & Stimpy show  |
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State, A Myth
Date: 5 Nov 92 02:32:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL


	Why this fixation on posting the Ten Commandments? The Sermon
on the Mount, and some other teachings of Jesus Christ (or at least
teachings attributed to him) would be _much_ more interesting to post.
Questions of ultimate authorship aside, it would be interesting to see
people's reactions to such teachings as:

	The worthlessness of material wealth and why one must give it
all away.

	How one should do lots of nice things for one's tormentors.

	That one should be consider neutering oneself in order to
enter "the Kingdom of Heaven".

	That one should pray in private, and not try to impress others
with one's piety. [There go official school prayers]

	I'm sure the Rush Limbaugh school of though would flay JC
alive if they realized the things he taught.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:02:57 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

One other thing -- The Egyptian Book of the Dead accurately discusses the
atomic and subatomic structure of matter, describing a still rock as being made
of small pieces moving at dizzying speeds.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:26:50 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC


Hey, what do you call someone who doesn't know how to make love?
Horizontally challenged? Or can he only do it standing?


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:56:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.031313.17872@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.004839.6724@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.002823.3933@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus5.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>>Please, post a peer reviewed paper that dates this document.
>How does one post a peer reviewed paper on this thing?
Post a reference to a journal.

>I can do a literature search under "O'Callaghan" but you'll have
>to wait or do it yourself.
I'll wait.

>In the meanwhile, you can look at
>an article and its references in the Glendale News Press, Sat 15 April 1972.
>United Press International (UPI), Louis Cassels.
Since when is the Glendale News Press peer reviewed.

>>Allegedly founded....
>This is well documented in Eastern Orthodox sources (mostly in Arabic).
>The existing members of the Coptic Orthodox are presently being murdered
>daily for their faith.  (A prominent Muslim who stood up in protest of the
>violence, himself was assassinated in this same spree just last year.)
>You suggest that the Coptics live on lies?  
Yep. That's precisely what I'm suggesting. And just cause their tradition
says so and they believe it don't make it true.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:23:54 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-051192181548@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
|In article <73791@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|Pitts) wrote:
|> Have you ever noticed I don't invoke PR's name, but I do invoke that of 
|> the Lord Jesus the Christ, the God man - Jesus of Nazareth, who I preach 
|> as Lord and I His servant.  Note I am replying to your (Mr. Harvey's) 
|> comment on my lack of thinking and so my lack of testing what I hear - I 
|> haven't commented on PR's views nor is this a commentary on them or him.
|
|Richard, here's the issue, as you know both JWs and Mormons as well
|as Islam acknowledges Jesus as a special person. So you would not mind
|if your children had a prayer session lead by a Mormon if you lived
|in Utah, right?
|

Kent, I thought I made it clear - it is not a time for a
pray session lead by some leader, although it can be, but it
is a time of pray.  If one wants a leader within one's faith
to lead those of that faith, then that's fine.  It is not
promoted that we are forcing everyone to pray with one person
or even in group pray, but individual prayer.

I think you are assuming it is group lead prayer - not I.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Arabic/muslim religious language
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:03:42 GMT

In article <92314.114245RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>     granted to Prophets (Nabiim) of God. The information concerning Jesus

I realize this is off of the subject.  But I noticed that you consistantly used
Arabic names throughout the post.  Except here you use what appears to me to
be Hebrew (nabiim) rather than Arabic (Ambiaa'u.)  Has nabiim been
accepted into Arabic from Hebrew, or did you just use the Hebrew term.

Link Hudson.


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: omnicient of God
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:53:22 GMT

I just love all this bantering about God's omnisciences.  The
big question is:  When was it assumed that God was this way.
 
All you big time scholars can whack at this--but IMHO, it wasn't
until the rise of Greek philosophy.  When in the OT does it
say He knows absolutely every thing.
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:03:53 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>> >1) What is the soul?
>> 
>> An abstract concept.
>
>Question 1 grade: 0%
>
>The soul is an actually existing living entity whose principal
>characteristic is consciousness and who is part of the Supersoul, or
>God.

Huh?  If it's an "actually existing living entity", then what's its
genus and species?  I thought religion considered the soul to be part
of a human being, and not an "entity" unto itself?

And what it "the Supersoul, or God," if not an abstract concept?  ;-)
Can you demonstrate it to be something concrete?  Can you take me
somewhere and point to something and say "there, that's God"?

>> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
>> 
>> What you make it.
>
>Question 2 grade: 0% (indefinite answer)

Then I assume that life is what somebody else makes it?  Who?
(note that the answer "God" is invalid unless you prove that (a) God
exists, and (b) God is responsible for everybody's life being what it is.)

>      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
>      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
>      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
>      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |

What is that, and what does it mean?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 05:57:34 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:

> 1) There is no such thing as a soul (why do you think there is?).  But if
> you are asking what makes us who we are as individuals, then the answer is
> the combination of the matter of which we are made and the form/order/
> arrangement of this matter. Don't confuse the form with your concept of
> the soul -- form is a property of matter and does not exist independently
> of matter.

Question 1 grade: 0%

Where do you get the information that there is no soul?

If we are a combination of matter and form/order, how did these two come
to be combined? If form is a property of matter and "dependent" on it,
then there must be a third thing, a "function" that maps matter onto
form, so that the two can be distinguished. What is this function and
what is its origin?

> 2) Purpose implies design, which is not evident.  So then we are left to 
> our own devices to give meaning and purpose to our lives.

Question 2 grade: 0%

Overall grade: 0% (pupil in wrong class)


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20485 sci.skeptic:19062 alt.censorship:8604 alt.sex:35041
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:15:54 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <Bx7Lpp.Gw2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> chak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Buckshot Willie) writes:

>  If someone says something that unintentionally upsets, outrages, or
>otherwise violates what you find "right", then no insult has occured.
>One must try to insult someone.  Offense taken from an offhand remark
>is not the fault of the person that makes the statement.  It is the
>person that recieves and interprets the message incorrectly that is
>at fault.  An insult must be given, but offense can be taken from 
>anywhere.

See the dictionary definition of "insult" that I posted yesterday.  It
does not support your conclusion.


>  I personally find PC language to be unwieldy, tiresome, unnecessary,
>and annoying.

Why do so many of you seem insistent on wrapping the question of using
gender-neutral pronouns in a blanket in "PC" positions?


>For example, if I call someone in a wheelchair a cripple
>or handicapped, then I am some sort of evil bastard that belittles those
>that are "physically challenged".  What's the difference?  Nothing,
>except some holier than thou organization decided that cripple and handi-
>capped were offensive, and physically challanged is nicer.  We have 
>become a society of euphemisms and connotations.  Take a word for what
>it means, not for what you think it should mean.  A person that is a
>cripple, that is handicapped, and that is physically challanged is still
>the same person, all the terms mean the same thing.              

If you can't tell the difference between calling someone a "cripple"
as opposed to calling them "handicapped," then I doubt that you are
mentally-equipped to take part in any discussion of language.

The difference is akin to the difference between calling somebody a
"pip-squeak" and calling somebody "short."

Fine, we can agree that to become so concerned about negative connotations as
to switch to terms like "physically challenged" or "vertically challenged"
is to be ridiculous.  But if you can't recognize that terms like "cripple"
and "pip-squeak" are loaded terms, then you must be "mentally challenged"
(a retard).


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:52:22 GMT

In article <1dnkb5INNo0c@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
>John, you can't judge something on its merits without looking at its effects. 
>If you think you can, then please present a description of how you can do that.
>If you can't then please take this thread to someplace more appropriate, like
>one of the religion or philosophy groups; they don't generally insist that the
>things they talk about there have concrete referents.  If you should happen to
>agree that you must include the effects of something when judging it, then you
>can't arbitrarily dismiss the actions of some of the followers of a religion
>with the standard "They aren't *REAL* Christians" bullshit, unless you can also
>specify an operational definition of Christianity that doesn't depend on your
>subjective evaluations.

Let's say for argument that all of Christianity is defined by the statement,
"Love is the only path". I think that most of us would agree that this is
a noble sentiment and goal for humanity.

Let's say that numerous humans on the planet decide to interpret this to mean
that they should have sex with as many people as they can.
Then we find that other's have decided that they must force other's to "love"
them through rape,etc. 

My point is that any human belief system can be
invalidated with the argument that you must judge that belief system by all
things that happen in it's name.
 
It's not Christianity that is at issue, it is basic human nature. Whatever
human belief systems exist, there will be someone there to misuse it for
his/her own benefit. That includes skepticism, science, psi,... you name it.



---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:23:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <92312.110835ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>, ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET writes...
>#In article <1992Nov2.191505.8118@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.
>#es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>#>
>#>Don't forget the interpretation supported by the nature of God
>#>as revealed in that book, the Bible:
>#>
>#>God is omnicient.  He knows everything.  He knows the future.
>#>He knows what I will do in a few seconds, next week, and in 20
>#>years.  Therefore, he knows me.  He knows me now, he knows me
>#>in the future, and he knows me in the past.  I don't even need
>#>to exist in order for God to know me.  Therefore, he knew me
>#>before I was born, before he created me.
> 
>You can't be serious to believe/accept/construe this to be true!
>If God was omnicient, there would be no free will or agency.

[...]


Casper,
	This is non sequitur. All knowing does not imply a negation  
of free will. All knowing implies a foreknowledge of what one will use 
that free will for. 


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.all-worlds