HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:55:46 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
 <BvEMI5.n34@inews.Intel.COM> <BvErFv.6F2@vuse.vanderbilt.edu>

In article <BvErFv.6F2@vuse.vanderbilt.edu>, thaddeus@vuse.vanderbilt.edu
(Thaddeus R. Crews) says:
>
>Faith is not a bad thing; in fact it is necessary.  Farmers plant seeds
[...]
>My point is we all live by some amount of faith.  The key in being a

This has been worked through already; we all know that some faith
is necessary...

>available rather than some blind faith.  And I believe Christianty to
>be based on solid stuff (reliablity of scripture, my personal life, my
>friends and their lives before and after Christ, answers to prayer, and
>a solid and consistant understanding of the world around me).  Does this

Ah, now this is what we were waiting for! Let's hear some of this
"solid stuff" you speak of! Let's look at it in terms of usefulness:

1) reliability of scripture: PLEASE! Haven't we done enough bible
   bashing for one life? The answer is, of course, no...
2) personal experience: well, it's fine for you, but it doesn't help
   me any...
3) friends: possibly hearsay, but we should find out if it's anything
   worth lookin g into, and not just "personal experience"...
4) answers to prayer: someone grab a tape recorder!!!
   Oh, it wasn't a real voice? Telepathy perhaps? Hm...sounds like
   "personal experience" again...
5) understanding of the world: You'll have to elaborate on this one...
   it's just psycho-babble to me.

>PROVE Christiantiy to me? No.  But it gives me reason enough for my faith
>to be solid and not blind.  Christianity can never be proved (or disproved)
>apart from the direct intervention from God (or Ala).  So any Christian is
>just that by Faith.  That is, I guess, why it says "without faith it is
>impossible to please God."

Well, I guess you're right there. Of course, if your "personal experience"
was true (i.e. god talks to me), it would seem proven. Most of us
have already asked for god to come down and prove himself. So we get
Colleen the megalomaniac (joke). Of course, in my life, I turn it
around: I consider christianity disproven well enough that I have
faith that it isn't true. Ah, the irony...

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Organization: SPS
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:17:45 GMT


In article <1992Sep29.171623.29194@linus.mitre.org>
m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>let's look at the Biblical dates. I Kings 6:1 says that 480 years
>passed from the start of the Exodus to the start of construction on the
>first temple by Solomon. Gal 3:17 says that 430 years passed from the
>cevenant with Abraham to the delivery of the Law to Moses. The chapters of
>Genesis after the Flood accound give the periods in years that passed
>between the births of various individuals from Noah to Abraham, giving a
>period of 390 years from the Flood to the covenant with Abraham. Thus,
>according to the Bible, the Flood took place 1300 years before Solomon began
>construction of the first temple.

Jim, in the interest of accuracy, it must be pointed out that the Hebrew
noun for father ('ab) can also mean grandfather or ancestor.
'Ab: "father, grandfather, forefather, ancestor." -Nelsons O.T. Dictionary

The linage from Noah to Abraham, described in Genesis 11, uses this word,
which means that not all the generations are necessarily listed. Therefore
such precise dating is speculative and unsupported in the text. Longer 
periods of time are clearly possible.


Dave Weaver

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<Bv3GH4.A1L@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
	<ksand-270992131242@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:28:17 GMT

In article <Bv3GH4.A1L@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) wrote:
>> >> Myth is neither true nor false, it is metaphorical.

>> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> >So that implies that the myth that the Earth is on top of a turtle
>> >is not false. Merely metaphorical.

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) wrote:
>> Correctamente!
 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> >I guess I have to dig a huge
>> >hole on my back yard so I could verify if I see the legs of the turtle
>> >or not.
 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) wrote:
>> You will not find them in that way, they are metaphorical.
>> You don't know what metaphorical means, do you?

In article <ksand-270992131242@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Metaphor, a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally
>denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another
>to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.
>The online Websters dictionary is a nice thing to have!
>So to get back to the turtle, instead of talking about a planet
>hovering in space, we are dealing with a turtle moving across the
>universe. I don't think this is true; it's false. Thus the metaphor
>is false, dear Watson. I could substitute the notion of a metaphor
>with a notion of a false picture. And this was the original wondering,
>or what.

A false metaphor? Interesting concept. I thought metaphors were
transcendent of true/false reductionism. Is that like a false poem? A
false symbol? I prefer this definition from Webster's II New Riverside:

metaphor: n. [OFr. metaphore < Lat. metaphora < Gk. metapherein, to
transfer: meta, change + pherein, to bear.] A figure of speach in which
a term is transferred from the object it ordinarily designates to an
object it may designate only by implicit comparison or analogy, as in
the phrase evening of life.

Now, I suppose by your interpretation of metaphor, life does not have an
evening, so therefore evening of life is a false metaphor. Interesting
concept, this false metaphor of yours.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:33:39 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <70053@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> But by your own admission, he is mentioned.  Josephus said that he
> was a righteous man, that he had been killed and was reported to
> be alive again, even that he was the Christ.  Josephus said that
> the movement was still alive at the time of his writing.  

Note the wording 'was reported'. It does not imply that 'he rose
from the dead'. WWN also reports that people have seen Elvis. Your
logic would imply that this was also a true fact, that Elvis is still
alive.
 
> However, if Josephus was a Christian, surely he would have written
> more than just he one short section about Jesus, for he wrote 
> a whole lot.

The intriguing fact is that Jesus is far more written about 300+ years
later than during his lifetime. In other words we are dealing with a
myth, something that has gone out of proportions. Same with Elvis
sightings and flying saucers and elves on pictures.


Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: What is LDS doctrine?
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:56:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <92271.111327HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>, HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET writes...
>What is Mormon "doctrine?"
> 
>1.  The LDS canon - the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of
>Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price - are
>the foundation of LDS doctrine.

Bill,

	In which of these writings may we find the Temple Ceremonies?


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:42:35 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-041092164903@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|In article <69739@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|Pitts) wrote:
|> No proof?  Well it is proof that you don't accept.  Jesus' followers
|> wrote and documented a lot of what Jesus did, so that we could beleive
|> and have eternal life.  Luke wrote in Acts that after His resurrection,
|> Jesus for the next forty days gave many convincing proofs that he was
|> alive. 
|
|Are you implying that anything written is always true? So you also

No.

|blindly believe that Elvis is still alive, because Weekly World News
|publishes weekly reports where he is sighted. I don't blindly believe
|in WWN, and less in ancient documents written by an early day Church
|that tried to justify its existence. I would rather believe in Roman
|and Jewish historical texts, and isn't it amazing that this miracle
|man is hardly mentioned at all in these scriptures? Maybe he wasn't
|an important historical person, after all?

But by your own admission, he is mentioned.  Josephus said that he
was a righteous man, that he had been killed and was reported to
be alive again, even that he was the Christ.  Josephus said that
the movement was still alive at the time of his writing.  

However, if Josephus was a Christian, surely he would have written
more than just he one short section about Jesus, for he wrote 
a whole lot.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 5 Oct 1992 16:18:39 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct2.140359.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
In article <BvGHur.2t4.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> [follow-ups to talk.religion.misc] 
> #
> #I think when the inquisition took place the Reformation had already occured,
> #but I may be wrong about this.  In any case the Church was still un-Christian.
> #Long before the inquisition the Church had allowed pagan doctrins into the
> #Church teachings.  

> My little encyclopedia says that the office of Inquisition
> was dissolved in 1820.  I'll leave it up to the more informed
> people in t.r.m. to enlighten "cotera."

I believe that your encyclopedia is wrong. In an article on Father
Jim Fox I read that the office of the Inquisition still exists, but
its name has been changed. It is this very office that silenced Father Fox
for a year or two a while back.
 
> Susan


Eric
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS Syllogism? ( was Re: Arrogance (was Family values defined))
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:45:01 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-051092180104@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>The times where people will die due to their beliefs are soon over,
>hopefully.

Is this for Christian beliefs only?  Kent today people are dying 
all over the world for their beliefs.  Look at the Yugoslavia thing.

Look at all the Islamic persecution of Christianity in the predominantly
Islamic countries.  Just last month a Christian preacher was killed
in South America by the Shiny Back Gorillas for preaching to his native
peoples, as was his grandfather kill a couple of years ago for the 
same thing.  Brother Andrew with the Christian ministry Open Doors 
(initially smuggling bibles into Communist countries and now Islamic
countries) told us Saturday night that more people are dying for their
faith today than ever before.

>Kent
>Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
>Knowles

Psalm 14:1 "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; 
         there is no one who does good.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17170 alt.atheism:18030
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:45:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <69347@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> In article <ksand-280992192726@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

> |Sigh, I guess we both don't like the fact if someone takes our opinions,
> |and rewrites them. Right? Same with Jesus, he didn't say that the
> |temple is his body, or what. That was done later by John.
> 
> YOU MISSED THE WHOLE POINT - you don't trust anything not written in
> red.  I really don't see how you can trust those, since you are so
> skeptical.

I think the problem is that I'm reading and thinking, and I have an
objective
view to the text. While you read, and you have an automatic filter that 
tries to change the context so it suites your own personal needs. 

I think it's of utmost importance to read and understand the bible without
the help of external doctrines. If you disagree, then it' your own view.
 
> Kent, you use the Bible as some kind of tool, but I'm not sure what kind.
> If the book is worth using, then use it - else how can you nit pick apart
> ONLY the words in red - they look just like the others in the original
> languages.

I use the Bible as any other book, I read it and I make my own judgements
about the information. I don't believe in Willie the Pooh just because
there's a book with stories about this entity.
 

> Miracles don't convert - the heart has to be willing, like that of
> a child.  You have to get rid of your pride - you can't save yourself.
> No one can merit salvation by anything they do.  Mankind wants to work
> to save themselves, but God confounded this by the cross and the simple
> act of believing, if only one could get over thinking one could do it one's
> self.

So we have this very bizarre case, where  Jesus had to use miracles in
order to gain followers. While modern day Christians maintain that miracles
don't convert people. I wonder if Jesus knew about this? Anyway, lack
of miracles implies lack of miracles. That's really simple. So if we
don't have any modern day miracles to convert people, what to do? Simple,
let us now say that miracles don't convert people. Forget Jesus and what
he used long time ago.

Cheers,
Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How many Christian Gods are there?
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:31:29 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <parsons.717401558@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>Leviticus 18:22, 1 Cor. 6:9, Romans 1:26-28 all condemn homosexuality.
>As for Jesus, God and the NT...Are you saying that if it is in the OT
>that it no longer applies?  What if God said it in the OT but not in
>the NT?  Did Jesus condemn every specific sin man commits?  But to
>answer your question, God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit 
>condemns it in the aforementioned verses.  The moral code of the OT
>did not suddenly disappear when Christ came.  If adultery is still 
>wrong in the NT, you can be sure homosexuality did not suddenly 
>become OK.

  And do you follow the entire Mosaic law?  Do you wear clothes
  made from more than one fabric?  Do you follow all of the
  ceremonial laws?  All of the food laws?

  Or are you one of those hypocrites that chooses for himself which
  part of the old law is applicable, and which is not, according to
  his whims?  Give *me* a break.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God is an academic arguement
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:27:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1448@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-200992220744@wintermute.apple.com>
> >In the case of science we have one theory, and if the theory is
> >flawed, it is superseded by a better one.  Note, in religion we have
> >multiple theories, each one is right.  So we have a great many models
> >of God, I think we have 5+ billion models of God!
 
> Why should it be that way?  Shouldn't we have one theory, just like
> science?  Of coarse, not everyone is forced to believe that one theory
> in science and, in fact, not everyone does.  You can take any
> scientific theory and find someone who doesn't believe it.  But in
> religion, you have a organized rejection of other theories which
> impedes the progress of many people towards discovering who God really
> is.

The problem as I see it is that organized religions try frenetically
to defined one single 'theory', or the better word is doctrine. While
maybe the key to the problem is to accept that every human minds has
a different perspective. I do think that certain liberal Buddhist 
movements have accepted this, and they have a far better chance 
than a very strict fundamental movement, that has firm rules and
doctrines that can't be digested and changed by the followers.

> >This is true, however if I want to make a model of God, and I have
> >millions of models, I'm confused. It's better to make a personal
> >model. In my case I've rejected most of the religious and Christian
> >models of God because they are seriously flawed.
 
> So make your model and experiment with it.  Does it fit reality?  Does
> it bring joy?  Does it stimulate you to be a better person?  Does God
> approve of your model?  A lot of religions do not encourage such
> questions.

Yes, this is what I have done, I'm still playing around with my own
God concept. I'm not an atheist, however my concept of God is very
much my own, and in most cases very radical from the classical theist
notation. For instance, I'm free to speculate if the whole universe
itself is a big living information entity, and we are just small 
microscopic information entities, and the huge universe-God concept
doesn't even bother with us, because our minds are so primitive
and narrow. Or I'm free to speculate if the mind is somehow not the
ultimate goal of the evolution. Or that this whole known universe is 
a huge simulation. And so on...

Cheers,
Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS ALL THIS?
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:43:55 GMT

dale.lature@cccbbs.UUCP (Dale Lature) writes:
: I wonder if there's anyone who looks through this stuff that gets as
: sick as I do at the level of discussion.  Sure, it's very intellectual
: and many participants ave well thought out positions,  but is any of
: this really crucial?  What about society and the world?  Is there any
: interest in something like what the church can be doing to have a
: positive influence?  No one is impressed with the kind of theological
: tennis that goes on here.

To paraphrase Joseph Campbell, the proper purpose of religion isn't
to change the world, but to teach one to live in the world.  That
doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to change the world, but that
we must start within ourselves.  Religion is a tool to help guide
this inner investigation.  Solving the world's problems is important,
but not as important as finding a meaning in life.  I don't think
anyone would say that the meaning of life is to relieve suffering.
The goal of relieving suffering is to provide people with the 
necessities of life to allow them to discover meaning too.  If you
ask me, modern religion has lost track of its real purpose.

P.S. I'm an atheist, but I think the metaphors of religions can
be profoundly true.
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jot@teak09.cray.com (Otto Tennant)
Subject: Re: Freemasons and Christians: How Compatable Are They?
In-reply-to: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov's message of Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:23:52 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
	<Bv0MKI.7Fx@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> <1992Sep25.182352.1@fnalno.fnal.gov>
Date: 26 Sep 92 11:19:28 CDT


In article <1992Sep25.182352.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

>From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
>Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
>References: <1992Sep16.101738.16471@hsr.no> <80266@ut-emx.uucp> <Bv0MKI.7Fx@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>
>
>In article <Bv0MKI.7Fx@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>, der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Dave 
>Ritchie) writes:
>>>[2] How compatible are Masonry and Christianity??
>>    Well, the RC and Lutheran churches consider membership as grounds
>> for excommunication. 
>
>I don't know about the Lutherans, but given that I know Catholic Masons, this
>doesn't seem to necessarily be the case.

I am an ELCA Lutheran and a Mason.

--
===============================================================================
J.Otto Tennant      Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.         jot@cray.com
Cray Research, Inc.              Virgil                          (612) 683-5872
655 Lone Oak Drive                                                
Eagan, MN 55121
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <BvMnKn.BqF@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.191741.59274@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>>In article <BvBIpt.Fnr@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
>>psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>[...]
>>> 	Could you amplify this? How does one know, using the 
>>> following, that something is from God?
>>> 
>
>[D&C 50:19-24 deleted]
>
>>When one receives the word of the truth, he not only gets is from
>>the one preaching, but the Spirit also confirms the words of the
>>one preaching and/or preaches the truth can can expound upon to the 
>>receiver in a very personal way and in ways that one the receiver
>>can understand.
>
>	So let me get this straight. We have been talking about how to 
>discern when a prophecy is true or false. Jason, I seem to be reading 
>you as saying that if there is a subjective feeling towards something 
>that is being said, that this feeling is the basis on which we discern 
>the veracity of a prophecy. Is this correct?
>
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu


I am glad to see that an LDS has stepped forward to let everyone know that
the things Jason says about his church are just not true.