HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:57:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <70503@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> |Interesting, a simple question, why didn't the Christians publish
> |all five hundred Gospels? What was wrong with them, contradictions
> |maybe?
> 
> There could have been, but maybe not.  These four could be representative
> of all of the gospels.  

Or then they could have been so different, so the only four that seemed
to be streamlined are the ones we have today. I've actually read some
of these additional Gospels, and they are on the borderline of wishful
speculation and myth building of Jesus as a child. In other words these
Gospels seems to have elements that the early church didn't recognize, and
in order to somehow streamline the doctrines they had to disappear.
 
> Matthew and Mark both write about Jesus saying something like "Eloi, Eloi,
> My God, My God why have you forsaken me."  Then they close with the
> following.
> 
>    Mat 27:50   And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up
>        his spirit.
>    
>    Mark 15:37   With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
> 
> Luke does not cover the above, but says Jesus died with this.
>    
>    Luke 23:46   Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I
>       commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.
> 
> There is no contradiction.  Two say he cried out and died and the other
> states what he said when he cried out and then died.
> 
> If they had all said the same thing, would you not say they copied?

They would tell the same story. As it's now they don't. In other words
are we dealing with word of mouth, or someone witnessing the events? I
let the intelligent reader make the decision.

Anyway, I'm curious to know why Jesus thought God had forsaken him? 
Problems?

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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Idaho
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:45:55 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct14.144154.22467@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> 
> >So buy me the ticket to Christianity so I could verify it's real. 
> >The burden of evidence is on your side, I could buy you a ticket
> >to Idaho if you do the same favour concerning Christianity. Is this
> >a deal?

> The burden of proof would indeed be on my side if I were trying to
> prove the claims of Jesus correct.  As I have stated from the
> beginning, the Idaho parody had a single purpose: To make light of the
> criticism that most "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers.

The Idaho parody was originally created to show how insane the
non-Holocaust believers were, when they didn't accept the facts
that the Holocaust happened (or that Idaho exists), based on 
objective facts. 

To use this same parody to show that most evidence originates from Jesus
followers was IMHO a non-proper statement, that just caused a lot of
confusion
and laughter.

> (If you are truly interested in a "ticket," then follow up on one of
> Jesus' reported claims I noted in my last post.  That is, try out the
> promise that those who seek first God's Kingdom and its righteousness
> will have met their needs for food and clothing.  I'd be sincerely
> interested in your findings.)

Just for your information, I purchased a ticket to Jesus, and the
flight never arrived, so I went home. And guess what, I do have
food and clothing without the ticket. A miracle, I guess.

Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:37:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

Tony comments

>No, I think what the point is, is that the BoM is totally false when it
>comes to Historical, Science, and Archeological evidence.  And this is
>proven by the LDS church officials (or now former I might say).
>
>If this book was true, there should be _some_ support from these areas.
>Therefore, if Mormonism depends on the authority of the BoM, then there
>are serious problems.

Tony, your position is equivalent to the secular scholars of about
100 years ago.  They said that there was not one bit of historical,
scientific, or archeological evidence for the accounts given in the
Bible.  We are now finding considerable evidence.  Now I don't claim
that Book of Mormon "archeology" has progressed as much as Biblical
archeology but it is moving in the right direction.  If anyone wants
to see how wrong Tony is when he implicity says that there is
absolutely _no_ support from these areas, I refer them to the
following:

"An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon", John L. Sorenson

F.A.R.M.S.
P.O. Box 7133 University Station
PROVO, UT 84602

You can write to F.A.R.M.S and they will gladly send you a catalogue
of the numerous papers and books that demonstrate the plausiblity of
the Book of Mormon account taking place in a mesoamerican setting.

Robert
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:29:37 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Oct8.125841.9048@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (The only thing God didn't do to Job was give him a computer.) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct7.054101.26900@netcom.com>, 
>> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>> 
>>> I've thereby regained my confidence in my atheism.  How can I believe
>>> in a god who can't be found even when I go looking for him?  If he
>>> does exist, then why should I believe in him if he hides from me?
>>> 
>I wonder if you might be missing a point here by trying to be
>objective about all this. Searching for God isn't the point -
>it's faith that brings it to life. When you believe in something
>your life is brought into a new plane of reality - if you believe
>deeply in UFO's - you'll probably see one, if you believe deeply 
>in ghosts then sooner or later you'll get haunted.

Exactly.  And if you believe in gods, you'll probably encounter one.

>this is not to say there's no objective reality to UFO's, ghosts or
>God which you might bump into without believing, but belief is life's
>most important door, i think.

I suppose that depends on what you want out of life.  If you want to
go through it believing in ghosts simply because you want to, then
I suppose your advice is sound.  On the other hand, if you prefer
reality over fantasy, you won't commit yourself to believing something
until you see evidence for it.  You won't put your "faith" in something
just because it makes you feel good.

>Looking for God might not get you too far, 
>but believing in him will change your life and set in motion all sorts 
>of things. (but so will believing in Isis).

Yes, believing in God will probably change his life, but I suspect
that he's interested in positive change.

>how do you have faith without proof? Neat trick, but most people 
>manage it every day. 

It isn't a neat trick.  It's a very destructive trick.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:08:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct12.150842.5351@digi.lonestar.org>,
gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) wrote:
> 
> The argument that Luke's genealogy refers to Mary does not stand
> up very well.  There definitely appear to be two genealogies of 
> Joseph.  Assuming that neither account is in error, we have a dilemma.
> Or, rather, a mystery.  There is another possible solution that cannot
> be resolved on the basis of the speculative debate format of this 
> newsgroup, but it is at least worth mentioning for anyone who would like
> to explore it further.  The resolution lies in that Matthew and Luke 
> are talking about two different children and two different sets of parents.
> The names (Jesus, Joseph, and Mary) are the same.  This is based on the
> work of Rudolf Steiner, which is neither meant to be taken on faith or
> taken as a speculative interpretation.

If we want to further speculate we are dealing with identical twins, and
one
of them died, and the other appeared afterwards and the disciples believed
that he rose from the dead! Wow, this starts to get really interesting.

However, I would like to point out that the Gospels concerning the
genealogies are a mystery; either a problem adjusting two different
writer's background information (the most likely problem), or then
there's something fundamental that the writers didn't inform the
readers (less likely). As long as we don't know the hidden meaning
why we have two genealogies, the Occams razor tells us to rationalize
and select the most obvious case, in other words the Gospel writers screwed
up.

Regards,
Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18357 alt.atheism:19078
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED Former LDS,...)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:39:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.232613.24541@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>
>Kermit, where do you get the idea I am a Jehovah's Witness?  This
>indicates to me you form decisions without fully investigating the
>facts.
>
>I am not, nor have I ever been a Jehovah's Witness.  I can point you
>to a 'full fledge JW' who will verify this for you.
>


 Gee, I must be wrong, I'm sorry.  You argue (or have argued JW doctrine)
 from the viewpoint of a believer. I'm real sorry if someone got insulted...




-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:45:22 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct16.031623.20699@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
 press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
[...]
>> Barry> Well, are they mentioned in scripture?
>> 
>> Jason> *I* believe they are.  But it's *my* interpretation of the
>> Jason> Biblical passages.  Your interpretaion differs, no doubt. 

Okay, try Genesis 3:21; 37:3; Exodus 28:2.  Your mileage may
vary.  I don't claim that these are anything more than my
personal interpretation.  Other Mormons may (and probably do) 
disagree with my interpretation of the passages I listed above.

Now what?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: mix@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: SINEAD O'CONNOR
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:06:55 -0400
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

	I really would like someone to explain exactly what Sinead 
O'Connor had in mind when she called the Pope the "real enemy" and 
ripped up his picture.  I'm quite confused.  I realize she calls 
herself a "recovering Catholic," but this is ridiculous.
--D. Mix, Georgetown University
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: More fun with METAphors was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:21:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <fTxYgUN@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
wrote:
> In article <ksand-041092165220@wintermute.apple.com> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >However, as you know, we could show if the turtle metaphor is true or 
> >false. Figure out a way why this is not the case, and I could believe you.
> 
> OK, I challenge you. The metaphor is that the earth is carried through
> its orbit on the back of a turtle. Now, prove that this metaphor is true
> or false. Let me guess. You're gonna tell me that you've already dug a
> hole in your back yard and you didn't find any turtle legs. You've
> proven that the earth is not supported on the back of a turtle. However
> you have proven nothing about the validity of the metaphor. Please,
> prove to me that the metaphor is false. Please prove to me that this
> metaphorical turtle does not exist or does exist. Keep in mind that a
> physical turtle is not the same as a metaphorical turtle. Good luck,
> post when you've got something. Happy hunting. And remember, metaphors
> are transcendent of true/false reductionism.

This is the classical fall back and attach at the back. When I asked
him to show why my turtle metaphor of the Earth was neither true or
false, he challenges me instead! What a nerve. Could we end one
discussion instead of trying such tactics, thanks?

As for re-defining statements, it reminds me of discussing things
with Jarek on alt.atheism, every time we cornered him, he re-defined
the axioms used in his statements. That's a really convenient way
to back off as well. However it does not exactly 

If you want to continue we could argue for eons about metaphorical
metaphors and virtual definitions of the validity of metaphors. I will
just get a headache, and more people will place this thread in their
kill files. And remember what Wittgenstein said: 

"Whereof one  cannot speak, thereof one must remain silentS 

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.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18306 alt.politics.homosexuality:6443 alt.sex:32978 soc.singles:27778
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:04:48 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <7OCT199200472530@acad3.alaska.edu> ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.020716.26998@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes...
>>In article <cfhR02OR24a101@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>>If you get on the wrong plane you will arrive in the wrong city!  If you
>>>sincerely believe in the wrong Christ, you will end up in the wrong
>>>eternity.
>>How far does this go, Mr. Rose?
>>Your statement implies that anyone who deviates in the slightest from
>>correct doctrine(or at least correct Christology) is damned. Is this
>>correct?
>>-Ekr
>> 
>
>If I get on a wrong plane, I get on the right plane later. <grin>

Are you interested in Truth, or just a good debate?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:41:40 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:

>daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>
>>                                             So, to put the question more
>> clearly Richard, if you were a voter in Oregon, would you vote for this
>> initiative?
>
>If what you've quoted is essentially the OCA initiative, I'd vote for it.
>Sounds reasonably moral.  The right to sexual perversion is not quaranteed
>by the Constitution ... or the Bible.

No, but where does the Constitution grant the government the right to
regulate sexual 'perversion'?  Of course, your definition of perversion and
mine probably differs.

Remember, the Constitution LIMITS the power of government and reserves most
rights (and decisions) to people.  There is a clear idea of privacy
contained in the Bill of Rights...

And the Bible is IRRELEVANT to our system of government.  It is valid ONLY
for those who accept it as the guiding principle of their lives.  I do.
Many others don't.  And I won't impose it on them.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:59:42 GMT
	<1992Oct7.133934.7299@infonode.ingr.com> 
	<27Hs02qn25Rz01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Organization: i've been talking to jesus and he says i'm right ...

In article <27Hs02qn25Rz01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> 
agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>This is not true.  We are born into a sinful nature.  "there is NONE that
>is righteous, no NOT ONE"  (Romans 3:10)

Not even Jesus, right?
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:05:00 GMT

From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
>ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>|
>|From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
>|>
>|>"quoting a previous posting of Robert Weiss"
>|>>
>|>>...Did he just make a little mistake in remembering
>|>>when his sister Lucy was born in his previous listing?...
>|>
>|>I failed to find the reference to a sister named Lucy in
>|>Robert's posting.  The closest I came was a reference to
>|>his mother, Lucy...
>|
>|...Interestingly enough, when he lists the family members that
>|moved to Manchester, he includes his sister Lucy, who was born
>|July 18, 1821, in Palmyra.
>
>I still am searching for a quote from Mr. Smith that says that
>his sister Lucy moved to Manchester.  Since the consistency
>argument hinges on some sister named Lucy, I'd like to see
>where Mr. Smith mentioned her.

I am working with the 1851 edition, so the page numbers may not
be the same, it is at the end of the 3rd paragraph on pg. 36.
In the same paragraph when Joseph states he was born in 1805.
He says his father moved with his family into Manchester, and
that his family consisted of ... -- and lists Lucy as his sister.
The problem is obvious: in that Joseph claimed to be in Manchester
over 1 year before the revivals began, which means 1821+at least
1 year.

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg M. Skinner)
Subject: Idaho
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 15:06:49 GMT

On the subject of Idaho...

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <1992Oct6.135702.1920@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu
>(Gregg M. Skinner) wrote:
>> 
>> In light of the criticism that most "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from
>> believers, I'd like to repost something that appeared in
>> rec.humor.funny a few months ago.  My intent here is simply to provide
>> food for thought.  The article is long, but humorous.

>I guess it was a naive attempt to map this Idaho joke to those
>who don't believe Jesus was a God.

It's not necessary to guess.  I stated that the post relates to the
criticism that most "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers.

Nothing more, nothing less.





--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: they have eyes yet they do not see, was (I'm God) [340+ LINES]
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:39:01 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct16.144913.29284@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>,
mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) wrote:
>> 
> > Paul started Christianity, but he wasn't prepared to die for it.
> 
> Bullshit, on both counts.  Yes, Paul had a major shaping influence on
> gentile Christianity, as did others.

Not based on Acts. He didn't want to be killed by the mob, neither
did he have in his plans to die for his faith, so he called for
the Roman soldiers to save him. As for shaping Christianity, I do
think he's the main force, and others built upon his doctrines.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Subject: Re: The Campaign for a Hate Free Oregon
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:17:06 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Alexander Thatcher writes:

>Whoa, that article was not only big but was chock full of information
>that any well informed voter/activist/conversationalist should know!

>Yet, it was also inflated, overbearing, and in parts wildly exagerated.

I'm not so sure about that.

[Prop 9 deleted]

>That's all folks.

If you think the religious right is going to be satisfied by simply
passing this amendment and is going to rest on its laurels, you're
sadly mistaken.  I don't doubt it for a second that the Oregon economy
will suffer if this ammendment is passed.

--
James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:27:55 GMT

From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Second, D. Michael Quinn authored (anonymously) a small monograph in 1977
entitled "Jerald and Sandra Tanner's Distorted View of Mormonism: A Response
to Mormonism - Shadow or Reality?" Quinn addresses the Tanners' "selective
application of criteria with reference to the First Vision" (which Mr Weiss
seems to espouse) on pages 29 thru 41.

  Robert, I would'nt put much stock in Willard's usage of the 'anonymous'
  material above.  There was a reason the publication Willard refers to
  was printed 'anonymously'.   The author merely downplays the importance
  of the supposed First Vision -- in contradiction to the historical
  LDS position.  The First Vision was always considered of utmost
  importance to Smith's claims of restoring the Gospel.  Now that it
  is known to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is merely cast
  aside.  (Anonymous, Distorted View, pp. 29-31,34,39)
  I am unaware that Quinn ever admitted authoring the pamphlet.

Yours,
Mark