HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: God etc
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:54:51 GMT


In article <uX4qVB1w165w@momad.li.ny.us> siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:
>torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

>>   I find it baffling why, from the point of view of religion, it should be
>> considered a question of importance whether or not there is a God who
>> created the world, or again, whether or not Jesus was in fact a Savior
>> of mankind. Surely all this business about the universe being created,
>> about eternal life, about damnation and power and hopes and fears, is
>> irrelevant to what religion is about?

>    Then enlighten us, O sage, what precisely is relgion about?

The observed fact that humankind has always searched for something 
outside of himself points to the conclusion that we are incomplete in
ourselves.  Some might say it is a learned behavior, nevertheless if
we really didn't need something beside ourself and outside of ourself
then there wouldn't be such searching as is evident cross-culturally
throughout the ages.

There seems to be an inbred need for meaning, significance, and to
be loved.  I have observed that it is through relationships that
we seek this: in marriage, in friendship, in partnership, in 
child-parental bonds, etc.

Religion has been people trying to fulfill their deepest need of
having a relationship with the greatest person of all: God.
Oft times, it takes the form of rituals which seek to please this
Almighty One.  Other times it is forms of service and good works
to accomplish the same.

My greatest fulfillment in life has been in this area: Being in a
love relationship with God.  I, personally, have found my greatest
peace and joy in surrendering my life to Jesus and learning more
and more of how much He loves me and how much He has accomplished
on my behalf.  Looking over my 32 years of life, this for me is the
sole area I can look at and be convinced that I have found the answer.
He has met by deepest need.

I realize that many people have many different ways to try and fill
this need.  The fact of the presence of religion testifies to this.

Merry Christmas with love,

-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:47:12 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec29.194142.1967@microsoft.com>, jenk@microsoft.com (Jen
Kilmer) wrote:
> In article <1992Dec28.014653.8227@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >In article <ksand-271292163856@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >>1. As we are created in the image of God, and we both love and hate
> >>of various reasons, I don't see the problem of God's hate as something 
> >>profound. If we are capable of hate, so is he as well.

> >This argument suggests that God is capable of sinning.

> If you mean that if God is capable of what we're capable of...I believe 
> He is.  Jesus was tempted in the desert. If He wasn't capable of sinning,
> then His temptation was bogus. 

> He could sin. He doesn't. 
And he wasn't created perfect.

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
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/30/92   God's Promise in Psalm 40:4
Date: 30 Dec 92 02:30:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Blessed is that man
	that maketh the LORD his trust,
	and respecteth not the proud,
	nor such as turn aside to lies.

	Psalm 40:4
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God saw that it was good
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:35:57 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Dec23.185055.10125@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
}In article <1ha204INNfbj@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:
}|>        Genesis 1:31 says "And God saw everything that he had made, 
}|>        and behold, it was very good".  Some questions about this: 
}|>          1. Does it imply that God didn't know it would be good until 
}|>             he saw it? 
}|>          2. Can God make anything that isn't good?
}|>          3. In this context, what does "good" mean, anyhow?
}|> 
}|> 
}|> .
}I can't answer 1 and 2, but the way I always teach
}the story, what's significant is the
}sequence "good", "good", ... "*very* good",
}where "very good" is used to describe the creation of man,
}in contrast to everything else, which is simply
}described as "good".
}
}I view this as a poetic way of celebrating
}the human race.
}
}This is a Jewish perspective.  Christians, who
}believe in original sin, probably have a very
}different take on this story.

Gee, guess he didn't know that it would (literally?) "go to hell" and that
he would use a flood to (almost) run a cold boot, use fire in Sodom & Gomorra
to "burn out" parts he didn't like, send in a technician ("Jesus") to update
the version, and then still need a "second coming" to fix it.  Sounds like
a pretty poor QA eval to me...
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 21 Dec 1992 23:54:51 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

Or to put it another way, use whatever translation best serves your
purposes...

In article <2716@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>In article <BzJD0s.9r9@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>>The word is mistranslated, because in the Septuigent, the Greek
>>translation of Tanach (what you Xtians call the Old Teastement), the greek
>>word for virgin was used as a translation for both ALMAH and B'TULAH.
>
>
>        "... we know that there was what we call 'progressive revelation'
>    in the Bible so that Moses knew a lot more about God, life and reality
>    than was revealed to Abraham, and Paul had a lot more revealed to him
>    than to Moses or David.  The New Testament throws light on the Old
>    Testament and, since the New Testament is the more full revelation of
>    God's multi-faceted truth, we are supposed to see and interpret the Old
>    Testament through the eyes of the New Testament revelation.  Few would
>    disagree with that.
>
>        "One example of this would be Matthew 1:23, which quotes Isaiah
>    7:14:  'Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son,
>    and they shall call his name Immanuel. ...'  The word in Isaiah 7:14
>    for 'virgin' can just as easily be translated as 'maiden,' which
>    liberal scholars used to discredit the virgin birth of Jesus.  However,
>    when the Holy Spirit caused His penman Matthew to quote that Hebrew
>    verse in Greek, He arranged for Matthew to choose, not the general
>    Greek term for 'maiden' but the very specific Greek word for 'virgin'
>    (parthenos, from which we derive the English word 'parthenogenesis'),
>    which can only mean 'virgin.'  Thus, whatever broader usage God had for
>    Isaiah to choose a general term around 740 B.C. for both that century
>    and the century for the incarnation of Christ, the matter is settled
>    forever that 'virgin,' and not generally 'maiden,' is the
>    interpretation God insists we place upon Jesus' mother and Matthew
>    1:23."
>
>                                from Jay Grimstead
>                                in "The Five Principles of Hermeneutics"
>
>[Reprinted from Crosswinds, published by Coalition on Revival, PO Box A,
> Sunnyvale, CA  94087-0020]
>-- 
>Tom Albrecht
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/26/92   God's Promise in Hebrews 6:10
Date: 26 Dec 92 04:22:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	For God is not unrighteous
	to forget your work and labour of love,
	which ye have shewed toward his name,
	in that ye have ministered to the saints,
	and do minister.

	Hebrews 6:10
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A deep bit of flame bait (long)
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:26:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec22.125440.12952@waikato.ac.nz>, arron@waikato.ac.nz
wrote:
> All things that can not easily be reasoned (IMHO) are fully understood by God,
> he has used the Bible to reveal some of these things to us, some of them are
> definatley not explained in the Bible, but when necessary the Holy Spirit is
> able to reveal any of those things to us.

After many years of argumentation for/against Christians I've noticed
that 'Holy Spirit' is the deux ex machina solution that solves any
kind of problem - the Swiss army knife of doctrine dilemmas.

Well, just to show a counter argument, the Holy Spirit operates with
many contradictory messages, where certain Christians say it's OK
to have female priests, and other churches says that it's not OK at all.
I'm sure you (or someone else) could explain why the Holy Spirit
is not guiding churches to select the one and only right choice 
concerning female priests, the role of Mary, baptism, Kingdom of 
God, Armageddon, and so on...

Cheers,
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
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: 12/18/92   God's Promise in Luke 1:79
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:45:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia


muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

[...]

>>Tell that to the Somalians.  Looks like your deity is breaking his
>>promise.  How many thousands of them die every day?

>Physical pain, and finally death, are insignificant compared to the joy of
>knowing God!

This from someone who has surely experienced pain and slow death due to
starvation. You're still full of naive, sanctimonious shit, kinder-gentler
Muehlhausen. Keep working on it, though.

With servants like these, it's a wonder God gets anything done.


--
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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller)
Subject: Re: The Pagan Thing, again
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: worldbank.org
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:23:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.073708.19003@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, just drieux) wrote:
> 
> I know that its been said before, and will be said time and again.
> 
> pagan comes from the latin root that brought us paisano,
> or also known in spanish as compasino....
> 
> Or one from the country. 
> 
> It took on added notions when the 'good people' got ahold
> of it, and married it with the notion of 'civilization'
> and 'progress' as some how being a fundamental notion of
> Xtianity, and a part of the Mission of Xtianity.
> 
> ciao
> drieux
> 
> ps: when I am in the bush, I am a pagan. When I am home,
> my housemate complains if I light a fire in the living 
> room to make dinner.... something about they have these
> new fangeld rooms with stuff that does it..... 
> 
> He also thinks that running outside when it rains is
> NOT his idea of personal hygene, who ever gene is....
> 
> HI! Gene!
> 
HI! Drieux! Happy! New! Year!...Gene
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_.
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:00:42 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>	pathetic argument.  There are always better avenues, but
>	it never fails to amaze me how many people are stupid (or 
>	foolish, if you prefer) enough to use the old "if it feels
>	good to me it CAN'T be bad!" argument.

Now where the hell did THIS come from?  It bears little relation to the
bulk of the article it follows.  Maybe if you define "bad" I'll understand
what you're getting at.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:14:38 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <Bzs8pv.AJz@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
 bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
> rob@excalibur.gatech.edu (Rob Lester) writes:

[...]
>>Actually LDS doctrine agrees with what you attribute to Christendom.
>>We believe that Christ was the Creator (as well as a spirit brother
>>of Lucifer, as were we all to be complete. If you study the LDS doctrine
>>on the pre-existence this becomes much clearer.)  
> 
> 	Not really. `Creator of all things' includes *time*.
> 	The LDS Jesus didn't create time.

Actually, I don't think this can be shown one way or the other
from LDS canon.  I recall a scripture in Alma somewhere (I don't
have my sticks handy) that says something to the effect of "time
is measured only unto man".

This can be taken two ways:
1. God exisits outside our (or possibly) any kind of time.
2. Only for man, is time measured, divided, numbered, etc. or in
other words: man's days are numbered (ie: man's mortal existence
is limited to a specific quantity of time).


Mormons believe that intelligence (aka: the light of truth) is
uncreate and without end (See D&C 93).  They also teach the
Jesus, under the direction of God the Father, created the
physical universe in which we now exist.

Mormons do not believe in creation ex nihilio.  Neither do many
other religions -- most notably Judaism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:06:01 GMT
	<ksand-301292174306@wintermute.apple.com>
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <ksand-301292174306@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com 
(Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >Sigh, my complain is that we all agree on the premisses of Eucledian
   >geometry, even if we can't verify them. At the other hand we *don't*
   >agree on the Christian premisses, making statements about logic and
   >Christianity something that we can't speak of.

  Agreement on the premisses is irrelevant to agreement on the validity
of an argument, as has been pointed out to you several times. In short,
you're babbling.
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs' fourth leader, Fred Franz, RIP
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:26:44 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1haubmINN6o8@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com writes:
|So who is going to take over as the new President?  Will 
|the president now be (even more than before) a figurehead, 
|with real power being spread around the Governing Body? 
|And what about the "non-anointed" members of the GB now? 
|Will the new president have to be "anointed"?   

Since when did "anointed" actually mean anything in practice,
though?  The "anointed" are supposed to help "Jehovah" run the
"Great Crowd" of ordinary JWs, but really they're just ordinary
members of today's congregations.  They don't get polled for
their opinions on doctrinal issues.  They aren't consulted on
anything.  The Governing Body runs the show, and as you point
out, not all of them are anointed.

I've always felt that the "anointed" doctrine is a holdover from
earlier days, when there were fewer than 144,000 JWs.  Watch for
it to dwindle away, as the "anointed" JWs die of old age.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 01:50:21 GMT

In article <1garhlINN3e5@aludra.usc.edu> rhogan@aludra.usc.edu (Ronald Hogan) writes:
>Paul Harvey said:
>repeating from Jen Kilmer:
>
>>>There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
>>>is empty.
>
>>That's another one of those Christian pickup lines, isn't it? I never
>>realized what players you Christians are. Yo! I got your Jesus, right
>>here! Now, let's disco! Yo! Check out the way I can point my finger up
>>and them point my finger down, way too cool, huh?
>
>Which is a little classier than my initial reaction:
>
>I had no idea God was shaped like a burrito.
>
	Hah!  Heretical pobucker!  Everybody (everybody who counts, anyway)
knows that it's *Jesus* that's shaped like a burrito.  That's why the
Mexican name, see?  GOD(tm, UL Approved) is shaped like a deep-dish pizza.
	With extra cheese.
>Ron
>(except that doesn't work for *every* person, does it?)
The_Doge
ObQuote:	"Life!  Don't talk to me about life!"
			- Marvin



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:55:55 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <BzvxJ5.EJ1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:
>donal@brewich.hou.tx.us (Donal) writes:
>
>>Yes, Ken, that is exactly what we are trying to tell you. It has been
>>stated previously that the word "witch" derives from the saxon wicce (or
>>wicca, one is male the other female, I forget which witch is which).
>>This term was used before Christianity came to western Europe to
>>describe certain wise persons, or village elders if you will, who also
>>served certain religious functions. Christianity later corrupted the
>
>I have yet to see any evidence that the old witches served religious functions.
>In the Celtic cultures, it was the Druids, Bards, and Ovates who served the
>religious functions, and the Germanic languages which became English all had
>perfectly good words for Priest/ess other than wicc*.  All the evidence I've
>seen points toward the witches being folk magicians, not anything religious.
>Please note that non-religious folk magic, and the practitioners thereof, 
>continue to exist in many rural areas of the world.  Magic does not have to be
>tied to religion.
>
Gee, what have you read that mentions witches *prior* to the Roman supression
of the Druids? I had always assumed that witches were the equivalent of lay
practitioners, carrying on what was remembered of the older, more formalized
tradition, and bringing along the folk, non-formal elements into the system,
as it were.

	mark

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 03:37:24 GMT

In article <28DEC199223114984@jane.uh.edu> lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>How do you explain those people with whom the craft has been passed down 
>from generation to generation since before Gerald Gardener's birth?  I
>know someone who is one of those people. 

Tammy, it would be a great service to all of us if you could get this
person to post some of the traditions they received.  It doesn't
constitute "proof" that what they're doing is a direct survival of
ancient practices, but it intersting to those trying to construct
the early history of the modern Craft.


*) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)!(* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (*
Jo Ann Malina, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
joann@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu  -or-  415/926-2846
Neither Stanford nor the DOE would be caught dead with these opinions.
Nor do they consult me when formulating theirs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"When [the Druids] had found [mistletoe] they danced round the oak to
the tune of 'Hey derry down, down, down derry!' which literally signi-
fied 'In a circle move we round the oak.'"
                 Mrs. M. Grieve, "A Modern Herbal," Dover, 1931, 1971.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:30:53 GMT

In article <ksand-301292173104@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>> Logic in Christianity can work the same way.  It is possible to give premises
>> and draw conclusions from them; even something as simple as:
>> 1. If you do X, you go to hell.
>> 2. It is not good to do things which get you sent to hell.
>> 3. Therefore, it is not good to do X.
>> is logical in that the conclusion follows from the premises.
>Actually this is one of the best examples so far to counter-measure
>my claim that Christianity lacks logic, and funny enough it's not
>even presented by a Christian (correct me if I'm wrong; based on reading
>earlier emails).
>My comment is that if we all agree what for instance what the concept hell
>consists of, then you could draw the conclusion. For a believer this is 
>simple, for a non-believer the concept of hell is void, and that makes
>decisions based on the conclusion not fully justified. If hell does
>not exist, and I do things that should supposedly take me to hell,
>but it does not, is this a valid logical conclusion or not? We 
>can't even say it's false, because we can't measure the concepts
>of hell, neither agree that they are premisses.

You can't say it's true or false, indeed.  But it's still _valid_.  To be valid
logic is not the same as being true or false; valid means that the conclusion
follows from the premises.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)