HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Measure 9 fails - Watch out, here comes the OCA to YOUR state!
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:24:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1d8v6qINNcrh@cascade.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:


>  Oregon's Measure 9 lost. The percentage was something like 64%.

>  Anyone know how Colorado's anti-homosexual measure did?

>  WARNING: The OCA has said that they are going to go to
>           other states with their anti-homosexual agenda.
>	   Watch out, your state may be next!

Hmm? Well thanks to Frank Perdue, MD should have lots of feathers
handy, now, where to get the tar :-)





>	Love is the life force breathed
>	into the Heart/Mind flower center
>	of harmonious human relationships.
>			Al Huang

>	David Hatcher


REB
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:16:38 GMT
Organization: DiamonD got props like a cop!

1. Paul claims that Jesus is the son of God, born of the virgin Mary, wife
of Joseph.
	The Lord of the Hebrews is remote and brooding. No one ever sees Him
	and when Moses asks by what shall we call You, He responds, "I am that
	I am." This is one of the things that makes Judaism different from
	the other religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Paul's claim that the
	Lord of the Hebrews somehow plants his seed in Mary and she conceives
	of Jesus, the son of God is very reminiscent of the creation of
	demi-gods in pagan religions. Presumably, Jesus being of God and Mary
	is part human, part God, hence demi-God. The pagan aspect of this
	myth is one of the main reasons it is rejected by Judaism and Islam.
	The books of Judaism do not predict a son of God, such a myth is
	completely out of form. However, this myth of Jesus the son of God
	probably made Christianity an easier sell amongst pagans of the Roman
	Empire much as the trinity and other pagan concepts did also. One
	cannot accuse Paul of not being a clever marketer.

2. Paul claims that Jesus is the son of God and God at the same time.
	Now, in most cultures of the world, it is an insult for a son to
	claim he is his father, particularly if the father is still alive.
	Nonetheless, this is Paul's claim. Perhaps it is an attempt to hide
	the obvious polytheism that God having a son introduces. In any
	case, the logic of God having a son by way of the woman Mary and yet
	this son is God is not obvious. If Jesus is God in human form, then
	Jesus is God in human form, not God directly and not the son of God.

3. Paul claims that Jesus is the son of God and God at the same time and
that Jesus suffers and dies on the cross and reincarnates or comes back to
life.
	Now we are surrounded by paradoxes. Jesus seems to act like a
	demi-god in that he has some qualities of a god and some of a human
	which is to be expected if he is the product of God and the woman
	Mary. But, this contradicts Paul's claim that Jesus is God. Which
	in turn contradicts Paul's claim that Jesus suffers on the cross and
	dies. Jesus as God dies? How can God die? God was never born, He
	just is. But Jesus was born and is God, according to Paul, and since
	Jesus (God) was born then he also must die. But, then the death was
	of no meaning since, Jesus being a son of God has the power of
	reincarnation, and so Jesus comes back to life and then goes into
	hiding somewhere. Again, despite being full of paradox, the tale is
	reminscent of pagan religion, but certainly there is absolutely
	nothing in the Hebrew scriptures of this nature, it is completely
	out of form. The followers of Judaism are expecting a prophet to
	restore Israel. Paul's version of the history of Jesus does not
	fit Judaism at all.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: What's your SIQ?
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 01:56:41 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

A few days ago we posted a simple questionnaire covering two fundamental
truths. Our purpose was to see if there was anyone reading this
newsgroup who was really serious about spiritual knowledge. Of the
half-dozen responses, there was only one which made an attempt to answer
the questions seriously. The remaining responses were sarcastic and
impudent.

We download several hundred messages a day from this group, including
many voluminous diatribes. However, although much is said in
talk.religion.misc, apparently little is known, otherwise our two simple
questions, the answers to which which form the basis of all spiritual
truth, would have been taken as an opportunity to begin a real learning
process. Instead, the false pride of certain persons was offended and
they retaliated with scorn and ridicule.

All this notwithstanding, the questions remain:

1) What is the soul?
2) What is the purpose of human life?

We do not know why anyone would use talk.religion.misc as a forum for
personal agression. Anyone who is sober enough to answer these
questions, or humble enough to admit ignorance, will find us more than
willing to share our knowledge.

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: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:16:56 GMT

In article <fU0eU1j@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>  ...Instead I'm gonna say this: Now,
>Christianity was "based" on the Septuagint. How do we know this? The
>writings of the NT reference the Septuagint, errors and all.

Can you provide any proof?

>
>>>LXX also relied on the oral tradition.
>>Again please cite your source.
>
>JPS:Tanakh:
>"Alongside the close, literal method of Bible translation, the earliest
>Jewish translators were also influenced by the widely held view that,
>along with the Written Law (torah she-biktav), God had given Moses on
>Mount Sinai an Oral Law (torah she-be'al peh) as well; so that to
>comprehend God's Torah fully and correctly, it was essential to make use
>of both."

Oral Torah is a different matter altogether.  It has little to do
with what we have been discussing here.  Neither the Masoretic text
nor the LXX deals with the Oral Torah.

>  ...From my World Pub
>KJV, Languages of the Bible, Rev. C.H.H Wright,D.D.,Phd.:
>"Several portions of the books of the OT are written in a peculiar
>Aramaic dialect,

Book of Daniel stands out in this category.  The official inclusion of
Daniel into the Hebrew canon probabily came later than other OT books,
though there was never any doubt concerning its inspirational nature
in the rabbinical writings.
In any event, this has little to do with the subject at hand.

>Ah, good point. Of course the Masora is not a fixed text, it is subject
>to revision when sufficient older Hebrew texts are found.

The translators of NIV have done a fairly good job in that direction.

> ... If I'm not
>mistaken, some of Q texts have already been incorporated and in general
>verify that the Masora was well maintained.

Again please cite your source.

> ... But, a lot of text was found
>in that cave and work still continues to figure out exactly what it all
>is.

True.


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 05:37:40 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

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

> Teacher grade: F (Nuff said!)
> 
> And what is true hypocrisy?
> The setting up of religious standards for others is true hypocrisy.
> Yudhishthira at the Lake of unquenchable thirst, Mahabharata (Hinduism).
> 

That is correct. No one but God can set up religious standards for
others. That is why we follow God's scriptures rather than our own
opinions. In the scriptures, the soul is defined and the purpose of
human life is given. We cannot concoct whatever definition we like, nor
can we manufacture a purpose for life. These things are already
established by the Lord.

In your post, we see a reference to "Hinduism", but the Mahabharata is
not a "Hindu" book, it is a compiled history of this planet from very
ancient times. The Mahabharata includes the Bhagavad-gita, which is a
verbatim transcript of a conversation between Krishna, who is God, and
Arjuna, who is Krishna's devotee. In this conversation, Krishna sets up
religious standards for all human beings. He can do so, for He is the
Lord. We are not the Lord, and so we simply follow what He has said.

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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.scouting,talk.politcs.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Which God Does the Boy Scouts support?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:05:40 GMT

10710736@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (ANDREW EDGAR) writes:

] In Australia the whole question of which "God" is solved by putting in the 
] promise,
] 
]   'To do my duty to *my* god'
] 
] which implies that you should believe in a god of any religion.


#define god /dev/null

recompile and rerun....


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:55:13 GMT
	<ksand-041192202656@wintermute.apple.com>
Organization: micaphone check mica micaphone checka

In article <ksand-041192202656@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>In article <73143@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
>Pitts) wrote:
>> It is legal, but the desire is for an organized voluntary period of
                    ^^^^^^^^^^           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> prayer.  The idea is that we believe that prayer is important and should
                             ^^^^^^^^^^
>> be a recognized part of national life.  You will have the opportunity
>> to not pray, just as you don't pray now.  I don't know if this is part of 
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> it, but maybe there should be a place to assemble for those who want to 
>> pray, as opposed to a set period of time IN a classroom.  
>Nothing stops people from praying during breaks, or even during 
>classes if you really want to. I think we all would abhor a situation
>where even this would be prohibited. In other words why all the fuss
>for something that is available already?
>However, if a public school pushes innocent children to pray in 
>the name of XXX 1), that's something that clearly goes overboard
>concerning the state dictating what the child should believe in.
>1) Substitute XXX with Allah, God, Jahveh...

You see, Richard doesn't actually think about these "things". He is just
blindly following his leader. Pat Robertson has an agenda of "PUT prayer
back in school" and "PUT prayer back into national life" so therefore it must
be a good idea and Richard thinks so too even though he has no idea of what
Pat Robertson actually intends. Pat Robertson and his gang claim to be
True Christians and claim to be advancing a True Christian Agenda and that's
good enough for Richard.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.philosophy.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Immortality
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Nov 92 19:42:39 GMT

In <dpn2.29.720591052@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:

>In article <Bx0pJo.L4u@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) writes:
>>Our preoccupation with immortality comes from the will to live.  No
>>one between the ages of 15 and 25 (the reproductive peak) believes he
>>will ever die.  I know.  I was there.

>Err...I'm 18, and I know that I'm going to die. Sweeping generalizations are 
>rarely correct.

Well, of course, Hausner's claim is not literally correct, but there are deep 
metaphorical interpretations to his words that extend even to much older
people.  This is brought out in Ernest Becker's Pulitzer-Prize winning
book, _The Denial of Death_.  I became "aware" of my mortality much earlier
than most people are, and even so the book had the most unsettling effect
on me.

[Aside.  Becker died within a year or two after receiving the Pulitzer
Prize for his book, while still in his fifties.  I wonder whether he
felt the imminence of his own death while writing the book.]

Peter Nyikos
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 18:40:30 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:

> I would like to add regarding the above-named subject, that Isa al Masih
> Himself did NOT claim to be a PROPHET.  He claimed to be God and the
> Son of God.  No true prophet ever has or ever could claim this.  Either
> He lied and His teachings can be thrown out altogether, or you have to
> believe what He said, especially about Himself.

Perhaps the Muslims do not accept the New Testament teachings as
authentic. Otherwise, they will have to accept your reasoning here
(unless, of course, they are crazy).

Certainly, if Jesus is a legitimate prophet of God as the Muslims claim,
then his words must, without exception, be true. If, then, the New
Testament contains the actual words spoken by Jesus, it follows that,
since he himself claims to be the Son of God, and repeatedly calls God
his father, he must in fact be the Son of God. Furthermore, this
indicates that the statement of the Koran that God has no son is false.

If the New Testament is not an accurate record of what Jesus said, then
where do the Muslims get their information about Jesus? Although the
Koran mentions Jesus, it does not give very many details of his life or
his teachings.

Apparently, the issue is: what literature is to be considered the
authoritative account of Jesus Christ?

It could also be that there is some jealousy involved. In other words,
the Muslims feel that if Jesus were the Son of God, this would mean that
they are not sons of God.

Finally, there is always the following problem: in none of the
scriptures of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is there found much
detail about God Himself, what to speak of the son(s) of God. We have
searched these scriptures in vain to find a comprehensive description of
who and what God is. There are scattered statements like "God is spirit"
and "God is one", and there are some operational statements like "Allah
is all-merciful, all-compassionate", but there are no details. We
suggest that at least some of the disagreements between Muslims,
Christians and Jews are caused by this paucity of detail in the
scriptures followed by them.

Of course, if people would spend more time doing what Jesus (and
Mohammed) said to do, they would have less occasion to argue about these
points.

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: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTIONS About God
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:06:49 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:


>          
>                          CONTRADICTIONS about God
>
>               Christians should all HONESTLY and thoroughly 
>          investigate the CONTRADICTIONS between the Old and New 
>          Testaments in terms of their descriptions of God. 
>
>               The God of the New Testament is described as a God of 
>          LOVE, MERCY, and PEACE. 
>
>               The god of the Old Testament is described as a JEALOUS, 
>          VENGEFUL god, a WAR-MONGER.  He said "Thou shalt not kill", 
NO!  He said "Do not murder".  The Authorized Version (KJV) got it wrong!
There are numerous places in the OT where death is prescribed as the proper
punishment for crime.  What was forbidden was murder.

>          and then proceeded to help the Israelites to kill TENS OF 
>          THOUSANDS of Arabs in order to take their land.  [And the 
>          zionist PIG$ from Israel are still doing it today!] 
Uhm, this is an uncalled for anti-semitic slam.

>               Can the two Testaments POSSIBLY be talking about the 
>          same thing?! 
Yep.

>               The "god" of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE OF 
>          RENEGADE SPACE CANNIBALS, with a leader named "Yahweh", who 
>          was the commander of a UFO SPACECRAFT ("pillar of fire", 
>          "pillar of cloud", etc.), and a GENETICIST who CLONED Adam 
>          and Eve FROM HIMSELF and put them on this planet which was 
>          ALREADY INHABITED at that time.  And the "first born sons" of 
>          the Israelites became ROAST DINNER for the "JehovahS". 
Nice theory...did they change your medication recently?

>               All of this may sound UN-believable to most Christians.  
>          But try reading the Old Testament with these things in mind.  
>          For example, read the part about one of the Old Testament 
>          characters, Jacob, I think, WRESTLING WITH GOD, AND WINNING!  
>          [ ALWAYS use the KING JAMES VERSION.  Later versions are PER-
>          VERSIONS! ] 
Wrong!  The KJV is not nearly as accurate as many modern translations.  Why
would you reject the modern translations?  Oh, because your theory doesn't
fit if you use the JPS Tanakh or the NRSV.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:56:56 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <7g3sTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>All this notwithstanding, the questions remain:

>1) What is the soul?
>2) What is the purpose of human life?

>We do not know why anyone would use talk.religion.misc as a forum for
>personal agression. Anyone who is sober enough to answer these
>questions, or humble enough to admit ignorance, will find us more than
>willing to share our knowledge.

The agression, Kalki, comes from the implication in your posting that
you know the True answers to these questions; something many of us
believe is unlikely or impossible.  To me, you sound astonishingly
arrogant.  I suspect that if I spend my time and effort carefully
writing down my ideas on this, you will dismiss them as false and push
your own ideas at me.  Why should I bother?

Nevertheless:

1.  The non-material part of a person.
2.  Human life is its own purpose; the purpose of life is to live,
fully, joyfully, with love for yourself, others, and the Gods.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Led by a Living Prophet? [was Re: Mormon Examiners Refuted
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:44:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <jlong-041192100054@192.67.80.41>, jlong@calvin.rl.af.mil (Jeff Long) writes...
>In article <Bx0t2K.9Gv@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
>(Robert Weiss) wrote:
> 
>> Jeff,
>> 	No, I am asking `when was the last time that Ezra Taft Benson 
>> spoke a word from God.' I am told that the CoJCoLdS is founded on 
>> continuing revelation. Benson still has the power of speech. Why is 
>> there no revelation from God to him?
> 
>I'm sorry, but I don't get a feeling from reading the OT, that God gave a
>"daily revelation" to his prophets!  He reveals his will when he feels it
>is needed, not to just "let people know the pipeline is still working". 
>I'm sorry if the term "Continuing Revelation" has a different meaning to
>you than to me, but I don't feel the need for daily, weekly, monthly,
>yearly, every decade.... regularly scheduled revelation from God.  I can
>only assume that when we need to be instructed, he will do so through his
>Prophet.

	It's fallacious to presume a comparison to OT prophets for 
Benson. The OT prophets spoke for God. There has been no revelation 
from Benson.

	Also, I am not talking about daily revelation, or monthly or yearly, 
for that matter. I am talking about revelation. Period.

	The CoJCoLdS claims that it is the only church on the 
earth that is led by a Living Prophet. Without revelation, it would 
appear that the claim of being led by a Living Prophet is at least
an idle boast.

	Sounds like the Reed Smoot investigations:

Senator Dubois: Have you received any individual revelations yourself
		since you became President of the church under your 
		own definition, even, of a revelation?

Joseph F. Smith, sixth president: I cannot say that I have. (_Reed 
Smoot Case_, v1, p483.)



=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu