HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen)
Subject: Top 10 Biblical Reasons for Believing in the "Deity" of Christ.
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 01:20:30 GMT


As my earlier posting was much misunderstood, and has now scrolled off many
systems... I in all the original "seriousness" post... (In the manner the
original ought to have been put.  My fault.)

    TOP 10 BIBLICAL "REASONS" FOR BELIEVING IN THE "DEITY" OF CHRIST
    ---------------2nd Edition---Revised and Emphasized-------------
10. (1Cor 8:6)
     But to us there is BUT ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom are all things,
   and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ for whom are all things,
   and we for him.

9. (Eph 1:17)
     That the GOD OF our Lord Jesus Christ, THE FATHER OF GLORY, may give
   unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

8. (Luke 2:52)
     And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and IN FAVOR WITH GOD and men.

7. (John 17:3) [Jesus praying]
     And this is life eternal, that they may know YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD,
   and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

6. (Acts 10:38)
     How God annointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy spirit and with 
   power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed
   of the devil; for GOD WAS WITH HIM.

5. (1Tim 2:5)
     FOR THERE IS ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN 
   Jesus Christ.

4. (1Cor 11:3)
     But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the
   head of the woman is man; and THE HEAD OF CHRIST IS GOD.

3. (John 20:17)
     Jesus said unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my
   Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my 
   Father, and your Father; AND TO MY GOD, AND YOUR GOD.

2. (Mt 27:46)
     And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli,
   Eli, lame sabachthani?  that is to say, MY GOD, MY GOD, why hast thou
   forsaken me?

1. (Rev 15:2-4)
     ... They held harps given them by God, and sang the song of Moses
    the servant of God, AND THE SONG OF THE LAMB:
                        ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^
	"Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty.
	 Just and true are your ways, King of the ages.
	 Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name?
	 FOR YOU ALONE ARE HOLY.
    	 All nations will come and worship before you,
         for your righteous acts have been revealed."

-- 
Wayne VanWeerthuizen | wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu | Christian, X-trinitarian
205 Scott Hall       | (509) 335-1835 (voice)      | Physics ugrad, 21yrs old
Pullman, WA  99163   |    <<< Thank You Cards For Sale, $10.00 each >>>
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:01:36 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Apr14.170722.913@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> 
> It was not told to the Sackets.
> 
[stuff deleted]
> I only stated what the Sackets were led to believe.
> Dolly is now firmly convinced that who she thought was her grandmother was a
> demonic influence.
> 
[stuff deleted]
> Once again the assertion of the Sackets.
> 
[stuff deleted]
> Dolly and Chuck understood it to be Mormon doctrine.
> 
[]
> Gestures representative of these signs _are_, or at least _were_ carried out
> as part of the Endowment ceremony.  This is second hand from the Sackets.
> They claim that although the wording is as Jay describes above, it originated
> from my 1,2,3, and the gestures still portray these acts.
> 
[]
> True - I am relying on the Sackets research.
> 

	John, your entire view of Mormonism seems to be based on the testimony
of the Sackets.  Did it ever occur to you that the Sackets just may not be the
final authority on the subject (from what I've read they're a far cry from
it!)?  Does it make sense that they could have misinterpreted much of the
doctrine - especially when so many current members would very much disagree
with them?  Could they be....biased?  Would it be too much to ask of you to get
some more information from a different (and I might add more reliable) source? 
You talk about questioning and re-evaluating opinions and positions, and have
asserted that Mormons do not do this.  Well, in light of what you said it seems
that a little more research and studying other sources to get a more objective
viewpoint of Mormonism might not be a bad course of action for yourself.  For
the record, as a Mormon, I find myself constantly questioning and studying
further the teachings and doctrines of the church - I even read the anti-Mormon
material when I come across it.  Sometimes they even have some good points to
consider - but most of the time I'm disappointed by the innaccuracies.

-Mark

>>Given the general level of misinformation here, it should be obvious
>>to the reader that any temple secrets which might have been revealed
>>here would have been so badly distorted as to be worthless.  Again, I
>>do not confirm or deny the presence of any such information.
> 
> This is not obvious at all.
> 
> 
> John M.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:39:01 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr9.193250.13268@portland.mdc.unisys.com>,
tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
> In article <22592@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David
Hatcher) writes:
> >  The potential of Fundamentalism, of any stripe, really scares the 
> >shit out of me. :-(
> 
> Including humanist fundamentalists ...

Yes, any fundamentalism is a negative force, including humanist 
fundamentalism. However those forces are nano-scopic compared
with religious fundamentalism.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:08:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.170722.913@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>All of the material relevant to Mormon tradition and ceremonies came from
>the mentioned source, which I do not have reason to doubt.  The attempt of
>the program was (and I sincerely believe the people were honest in their
>belief) to show the side of Mormonism which is not commonly known.  They
>express that they are not merely trying to ridicule Mormon doctrine, but
>rather give an accurate acount of their experience in the Mormon Church.
>The things which are refuted by Mr. Windley (and others) _were_ part of the
>"Mormon tradition" while Chuck and Dolly Sacket were members, at least as far
>as they were made to understand them over a ten year span of time.  If they
>are not in fact Mormon doctrine, then how could the COJCOLDS let such grave
>misunderstandings occur?  In fact how could all 24 members of their immediate
>family come to the same independent conclusions?
>

 The "ex-LDS for Jesus" group has been very active in the central Indiana Area.
 You could proably take their 12 week indoctration class if you wanted to.
 I've known many participants in this offshoot of the LDS church, most
 of the characterations that are made would not be recognizable by active
 LDS.
  
 Part of the problem is that mormons/LDS don't have a ridge form of
 member indoctrination. Most of the time, it is a self taught way of
 acquiring knowledge. This type of problem isn't isolated with LDS, it
 happens with other types of churchs. Most churchs try to teach doctrine,
 as part of their Bible Studies. If they can, they are allowed.

 From my acquainentces in "Ex-LDS for Jesus", it would appear ( I haven't
 been to any of their meetings, it's just hearsay) that new adhearents,
 are indoctrinated in "What mormons really believe". Most new adherents
 are with some justification shocked. They had no idea, that the LDS
 church taught so and so as doctrine, after all *they* had never heard that
 taught at an LDS meeting.  How could The Church believe these things and
 not tell them.  One of my friends (from the period when I grew up), told
 me after he left the "ex-lds for jesus" group/cult for a mainstream
 protestant church, how fundamentally screwed-up he thought the group
 was, and how warped many of the adherents had become.


 There are opportunities to study the LDS religion in association with
 many universities and colleges.  When I went to Purdue, there was such
 an instituion there as well. Before claiming expertise in Mormon theology,
 it might be wise to verify that your information is correct. Jay and others
 have commented and responded to your fountains of mis-directed hooey.


 From the tone of your postings, I would venture a guess and a question,
 How long have you lived in Cary Quad?


-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:17:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

For the most part I have left this debate in the able hands of Gene Ward Smith,
Jack Carrol, Mike Siemon, Steve Dyer and others.  They have answered the charges
racing around the net with succinct and eloquent answers, and I could but "Me
too" on the subject.  Yesterday though a serendipity occurred.  Paul Hudson Jr 
writes:

> But from a Biblical perspective
> there is no such thing as a same sex marriage.  Marriage that God ordained
> and Christ taught about involves a MAN cleaving to his WIFE.  

And I had just read read a recent excerpt from "The Other Side", an ecumenical
Christian magazine, and found the following:

   "John Boswell has uncovered has uncovered news evidence that the early
    catholic church celebrated same sex marriage centuries before it
    celebrated heterosexual ones.
  
    While heterosexual unions were neither conducted in church nor considered
    sacramental before 1215 A.D., same sex unions were affirmed  in religious
    ceremonies emphasizing the love and devotion of the couples to God.

    Boswell found services for same-sex marriages in old Vatican volumes of
    officially sanctioned rituals.  Some historians now say the tradition of
    celebrating same-sex marriages was well established from the sixth through 
    the thirteenth centuries."

Now I am sure that this will have no effect on Paul Hudson's opinions, but it
is indeed interesting counterpoint, and shows that there were early Christians
who disagreed with Mr. Hudson. 
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

		    Ignoring a fact does not negate it.
				Author Unknown
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:09:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.031417.2561@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>I did not say homosexuality revolved around sex, but rather that society
>associates "dirty" sex with homosexuality.  Therefore it might not be the
>best label to put on yourself if it doesn't accurately describe your
>lifestyle (who knows, maybe it does...)

This is what you said:

>>>What makes it sinful is that it is a lifestyle that revolves around sex.

Are you going to retract this?

>I am going to say it clearly this time: IF you are Christian and IF you are
>gay and IF you do not fit the sexual stereotype which society HAS attached to
>being gay, then do not announce this fact because your lifestyle will not
>show it and it will only cause unneeded difficulties.  What you know as being
>gay is really a loving friendship and calling it "gay" can only hurt in
>dealing with others.

I am not sure what you think this "sexual stereotype" is.  You seem to
have peculiar values all your own; I wouldn't presume to think they're
shared by society, even if society needs work as well.

I am a gay person.  I share my life with another man.  We've lived
together for 13 years.  We're treated like a couple among our friends
and at work.  This is the definition of what it means to be gay, not
some bizarre concept that you have or that society has.  My friends
walk down the street together as "good friends" and get their heads
bashed in because creeps who have grown up on ignorant fundamentalist
perversions of the word of God don't like fags.  Don't you presume to
tell me what I should call myself.  It doesn't matter.

>What?  Do I need to water it down a little? Say what is comfortable?
>Compromise everything God stands for in order to make everyone happy?

No, I'd settle for some logical thought.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: homosexuality & the bible, some comments
Date: 11 Apr 92 22:19:03 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

To all:  This is a reply to an e-mail I got on the topic.
I felt it was general enough to post.  Comments?

----

What is wrong with the thought that 'God made me gay'?  The fact that
I am inately attracted to, am in love with, and make love with another
man is as natural too me as your experience with a woman.

It's rather hypocritical to tell me that my being gay is ok, but that I
am not allowed to express it physically.  You must realize that the
various "prohibitions" in the Bible regarding homosexuality have been
carefully analyzed, and their true meaning is vague at best.  (this is
done by looking at original text/language and attempting to understand
the meanings in the context of the time)

"Proof" of anything regarding the Bible is impossible.  If you believe
in it's inerrancy, I can present you with a host of 'sins' which are
no longer accepted.  If you argue that some of these are "symbolic"
and others are something else - my challenge is  - is homosexuality
(as vague as it is mentioned in the first place (given that the term
'homosexuality' is NEW)) really forbidden, or is there a mistake in
the translation.

None of us know for sure.  You have your beliefs, I have mine.  Mine
are accepting of people, yours are forcing everyone to a strict code.
Mine welcome people to be honest with themselves, true to others,
and honest to their God.  Yours are a restricting set of rules binding
people into a narrow set of views.

Given a loving God, who do you think is closer to the truth?

Please try to think about this rather than reply with rhetoric.  Again,
I ask you to THINK about your feelings, realize they were implanted into
you.  Think for yourself for a change, it is refreshing.

-Tim
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Erin Anderson <erisande@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Ruined Relations.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:53:51 -0500

>	Answer... The answer is the Heaven is the reward God will give to the
>people who believe in Him and Worship Him alone without adding other Gods with
>Him. He will reward them for there faith and good deeds. Hell is the
>punishment
>that God gives to those who refused to believe in Him and to worship Him as He
>has commanded them to. Some people have invented lies against God and have
>included them in thier religion thus there is a lot of cofusion and
>misunderstanding. God is Not our Father, we are Not his Children. God Is our
>Lord and we are his Servants.
>
>	The Truth that hasn't been changed is with Islam only,
>	Abdur Rahman

	Problem here...  I have had many relationships with friends
destroyed by religion, telling me I will go to Hell for the ways I
think.  I think largely in Philosophy, for it is a truth, just as
valid as any book written about Christ.  I can not prove the truth of
the Bible, and therefore, I can not believe that it is the whole
truth, and if it is true, then which parts are parable, and which are
made up for human understanding, and which are real?  I am really
interested here.  I was dumped by a young lady for not being Christian
enough.  Maybe this was because I was kicked from the Catholic Church,
and my Catholic side of my family will not speak to me, for my father
(Catholic) didn't marry a Catholic woman.  Therefore, I have sinned
somehow.  At least that is how I perceive the whole deal.  I have only
been destroyed by religion, never helped.

	I believe I was and am a believer in God (though I am NOT
religious), and I wish people could (or would take the small effort)
to see this side of me.  Personally, I believe religion is a lot of
hassle in the end.  Believe what you want, and leave it out of public
gatherings.
-- 
Erin Anderson    -    Socks    -    The Robe, The Ring, and The Romance.
ARC's Philosopher, Dreamer, & Stand-up Comedian.
		       (Lis's Hero on call 24 hours.)
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:55:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr16.195510.18216
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <GOEHRING.92Apr15140426@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>>I'm not a Christian, so I am not at all sure of my salvation. What
>>of it?
>
>Neither am I.  I'm still waiting for Johnnie-boy to tell me just what
>it is I need to be saved from...

You need to be reunited with God, which is in a sense being "saved" because
of the awful reality of where God isn't (hell).  Of course this will not mean
anything to you, nor will anything I say, and you know it, so I wonder why
you keep asking...  Could it be that you smell just the slightest bit of
truth in all of this?

John M.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:15:49 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <51@devl3.UUCP>, root@devl3.UUCP (Super user) writes:
> A true Christian (follower of Christ) does not believe that only people
> who have publicly accepted Christ as their saviour will be saved.  Christ
> Himself stated, "other sheep have I that are not of this fold".  The clear
> implication is that He will base eligibility for salvation on standards
> that His human followers do not neccessarily know about or understand.
> That's the good thing about Christianity.  I don't have to judge you.  I
> can leave that up to God and trust Him to do what is right for everybody.

And this would imply that there are other ways to salvation than
the ones Christian churches teach? Maybe gnostics were right after all?

Cheers,
Kent
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why is Free Will so neccessary?
Date: 6 Apr 92 05:48:08 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <9203280408.AA21452@CSUFresno.EDU>, davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU
(David Choweller) writes:
> 
> When theists try to explain how there can be an omnipotent, omniscient,
> yet loving God they usually invoke the concept of Free Will; God had to
> allow Evil, because doing otherwise would restrict the Free Will of his
> creations.  But why is Free Will so important?  Why is it so important
> that it justifies all the Evil, natural and moral, in the world?
> 
> One poster said that if God made us so that we always chose Good, it
> would lead to a less interesting result.  So, does obtaining
> interesting results justifiy all the Evil in the world?  Why can we not
> have a boring world with no Evil?  After all, isn't this what Paradise is?

Issues related to omnipotense is always fun. Let's see, if God knows
everything that will happen, why the need for an experiment to see
how many human souls will select him?

The need for the Free Will concept is needed in the Christian
doctrine, for the rest of us it's a non-logical and silly issue.


Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: TRADITION IS NOT THE BASIS FOR CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:20:24 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Apr14.232011.20823@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
|> In article <MIB.92Apr14151531@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
|> >As I become more attuned to the depth of the Christian tradition, and
|> >its meaning, I have realized this more and more.  Christianity without
|> >the Bible is possible; Christianity without the tradition is not.
|> 
|> This is getting ridiculous.  A religion based on what man dreams up about God
|> (traditions) does not in any way compare to THE religion which was
|> communicated to man by God.  Someone back me up here.
|> 

Traditions need not be just 'what man dreams up' to people who feel
tradition is the most important part of their religion.  They may feel
that those 'traditions' are the expression of God on earth today.

A fundamentalist approach, that the Bible is the sole expression of
God's message to man, WOULD find the idea of a tradition-based
religion disquieting.

There are other movements that seem to be based on the idea that the
action of the Holy Spirit in the church is the most important thing
that makes Christianity...

Dan
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:42:41 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>etc.   Are the Jehovah's Witnesses on the list?  Is there anyone
>besides the Jehovah's Witnesses who is *not* on the list?

	I don't know why you insist this, when you know the answer yourself.

	"Neither am I telling YOU by what authority I do these things."

			- Mark 11:33

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:43:56 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <2302@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:
>Gene Ward Smith writes:

>Just in case this is getting lost in the shuffle, I want to point out
>that not all people who think homosexuality goes against what God would
>want for us are homophobes.  Nor do all such people think that homosexuals 
>are immoral or unethical people, despite what they (we) believe God thinks 
>of homosex.

Well, if I were to complain about you I guess it would be to the
effect that I don't like the way you oppose family values so strongly.
I say that because you want all homosexuals to marry someone of the
opposite sex, which is an excellent recipe for divorce and
unhappiness.


--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca