HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:09:30 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>|Yeah.  So leave them alone.
>Each individual has to come to Jesus on his own, but we are supposed
>to proclaim the message.
Fine.  The way you talk, few listen , anyway.

>|>I pray you do seek wisdom and turn back to God, who loves you
>|>and gave himself for you.  Sex is not some cure-all, much less
>|>do either of you thing it is worth losing eternity with God
>|>so that you can have 'guiltless' sex, if you really do.
>|I pray that you stop preaching a very narrow image of God and what It wants,
>|thus turning more and more intelligent people away from It.
>Is 'my very narrow image' as such because you don't accept it?
>Or is it because Jesus said that narrow is the path that leads to
>eternal life and few there be that find it, but man find the
>wide path that leads to destruction?
Your image is narrow because it is hard to believe, impossible to substantiate, 
rooted in guilt, negative emotion, a resignation from reason, and an inherent 
refusal to even accept that ANYONE else in human history even MIGHT have been
on the right track, even if they were NEVER privy to the "proof" of Jesus' 
existence.  In other words, you act like stuff is sooooo obvious, when more
obviously there are millions upon millions who simply find it impossible to 
believe.  I'm sure you'll say that's because they are bad (prideful, rejecting,
immoral, etc).  And no one will listen.  Which is why your "narrow path" and 
Jesus' are not, in my view, the same thing.  You talk about accepting a bunch 
of irrelevant b.s. techincalitites.  He talks about accepting him into his 
heart, something which Christians consistently refuse to interpret as meaning 
accepting what he had to say and what example he set.

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 

>For Christ and His Kingdom,
>Richard Pitts

Are you speaking on their behalf?  Why should I believe you?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:41:08 GMT

rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:

>In article <lif4o7INN7ns@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>|> I decided long ago that fear is insufficient cause to adopt a particular
>|> set of beliefs. Given this, it would logically follow that I should select
>|> option C, and its implication that I should not necessairly become a
>|> Christian.

>Students study all night long because they fear failing an exam.  Because of fear
>they adopt the belief that all nighters are necessary for academic success.

And you know, the funny thing is, all nighters AREN'T necessary for academic
success!! Cool, eh?

Matt I.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24136 alt.atheism:23942
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:00:58 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <1992Dec16.001353.3965@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>
>  ... To me, the words
>"separation from God" have a neutral connotation--maybe no pleasure,
>but no pain either.

No pain?  You should talk to some of those little children who are, for
one reason or another, separated from their parents.  Ask them if
they feel pain in their hearts.  Or, are you one of those who believe
only the corporeal punishment causes pain and suffering?

> ...  I exist in a state of separation from God right
>now, and it does not pain me.

Because you are having too much fun in this age.  But just wait until
when Jesus comes back ...
Look at those children on the play ground of a preschool.  They
are having too much fun to even notice the absence of their parents.
But when the day comes to a close, as some of them rejoice in the
presence of their parents coming to pick them up, those who are still
waiting will peek into the darkness outside and begin to wonder where
their parents are, and some of them will probabily begin to sob ...

>  ... (And before you claim
>that the punishment isn't eternal--what did Calvin mean by the phrase, 
>"unhappy consciences find no rest from being troubled. . ."?)

First of all, I never claim that the punishment isn't eternal.
I only show that it can not be proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the punishment is eternal.  Please read my posts more
carefully.  Now, have you ever compare Calvin's description of
the suffering of the wicked to that described by Dante?
Calvin, consistent in his belief that the suffering of the wicked
is the separation from God, chose to use the expressions like "unhappy
consciences find no rest from being troubled ..." to express the
suffering of the wicked.  This only highlights the difference between
Calvin and the medieval scholastic dogmatism examplified by
Thomas Aquinas.


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: How I nailed Paul Harvey, was Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec12.063021.17157@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 1992 19:38:43 UTC

In article <1992Dec12.063021.17157@midway.uchicago.edu> 
dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>That's exactly correct. There is no Lucifer/Satan/Devil in Judaism or
>>the Hebrew Scriptures with the one exception that satan is the Hebrew word
>>for adversary. In addition, there is no Hell or Heaven in Judaism, when
>>one dies, one dies. The serpent is considered the shrewdest of animals
>Uh, not so fast there Paul. Remember there is "Sheol", where Joseph's
>father is threatening to go in a hurry, if things are figured out
>fast. . . .

I'm not so easily nailed, after all, I certainly don't just give it
away. If you have some verses in question I'm prepared to discuss it. I
hope you caught the other thread on Sheol/Hades/Hell? I thought Publius
presented a good case for a Christian Biblical concept of the afterlife
that is more like the concept of Sheol in Judaism. Again, I claim there
is no Lucifer/Satan/Devil/Lord-of-the-Underworld/Prince-of-Darkness/etc.
in Judaism and I am prepared to discuss any OT versus in question to
support this claim. In Judaism there is Sheol, the abode of the dead,
and there is the heavens, the abode of the Gods. These terms have very
little in common with the modern Christian concepts of Heaven/Hell. If I
understand Publius correctly, he says that Christians all go to Hell to
await the day when Jesus' kingdom is restored on earth and they are
resurrected on earth, so nobody goes to Heaven. Presumably it all
depends how you read the book of Revelations, not any easy read.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: PPYE  (was Re: YHWH)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:17:41 GMT

Jeff West writes
>Or, "I ams what I ams!"

>	- Popeye

harumph! Someone's education has been lacking. ahem...

	I yam what I yam,
	and that's all what I yam,
	I'm Popeye the sailor man. (toot toot)

--
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: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: What is Christianity
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 14:01:15 EST



Yet another red herring from Mr. Moten.


>For you who denounce Christ,  

Who is "denouncing" Christ?  Please name them specifically.  
People denounce Christian fundies regularly, but I'm aware of
noone denouncing Christ himself, a rather silly proposition,
unless you consider Christians to be equivalent to Christ.

You have yet to answer one of my questions.  Here is another
opportunity.  I challange you to name those on this newsgroup
denouncing Christ.  Put up or shut up.

>What does it mean to be a Christian?

So far you've shown little interest in dialog, as opposed to 
preaching, so I'll pass on the flame bait.  You answer my question
first, then I'll answer yours.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:38:23 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec11.122913.12735@waikato.ac.nz>, arron@waikato.ac.nz
wrote:
> God wanted us to be without sin, I can understand that, I would be a lot
> happier if people were basically better. If Adam and Eve had done what they
> were told, we would have been free from sin, as we would not have needed
> anything to steal, covet, lie for, murder for etc etc etc. But they did sin,
> and God can not be a party to sin ... so he banished us from the garden, where
> because we are not walking in unity with God we feel like we always need more.
> So we sin .... recursive argument ...

I remember a discussion long time ago where we (the other side) argued
that a perfect God would have known about the problems of free will
creating the situation of the original sin and sinning. And the design
solution would have been to create a free will that does not start
the evil circle.

The counter arguments were:
a) free will is a universal attribute, it can't be created.
  -- this would imply that there are things God *can't* create
b) free will and original sin was part of God's master plan
  -- which would imply that he didn't mind people suffering, something
     that is considered to be non-compassionate for a eternally 
     loving God.

So, we have the solutions, either the idea of free will and the
original sin are not true, has a hidden meaning that even Christians
don't know about, or something else. Anyway, I personally do think
that this is one of the sore issues with the doctrine of free will.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reasoning about God
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:42:26 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec9.041144.1750@cs.cornell.edu> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>Suppose there was a God which was omnipotent and the creator of the universe.
>Then He would pocess more knowledge than a person holding Ph.D's in [...]
>and have enough love for every human being.

It is true that he would be bloody knowledgeable, but the last part
(the one about the love) is debatable.  Why must a creator love his creation?

>No human can ever posses this much knowledge.
>How then can we reason about such a God?

We can't.  Which is why I wonder how some people find it appropriate
to use such "human" attributes as "good", "just", "loving" etc. for him.
He might as well be wicked and hostile, right?

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23991 alt.atheism:23833
From: hedrick@klinzhai.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Calvin
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:10:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>>Calvin mentioned twice in two sentences? Do I espy a Calvinist?
>>Calvin who gleefully supported having his theological enemies
>>burned at the stake?

>And slowly too!  It took Michael Servetus 30 minutes to die.  But then,
>he thought that the Trinity was incomprehensible and needless, so
>Calvin was perfectly justified in roasting him.  It wouldn't do
>to have people running around denying the obvious Truth of the Trinity.

Just for the record, Calvin was involved in only that one execution
for heresy, as a theological expert for the prosecution.  He opposed
burning, believing a more humane method of execution should be used.
Even one is too much, but when evaluated by the standards of the time,
Calvin was certainly not blood-thirsty.  Catholics in Geneva were
booted out, not killed.  Servetus was regarded as a political danger
as well as a heretic, and would have been killed in most places in
Europe.  I believe he was given the option of being extradited to his
homeland, and refused.  His treatment there would have been even
worse.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Defining the kingdom of God
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:48:29 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec10.144623.16650@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> Mr. Sandvik suggests this is not an example of valid logic.  His
> support for this statement is an attack on each of the assumptions
> listed above.
> 
> While the assumptions are each controvertible, I note that arguing
> against the assumptions does nothing to refute the logic of
> Christianity's conclusion.  For the purpose of constructing a logical
> statement, the assumptions are held incontrovertible.  We ask, "If
> these assumptions hold, does this conclusion follow?"  If the answer
> is yes, the conclusion is logical.  The above example passes this
> test, and is thus an example of logic in Christianity.

I agree that this is an excellent example of 'Christian Logic'. However
if you can't show that each one of the premisses are valid, then you
are indeed on the same thin line of reasoning Christian philosophers
are (in)famous of.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:29:01 GMT

bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>|God doesn't have to approximate pi; He knows it.

>	Can god give PI EXACTLY ? 

Why certainly She can!  Would you like apple pi, pumpkin pi, ...

Oh.... you mean the other kind of pi, don'tcha?

>Someone wrote me some Email and pointed out
>that if we ask god to tell us what PI is, he will spend all his time 
>saying it (it is a radical # I think) and not be able to butt his holy
>nose into our lives......

Except that some folks would have you believe that God exists in a
timeless dimension.

Personally I think that the Almighty would have better things to do
with Her time than recite an endless sequence of numbers for the
duration of eternity.  

;)

--
Michael Adams				| Science without religion is lame;
Actuarial Science Program @ UIUC	| religion without science is blind.
StarOwl@uiuc.edu			| 		-- Thomas Edison
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv		|	
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:20:31 GMT

From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
>[Regarding Bruce R. McConkie's _Mormon Doctrine_]
>
>In article <BzBEvJ.5u9@javelin.sim.es.com>,
> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>
>[...]
>> You don't have to go that far, just try a desparate book store
>> in SLC, and you'll find MD in the Missionary section.  Heck, they
>> even have special missionary edditions.  (cheaper bindings,
>> paperback.  Common binding with other books that have been
>> repudiated by mormons on the net as not being appropriate for
>> defining mormon doctrine).
>
>Ah, so not inexpensive binding is the indicator if what is
>officially endorsed and what is not.

This is called equivocation.  Jason first states, with all LDS
authority, that _Mormon Doctrine_ is *not* sold in the missionary
section of Deseret Books.  When demonstrated that he is misrepresenting
Deseret Books, the issue suddenly changes to "inexpensive bindings".

It is sad to see the lengths to which the LDS will stoop to 1)
decieve the readers, and 2) distance themselves from the historic
teachings of their leaders.   This becomes even more apparent in
another note posted by Jason shortly afterwards, in which he tells
us (plural) marriage is not a requirement for LDS exaltation.
(The 'true' form of LDS salvation, in which a man and woman
go to heaven for eternal copulation).  Perhaps Jason has never
studied the historic teachings and beleifs of the LDS.  If he had,
he would see numerous references to the early LDS beleiving a man
"would not enter into the kingdom married to just one woman".

With all the abandonment of "Truth Restored",  I wonder what use
there was in Joseph's little fraud.

Mark
<standard disclaimer>
From: wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen)
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a prophet?
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:55:18 GMT

In article <ksand-161292201520@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>...
>something else. It does not logically imply that he's a God. Same
>with the concept 'son of God', 'son of God' does not automatically
>imply that he is God. Actually the other way around, why couldn't
>he say that :"Look here, I'm really God, but just now I'm a man
>in an human form, and the third part is the holy ghost, and when
>I'm back in heaven I'm once again part of the three parts that constitute
>God". All this was *never* said by Jesus, instead by Paul and the
>followers that wanted to create a nice religion.

When did Paul ever say this?  When did anyone who ever knew Paul
say this?  Paul never did and never would say anything this
ridiculous and blasphemous.  

This kind of talk didn't even exist until a generation after Paul.

>A lot of the issues would not be present if Jesus would have 
>said things about the doctrines. As long as this is not the case,
>you will always find people questioning why all this was added
>later.

What? Jesus DID say everything important to Theology and Salvation.
(Paul did mention a few minor things about ethics.  And the Hebrew
scriptures say more about history/divine providence and escatology.)
But, there is NOTHING dealing with salvation issues, or the nature
of God, which was not mentioned by Jesus.  If someone suggests something,
I suggest maybe the problem is what they're suggesting is NOT the
gospel.  BTW, lookup Jn 17:3 again.


On a related point:

Is belief in the deity of Christ necessary for salvation?  Well,
see the sermons taught in Acts, which included all people needed to know
to become a follower of the Way.  (They would want to learn more later,
but they WERE Christians.) There is no mention of the doctrine.  Hmm,
maybe Peter didn't consider it essential?



-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Wayne VanWeerthuizen    205 Scott Hall     Pullman, WA  99163
           wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu      (509) 335-1835 (voice)   
 ---------- Only YHVH is God.  Jesus is the Messiah, Son of YHVH. ----------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:54:42 GMT

dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>Oh for crying out loud, here I decided not to call myself a witch because
>too many twits were going to give me grief over it, and now some twit tells 
>me there'll be problems with "pagan" too.  When will it end?  "Hi, I'm
>a tree-hugging pantheistic nature worshipper, but I call myself a 
>pan-Presbyterian so my mom doesn't panic."  What words *wouldn't* they
>have fun with?  Maybe a Scientific Discordian, huh?  Do you think
>cynics would have fun with that one?

Oh, just make something that doesn't sound so stupid up.  For crying out loud,
it is obvious you people have active imaginations in the first place.  By the
way, I really like trees, too.

So don't call me a nature hater in your response.  It ain't so.

>Dawn

>(do you get the impression that I don't care what cynics think of me?)
No.  If that was the case, you would not have responded to me. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: me@vikings.austin.ibm.com (Michael E)
Subject: Re: You shouldN'T be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:32:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: what a concept!
Keywords: Incest, death

*** mY oPIN oNLY ***

>In article <1992Dec11.140927.21058@cs.cornell.edu> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>>Answer:
>>
>>To be Christ like and obtain a relationship with the Father.

Christ died and I don't want to die, yet.

Nor do I want an incestual relationship.




Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY STORRS)
Subject: Re: Bible verse for the day
Originator: storrs@c20002-121rd.che.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY STORRS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:07:41 GMT


Hi Bill,  nice idea.....

I recently discovered a passage that some took offense to.  I believe it fits
many of the folks who attend this group.
	  A fool finds no pleasure in understanding
	    but delights in airing his own opinions.  (Prov. 18:2)

I would also like to quote Psalm 133:1 for the benefit of those who can do
nothing but flame.....
				How good and pleasant it is 
				   when brothers live in unity!

May the Lord Bless you and keep you............JLS
-- 

===============================================================================
Jerry L. Storrs, System/Network Manager || The virgin will be with child and 
Dept of Chemical Engineering, NCSU      || will give birth to a son, and they
   storrs@che.ncsu.edu (preferred)      || will call him Immanuel, which means
   storrs@eos.ncsu.edu                  || "God with us".
                                        ||                 Matthew 1:23
===============================================================================
Any statement made is the explicit belief of the writer and not the employer.
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ, was A Sharp Contrast to the Song of Solomon
Date: 17 Dec 92 07:51:49 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu


pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <BzBDqF.ADG@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> 
>creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>>   That having been said, as to the Song of Songs "preceding Christ,"
>>so does the book of Isaiah, but it still prophesies about Christ,
>>especially around chapter 53.  So what's your point?

>Only when poorly translated does Isaiah prophesy Christ.

So, Mr. Harvey, what's the correct translation?  You didn't bother
to include it in your post, but I assume you have the proper 
translation in your possession.  Would you mind posting it please?  
I would like to correct the errors in my edition of the scriptures.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc