HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:16:32 GMT

In article <53936@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>>>There is a way that seems right unto man,
>>>    but the end there of is death. (Proverbs)

>>Does the path you choose seem right to you? Are you a man?

>We preach Christ and Him crucified, not ourselves. (2 Cor. 4)

(I s'pose I'll never tire of this.) I know what you preach. That
wasn't my question. Once again: does the path you choose seem right to you?

>Yes, I am a man, but I did not create The Way, 
>in which I follow - it's God's way.  Jesus Christ, The Son of God, is the Way.

Well, the muslims say it ain't. The muslims say that you have veered from
God's way in your belief that Jesus is God's son. In the eyes of Allah,
you have taken a path that "seems right unto man". You may not have created
The Way (though, to some degree, every believer creates it for him/herself),
but _somebody_ did...men, it would seem, according to the Holy Quran.

>>It seems then that the true, saving faith must be based on something so
>>absurd and disagreeable that nobody in their right mind could believe in it.

[ God's_wisdom -> world's_foolishness line returned for insufficient
  relevance ]

Try to resist the Bible-reach reaction:

>>If you don't follow it, you're dead. If you _do_ follow it, then it has
>>become "right unto man", and you're still dead. Oh dear.

Look again at the sentences above, especially at the second. Now, how
do you resolve this? Is christianity right unto you? I would guess so,
considering how much energy you put into arguing for it. But you're
playing a very dangerous game of Russian Roulette, with at least one
chamber loaded. Better look to Allah and get back on course! *click*

>Oh dear?  The term "a way" is not indicative of "The Way."

In other words, "the way I have chosen is The Way (it'd better be)". No,
you'll have to do better, because anyone of any faith (or none) can come
back with the same line. Muslims, f'rinstance. They read the Bible, too,
I understand.

>>Perhaps the time
>>would be better spent finding a way to deal with one's impending death.

>How do you deal with one's impending death apart from God?

With or without God, it makes no difference:
Sever your attachment to body and mind. Realize the state you
were in before your parents' birth. Put on clean underwear.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |         Laden e-mail runs
Academic Computing Center       | Bumbling, creaking through the net
University of Virginia          |         Sysadmins tremble.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Buson
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:58:48 GMT


People continue to tell me that it's perfectly alright to flame people who
say things that look anti-Jewish, and that finding out for certain what the
flamee thinks is not necessary.

Personally, I thought Mr Carroll's comments were more offensively worded than
they needed to be.  But they weren't worth a flame war, and I do not believe
they support accusations that he is a Jew- or Christian- hater.

I'm all done with this thread, and if people want to keep flaming they're
welcome to.  If you find somebody you think is a Jew-hater, knock yourselves
out.  The whole enterprise strikes me as both stupid and pointless, but that's
your business.

Stupid, because a real Jew-hater probably wants to upset as many Jews as he
can, and letting him know he's succeeded will only encourage him.  Fanning the
flames will make deliriously happy.  Treating him seriously by talking to him
will only give him the legitimacy he so badly wants.

Pointless, because a Jew-hater won't change his mind just because you are
calling him names.  A real Jew-hater probably knows that his ideas are
considered foolish by most people, and doesn't care about their opinions
either.  But it's your life, and if you want to waste it cursing the darkness
go ahead.


And, of course, if you're going to start a flame war you should probably do a
better job of collecting evidence first.  Flaming somebody for distortions of
his real opinions is _worse_ than stupid.  Shooting without finding out if you
have a real target is a waste of ammunition.


In all honesty, I do understand a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat;
people get emotionally-charged and start flaming all the time.  But I don't
understand _defending_ knee-jerk reactions.  So far as I can tell, most of the
Jewish people who've replied think that irrational flames are the best course
of action whenever something even _looks_ anti-Jewish.  Nobody has yet said
anything in favor of making sure someone _is_ a Jew-hater before flaming.

It's pretty normal to go off half-cocked; it's rather odd to defend doing so.

Do you really believe that emotionally-charged issues justify abusing people
without first being certain of what they think?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Who knows? (Homosexuality & the Bible)
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:10:48 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr9.213138.19790@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>I will.  The Bible is the word of God.  If you do not beleive this then I
>don't see why you are a Christian.

Christ is the word of God. If you don't believe this then I don't see why
you are a Christian.

>He even warns in Galatians 1:6 that even if an angel came down from
>heaven (or a demon spoke in your head) that NOTHING shall be modified
>in the word of God, with the penalty being a curse.

You are completely failing to understand Galatians, whose author
incidentally was not God, as you seem to think, but Paul of Tarsus.
The whole point of that passage is that *no one* including Paul
himself can stand between the Christian and the atonement offered by
God--even if an angel from heaven were to come down and say that you
must follow the law to be saved then forget about the angel! What is
the point in lecturing us as to what the Bible says if you can't
understand it yourself?




--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Andreas - Siperian Sirri Siberian Stint
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:34:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.084051.11079@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Excuse me, tomorrow (17th April) we will celebrate the fest of the 
>	Christ's sacrifice. It's a basic thing in our beliefs.

While you're sitting there watching everyone in your congregation pass the
bread and wine around, and no one partaking of it, (yourself included)
think about what Jesus said it meant.  Without my concordance, the verse
escapes me, but it was to the effect that unless you partake, you have
no life.
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:31:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Apr8.211932.9963@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
| 
| I know many gay people out there are going to hang me for this,

Not just gay people.  If you don't get enough, I'll be more than happy to
add some flamage later.

|  but I do not
| beleive that the spiritual bond which sex helps to reinforce between man and
| wife is possible for gays, simply because it was not intended.

This gets back to a question that I asked the last time this "thread from Hell"
went around -- does the existence of this "spiritual bond" have overt,
measurable effects -- perhaps on psychological tests?

If so, and if the psychological tests of a gay couple showed them to be happy
and in love, then would you choose to lose your disbelief in the uniqueness
of the spititual bond, or would you just decide that the "spiritual bond"
needed a different test?

Your stance does not rest on statistics, but on exclusivity -- if one gay
couple has a "spiritual bond" equivalent to a het couple, then your stance
is blown out of the water.

|   Heterosexual
| sex is a gift from God, and therefore has benefits (both obvious and
| spiritual - "of God") when properly managed (not abused).  Homosexual sex is
| a perversion of man, which can only mean fleshly gratification.  Clear up my
| stance any? 

Yeah, you're an ass.  Instead of pontificating about other people's spiritual
bonds without knowing them, perhaps you can go meet people and listen to
them.

   Fritz
From: tony@tex.nde.swri.edu (Tony Benitez)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:43:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

The verse you refer to is talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of heaven
is here now. It is a reference to Jesus' Church as mentioned throughout Matthew and
the other Gospels.  Not everyone will enter the Kingdom, but I can gaurentee you that
Jesus will bring every Elect Child of God to Eternal bliss. Whether you believe or
not is inconsequential to the work God performed before the foundation of the world!
I personally have never understood the fundamentalists position of a "less than
omnipotent God"  I belive that Jesus saved his family on the cross. If you enter
the Kingdom (Church), then a timely salvation awaits you... comfort.
This is probably just too simple, however, I find that the scriptures appear to bear
out this "belief"


My opinions, not my employers..............tony@tex
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 13 Apr 92 06:14:58 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr12.201558.913@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.193615.10592@wam.umd.edu> reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston) writes:
>>upon "belief."  Certain things are facts, and these things take place whether
>>or not one believes in them.  If one doesn't believe in the tennents of
>>Christianity, then THEY AREN'T TRUE.
>
>Excuse me?
>
>Many of the tenets of Christianity are such that they are also true or false
>irrelevant of one's belief.  If Jesus really was resurrected, that's a fact,
>and it is true whether or not you _believe_ he was resurrected.

   There's two ways that I see that one could look at it as being true. One
is from the perspective of "belief". And the other is from the perspective
of internally experiencing with Christ His resurrection. 

   The second option, as I see it, is much more spiritual and personal
in nature. There is no argument, because one sits within the skin of Christ
and experiences things AS Christ experienced them. They know by first hand
experience the wisdom and knowledge of the resurrection as Christ knows it.
As a result, they can talk about it with a lot more inner wisdom and 
understanding than just asserting that is is fact.

  The first option, as far as I can see, is based upon nothing but an
assertion that is it's self based upon "belief" that something happened.
It's all mental activity that has very little to support it other than
who can yell the loudest and assert the hardest that the resurrection 
is "fact". It's not a very spiritual tack to take in my estimatation

	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
Subject: Books  (Was:Re: Top 10 reasons to believe in Jesus)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 07:05:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA
Distribution: usa

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.
>
>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.....:)
>

     Instead of the previously mentioned book, take a look at
"Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by Episcopal bishop John
Shelby Spong.  He shows you why the Bible is filled with errors and
contraditions.

-- 
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
|  \X/       Go A's!     \X/ 3000UX   Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 02:31:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.184414.2487@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.180802.9353@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>To residents of s.c.j:  It seems there is a Jew-hater in talk.religion.misc.
>
>It's nice to know that there's something that can raise the resident
>skeptic to levels of irrationality not even seen in talk.religion.misc
>among some of the true believers.

I find Ken's behaviour extremely disappointing.  If you can't trust an
atheist to rise above the partisan bullshit normally seen on this group,
and cast off his childhood conditioning, who can you trust?  I think we
all need new brains.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Keywords: sexuality, attraction, beliefs, Scripture, `Lick!'
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:54:58 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Apr9.035025.27299@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:

>What I want to know is this: what part of the Bible says this?  Where does it
>say that the bond-strengthening aspects of sex only work with heterosexuals?

I don't know of any Scripture that speaks of perpetual bond strenghtening
through marital sex, but I think you are discusing the passage in Genesis
which says that a MAN shall leave his father and mother and shall
cleave unto his WIFE, and they twain shall be one flesh.

God did not make men to have sex with men, or women with women.  It is 
easy to inger from the Bible that a bond-strengthening does not occur
during homosex acts because the Bible describes such acts as "that which
is against nature" and "unseemly" (KJV.)  Also, homosexuality is the
first among many sins described as "worthy of death."

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Even more Mormonism!!!!!!!!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.163436.1957@hellgate.utah.edu>, jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
> >
> >I assume that you are refering to a statement of mine.  I have been taught,
> >as a Mormon, that a dark skin is a curse of God, that in the ressurection 
> >all people will be fair-skinned, and that Jesus was honey-blonde;
> 
> Well, here's what I have taught as a Mormon:
> 
> 1.  God has at times set a mark of dark skin on people.  It does not
>     follow that all people with dark skin have been so marked.

How do you tell which is which?
And why do you soften your words as such? Don't you mean curse, and
that the mark is a curse?


barry--
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 03:41:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.113912.26475@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>>>	Indeed I have thought. We don't teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>>>	loot and terrorize like many others do.
>>>>>>OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>>loot, and terrorize?
>>You mean you don't _know_?
>	Yes, I know fairly well, but if I say, you wouldn't believe, so it's 
>	better that you go and see with your own eyes. 

Go ahead, tell me, even if I _don't_ believe.  I just want to find out what
_you_ believe about it.
--
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: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Mormon FAQ (part 1 of 2)
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr15.232532.25196@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>
	<1992Apr15.191210.24051@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:08:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.191210.24051@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

   ... just as Michael
   Bushnell does not speak the official position of the Roman Catholic
   Church...

Yo!  Listen up!  I'm not a Roman Catholic.  Say it thirty times.  

Sheesh.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | I give you a new commandment, that you 
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | love one another.  Just as I have loved 
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | you, you also should love one another. By
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 | this everyone will know that you are my
			  | disciples, if you have love for one another.
From: zazen@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (East Coker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Quality of life
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:18:09 GMT
Organization: Is God a Taoist?

In article <1992Apr7.173648.12418@urbana.mcd.mot.com> dhammers@pacific.urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Hammerslag) writes:
>In article <22427@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>I have a short an interesting note: Yesterday I realized that my
>>life is really nice, I don't need to worry about the original sin,
>>the devil, placement in hell, wheel of karma, tabuus about women,
>>sexist issues, ten commandments, kosher food, worshipping of 8-legged
>>gods, mantras, inner voices, holy wars or following the right path.
>>
>>What's the name of the religion I follow? It's is called NULL :-). I
>>really recommend it.
>>
>>Cheers, happiness, and joy!
>>Kent
>
>That was indeed an interesting note.  It got me to thinking:  Like Kent,
>I don't worry about any of those things either.  And, like Kent, I really
>recommend my religion: Christianity.  

Interesting, leads one to wonder if perhaps religion or its absence has
no effect on ones happiness.
-- 
East Coker
"In my beginning is my end .... In my end is my beginning" --- T S Eliot
(my opinions alone)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:48:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.114903.488@yvax.byu.edu> mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.070920.14338@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> Concept of Jesus
>> ----------------
>> 
>> I am still confused as to who Jesus is in the Mormon faith.  A couple of
>
>	If you don't know how are you trying to prove that Mormon's aren't
>Christian?  Very odd.
>
I think there may be some mormons who are also confused on this point...

>> things are certain though: Jehovah (same person as Jesus?) was with God
>> during the creation, and he is definitely not the same person as God.
>> He is not responsible for our salvation.
>
>	Not true.  LDS doctrine is VERY clear that salvation comes through and
>ONLY through Christ.  The Book of Mormon is very clear on this subject.
>
Yes, the BoM is, but what about the rest of your canon....
 
>> The Christian Jesus is God as man and died to pay the penalty of death
>> for us.  "For the wages of sin is death"  He did this because it is
>> impossible for us to be sin-free.
>> 
>	And that's the "Mormon" Jesus.  That's the simple, plain and clear
>truth of the matter.
>
Oops, not quite.  Is not the mormon jesus a created being (first born
son of god and one of his wives and brother of Lucifer)?  In Christianity
Jesus IS God incarnate, not created by God.  Also, in Christianity, 
Jesus died for ALL _our_ sin, not just Adam's "original sin."


-- 
| Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com        |
| Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then |
| Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.               |
From: les@hutcs.cs.hut.fi (Lars Silen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 12 Apr 92 08:31:07 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

There has been an interesting discussion about the position of
Jusus in the Christian religion and in Islam. Unfortunately it
seems like the participants don't understand what the other party
is saying.

To the christian part saying that Christ is a 'mere prophet' is
something unthinkable (observe that christians point out the 
'a mere prophet'.

To the Islamic part a prophet is far above any normal mortal.

The main diffyculty seems that you read the contents of the
word 'prophet' differently. I would very much like to see a
deep and real dialog between these two religions. Please
try first to define what you really mean when you are 
talking about a 'prophet'.

See. eq. Deut. 18:15-20. Is the 'prophet' Moses talks about
a 'mere' prophet, if not the station is something far higher.
Observe that Christ himself referred to these verses.

Regards
Lasse
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:58:29 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr15.234338.14774@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>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.  
                        ^^^^^^^

  No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying that there is 
something even more important. And that is that "claims of truth 
of facts" IS NOT and CAN NOT come even close to the actual act of 
of one actually turning towards and living within the experience
and the awareness of God. 

  I feel that God should not be believed in, God should be discovered.


	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher