HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:07:55 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <WIGGINS.92Nov10123415@raedwald.cs.odu.edu>, wiggins@raedwald.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
> In article <P64wTB10w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
>    <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
> 
>    > In response to Sam Wiggins's assertion that Jesus claimed to be God:
>    > 
>    > There is not a single verse in the so-called canonical gospels where
>    > Jesus explicitly stated that he is God or a God-incarnate. Your assertion
>    > can only be accepted if one extrapolates the meanings of certain verses,
>    > which are too subtle. Those verses are open to interpretation. Trinitarians
>    > like to interpret them to prove the divinity of Jesus, others reject it.
> 
>    I thought the argument was about Jesus being the Son of God, not God. In
>    the Bible, Jesus certainly claims that God is his father. You are
>    right that he nowhere claimed to be God. In fact, he directly denies it
>    in the verse "...for the Father is greater than I..." (John 14:28)
> 
>    Sincerely,
>    Kalki Dasa
> 
> Not true.  He claims to BE God.  He NEVER claimed to be a PROPHET was my 
> original point, though.
> 
> Now, where does He claim to be God?  One I can think of now is where He said
> "I and the Father are One."  But, this WAS equating Himself with God.  That's
> why the Jewish scholars around him got so angry at Him.
> 
> Also, John also states in the beginning of his canonical gospel, that Jesus
> (The Word) was with God, WAS God, came in human form, etc.  Now, John got
> this idea from somewhere, right?  From Jesus, maybe, whom he knew and talked
> with?  Likewise, Peter, Paul, and the rest of the NT.

Jesus used the phrase I AM to refer to himself (as in "Before Abraham
was, I am").  Hebrew scholars out there, any idea what "I am"
translates as?  Why, YHWH, which is usually translated YAHWEH, or
Jehovah.  He calls himself Jehovah, He says He was God.

-Jeff
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:14:59 GMT


>Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?

Don't forget to chant: chmod 777 /heaven

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 12 Nov 1992 14:42:05 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>1. Paul claims that Jesus is the son of God, born of the virgin Mary, wife
>of Joseph.

Forgive me if I'm stumbling into the middle of a pre-existing debate, but..

If by Paul you mean the writer of the Epistles then this statement is
incorrect.  

Bear in mind that only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth (or, more
correctly, the Virgin Conception).

None of the other traditions in the NT (e.g. John, Mark, Q or, more to the
point, Paul) betray any awareness of this story.

NICHAEL                                                               __
nichael@bbn.com  --                             Be as Passers-by.  -- IC
From: RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:01:20 GMT
 3637.1724@athena.cs.uga.edu><1992Nov11.215353.21361@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In the canonical gospels Jesus is reported to have uttered: Eloi| Eloi| Lama
Sabachtani, whose translation is My God| My God| Why have you forsaken
me. (Matt. 27:46 writes Eli instead of Eloi in Mark 15:34. The author of
Luke however contradicts other synoptists by saying that the last words
of Jesus on the cross were: Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.
The author of Johnian gospel simply does not mention any of these.)
The variations in these so-called canonical gospels alone show that the
authors simply did not know; they simply were not the eye-witnesses to
the event that they were reporting about. Luke and Mark definitely were
not (even if one were to consider them as historical personalities, which
is doubtful) the disciples of Jesus. Church tradition (based on Paul's
writing) puts them as companions of Paul. Was Paul a witness to the
crucifixion scenario? We simply don't know. None of the so-called canonical
gospels ever mention him anywhere. (Even the list of the women present
during the event vary between the gospels, so does the people whom Jesus
is reported to have met after ascension from the grave. Note also that
the last part of Markan gospel was tacked to the original writings by
some other forger to give credence to Jesus's mission.)
--
Siddiqui.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:44:34 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Nov10.232451.14844@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
|
|(rpitts)
|/Is it not logical that one would get one's information about Jesus 
|/from his contemporaries?
|
|Only if his contemporaries are:
|
|a.  trustworthy

Trust is given by the fact that these men gave their lives for the
message - that Jesus the Christ came from God and humbled himself
in the form of a man, lived and taught God in love, was killed for
this message, was buried, ROSE FROM THE GRAVE on the third day,
and ascended into heaven.

|b.  unbiased

Are you unbiased????

|c.  independently verifiable--one thief vouching for another is not a 
|    good character reference.

The Bible is a collection of books - not one big book.  These books
were written by multiple people and assembled into the one volume.
However, we (Christians) believe that God inspired men to write these
books - so if you believe God was behind them, as we do, then you
would tend to agree that they are trustworthy, for surely the One
who inspired these books for hundreds of years is far superior to
mere man.  On the other hand, if mere men wrote them, then they should
be considered individual works.

If these books were separately bound and handed to you, would you 
accept them?

|(rpitts)
|/I can understand the logic you use to say that Muhammad received direct
|/revelations about Jesus, but you might want to consider that revelations
|/were not needed about Jesus' life on this earth, for there were people
|/with him and they wrote about him (i.e., the New Testament.)  
|
|You didn't wait very long before you committed Error #1, did you?
|
|Quoting the Bible to prove that the Bible is correct (or that Christ's
|claims are true) is circular reasoning and will not be accepted.  Citing
|people whose testimony appears nowhere except the Bible is also circular 
|reasoning and will likewise not be accepted.

Discounting everthing by you desire to have it some other way is
not a reason either.  You try to cast doubt by your questions, but
that doesn't prove your case.

|And, considering that the rest of your post is nothing but you expositioning
|on further bible passages, it is equally invalid.
|
|Have you anything better, or is this all there is?

Have you anything more than a wide paint brush?  Let me pose this
idea.  If all of the things happened the way the multiple books 
collected in the Bible depict them to have occurred (which I believe),
then would you expect any less of the people that wrote them, than
what they wrote?  These men suffered greatly for the Message of Jesus.
They gave their lives - if this wasn't true, why would those who were
eye witness have done such?

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose - Please respond
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:46:08 GMT

In article <1b8U022s2adT01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

|The parts I left out were for the purpose of not having to type in the
|whole page.  Even with the parts you added, it doesn't change the fact
|that this was a "prophecy".

...

|From the History of the Church Volume set that I bought at the LDS
|bookstore called "The BeeHive", located in San Jose, CA
|
|Really, it doesn't matter where I got it from, if it is true!


In other words *you* admit editing out a paragraph that any Mormon would
have immediately used to counter your accusation. Nice Tony. Really Nice! 
Up to this point I was ready to count you among the "honestly mistaken"
that is, you might disagree, but your disagreement was basically honest.

Good-bye Tony. It's obvious that any type of discussion with you is
ludicrous.
-- 

              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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20557 sci.skeptic:19118 alt.censorship:8628 alt.sex:35109
From: tt@euler.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:33:56 GMT
	<1992Nov5.143554.27849@cs.mcgill.ca>
	<1992Nov5.171906.16699@u.washington.edu>
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
Originator: tt@euler.math.jyu.fi

In article <1992Nov5.171906.16699@u.washington.edu> gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:

>	Now inertia is something I can understand...it just seems to me that
>gender consistency just makes sense to me. And it isn't that much of a
>problem to have a third person indeterminate pronoun.

Why don't you all just abandon English and start using Finnish instead.
It has a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun (and no gender-specific
ones at all -- makes translation interesting at times).
--
Tapani Tarvainen  (tt@math.jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty' - Coincidence?
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:57:58 GMT

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

>Excerpts from a Nov. 1, 1992 Washington Post article by LA Times writer
>William D. Montalbano, editorial comments by myself--jc.
>
>*NEWS FLASH*
>Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
>Dateline: Vatican City, October 31, 1992.
>     "It's official: The Earth revolves around the sun, even for the

First of all, note the date: that's correct: Hallow'een. Do you
think it pure coincidence that "liberal" reformers at the Vatican
and elsewhere pushed for this "reform" on this date that JUST
happens to be the eve of "All Souls' Day", a day when Catholics
(of which I am not one) are mindful of all souls and saints
who are not recoginzed by The Church(tm)?

I think not. Perhaps it was a way to hint to the liberals that
Galileo (et al) deserve to be recognized as "saints" in some
way.

>>     "Unable to comprehend a non-literal reading of Scripture, according
>to the commission, the judges feared that if Galileo's ideas were taught,
>they would undermine Catholic tradition [read power--jc] at a time when it
>was under attack by Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther and John
>Calvin.

Absolutely.

>The commission goes on to call the original verdict a "subjective error of
>judgment" and a mistake, but nowhere is an apology to be found. And well

And of course this is but one of the "galling" things about it.

>enough, because none would be accepted.  Galileo is just one of the many
>millions of people whose blood is on the Church's hands and it can't be

It should be noted also that Galileo's blood was not
shed. He was employed by The Church, and did not suffer
injury with the exception of being put under house arrest,
so to speak, for 5 years (and note that he had 2 houses
or rather mansions).

>The Galileo case shows exactly why science and faith (religion) are
>opposed to each other, the pope's remarks not withstanding. Simply compare

No, no, no. It might show why Catholicism and science are opposed,
but certainly not >all< religion.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:50:48 GMT

Aside to Ross Williams: if you sent me mail with a valid return
address, then I would be able not to respond to you in style.

In article <4lh1nfj@rpi.edu> dinsmm@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Michael Dinsmore) writes:

>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>In article <cH1NTB3w165w@cerianthus.pinetree.org> cowan@cerianthus.pinetree.org (Darin Cowan - root) writes:
>
>>>English does NOT need gender neutrality, womYn, and so forth.
>
>>Spoken by someone who could himself use a little gender neutering.
>
>  stick to the point.

Was there one?  I'm sorry.

>the fact of the matter is, what purpose is there
>to have a gender fair language?

You need to ask what the purpose would be of having a gender-"fair"
language?  Or is unfairness a hobby of yours?

>the english language is already more
>gender fair than a lot fo other languages.  for example, in spanish 
>every object is either masculine or feminine.

Which, I charge, dilutes the semantic importance of "gender" in the
pronouns "el" and "la."  When these are applied to every object in the
language, it's obvious that they don't always refer to the biological
differences between "male" and "female."

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20827 sci.skeptic:19337
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 11 Nov 1992 01:15:41 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov10.155222.21131@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
=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.

I'd say that it's a referentless generalization, subject to so many different
interpretations as to be useless.  Worse than useless, since some people will
probably be deluded into thinking that it actually MEANS something.

=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.

If Christianity is in conflict with basic human nature, then it's useless.  At
best, it will delude its followers;  at worst, it will cause the sort of
perverse behavior somebody else has already ascribed to Christianity.  As I've
said before, YOU CAN'T EVALUATE THE PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EFFECTS
IT HAS ON ITS FOLLOWERS.  If you're going to talk about some purely abstract
set of ideas, THEN TAKE IT *OUT* OF SCI.SKEPTIC.  There are lots of philosophy
and religion groups out there where you can argue the equivalent of "how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin" all you want.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 22:42:51 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

>> >1) What is the soul?
>> 
>> There isn't one.

>Question 1 grade: 0% (isn't one what?)

There isn't a soul.  You asked what is THE soul, implying the existence
of something.  I deny the existence of anything known as a soul, especially
something nonmaterial (or are you saying that soul is to human as program
is to computer?  Then, if you turn either of us off, the soul vanishes).

>> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
>> 
>> There isn't one.  Or, the purpose is to reproduce.  Or, the purpose
>> is personal.  For example, my purpose is to learn as much about the
>> things I find interesting as possible, and to otherwise enjoy myself.
>> I have, however, no purpose imposed on me externally.

>Question 2 grade: 25% (simple "I don't know" would have sufficed)

Perhaps your question is flawed.  You can ask what my purpose is, but
you can't suppose that I know anything about anyone else's purpose.

>Overall grade: 12.5%

12.5% of what?  If you know the answer, then why are you asking?  Are you
attempting to flatter yourself?

>Try again!

There is no try, only do or do not...

keith
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 06:14:17 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

> >1) What is the soul?
> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
> 
> I'd define the "soul" as the capability for emotion and feeling, the
> ability to see life as more than just a cycle of "eat/sleep/
> reproduce".  But that's just the way I think of it, and I realize it's
> probably not the common definition.  I don't believe there is any such
> thing as the "soul" in a religious sense (of it being some "ghost"
> attached to the physical body) -- I came into existence when I was
> born, and I will cease to exist when I die, except in the hearts and
> minds of others.

Question 1 grade: 50% (knows what it is but doesn't want to accept it)

What is the source of your information that you exist only for the
duration of your present physical body?

> The purpose of human life is to do what you want to do, and I would
> measure success in life as how satisfied you are by what you've done.
> Someone who has learned to balance his risks with his gains, and who
> can reap the benefits of his actions as easily as their consequences,
> and who is always eager to learn more about the world and people
> around him, and who takes responsibility for who he is and what he
> does and is comfortable with it all, is someone who, in my opinion,
> has truly lived.

Question 2 grade: 10% ("doing what you want to do" is not the purpose of
human life)

Overall grade: 30%
Try Again!

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:51:13 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>Spiritual intelligence test.

>(Please answer each question in 25 words or less)

>1) What is the soul?

It's just soul, and it's the music of fucking and working.

>2) What is the purpose of human life?

To meet Jennifer Connolly.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:49:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov5.180339.9770@b23a.b23a.ingr.com>, klt@b23a.b23a.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer X8127) writes...

[...]

> 
> John 9:1-3;  When the apostles asked Him who sined that this man should
>      be born Blind, was it the man himself or the man's parents. Jesus
>      answered and said "neighter".
> 
>      If the man had no oportunity to sin before he was born, would the
>      questions have been a real problem.

[...]

	Jesus corrected the disciples for their erroneous presumption.
	I don't see how we can assume a Biblical teaching from something
	that Jesus corrected as being erroneous.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith becomes a Methodist, despite God's command.
Date: 4 Nov 92 19:47:47 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Nov3.164129.8754@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
->From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
->>Does enrolling in the probationary class make one a member of the
->>Methodist Church? I might ask, does taking the LDS Missionary
->>discussions make one a member of the LDS Church? Did taking the
->>Catholic "catachism course" make me a member of the Roman Catholic
->>Church? Get Real!
->>
->>Joseph Smith, to pacify his wife's family, enrolled in a class. Suddenly
->>this makes Joseph Smith a full fledged Methodist. If this is the best
->>you can do, fine, but it is not very convincing to me.
->
->I have added 'Get Real' to my list of Mormon terms.  If I understand
->you correctly, it is perfectly reasonable for a person to be
->indoctrinated into a religion -- *after* God appeared to you and told
->you they are all wrong, and an abomination in his sight.
->
->This is just another example of how Joseph's 1838 version of seeing
->the 'father and son' does not add up.  All the evidence points to
->his developing this story as time went on.  Joseph was not a very
->honest man, you know that, dont you Willard?
->
->Mark
-><standard disclaimer>

Well, one could make the claim (it wouldn't mean that it is true)
that anyone who reads the articles pertaining to mormonism in t.r.m
must really believe that the teachings of the LDS are correct.

Otherwise, if they knew they were false, why would they want to read
about them?  Of course the logic is obviously false just as it would
be wrong to assume that because Joseph Smith showed up on a class
roll he must have agreed with everything that would have been taught
in that class. 


Robert
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20497 sci.skeptic:19072 alt.censorship:8610 alt.sex:35051