HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:07:16 GMT
	<1993Jan12.090227.10316@athena.mit.edu>
	<parsons.726836823@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY

In article <parsons.726836823@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth) writes:
>>> However, I've always heard that the opressed Church is the best!
>>	This is a psychological tactic used to make oppressed Christians  
>>feel better.  Do you think that only oppressed Christians will be in the  
>>Rapture?  What does Jesus say about this?

>No, this is opinion based on historical record.  The persecuted church
>is a much leaner, committed church (the principle: 'If you can't stand
           ^^^^^^
>the heat...' applies) ; due to the spiritual make-up of the persecuted 
>church God is a lot free-er to work in the lives of His people.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So your xian god has limited processing power?  Get to many people
logged on praying and the whole machine slows down, is that it?  I
though you christians thought your god was omnipotent.  Got a bit of a
contradiction here don't we...

-Bill
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25712 alt.pagan:15176
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: The `ark'
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:15:33 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1993Jan9.214312.21256@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>>In article <fXE0AtT@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>Except that Christians seem to choose to ignore it, even the ancient
>>>Hebrews did with their practice of bringing the ark of the covenant into
>>>battle. 
>>  And we all know how well that worked, don't we.
>>(For those who don't remember, the Phillistines captured it.)
>
>I don't think that is established. Most biblical sources I know indicate
>that no one knows what happened to the ark.
  I think that we're talking about different things. I'm talking about the
events recorded in 1 Samuel 4-7, where the Philistines captured the Arc
in battle, and then sent it back after getting some nasty disease. (My
bible says that it was probably bubonic plague.) You're talking about
the ultimate fate of the arc, which, as we all know, is in a large government
warehouse.



-- 
Mike Swaim            | "101 Dalmations? Yeah I saw that."
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | "You Did! REALLY? The same film?
Disclamer: I lie      | Let's stop driving! We must get out and jump
up and down and up and down and dance around and around!" Matt and Delerium
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25906 alt.atheism:25734
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 12 Jan 93 05:26:01 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs

In article <1993Jan11.221750.9774@iscsvax.uni.edu> sperry2699@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>> 
>
>Why is what Pat Robertson is doing criminal?  Sorry that you must lower
>yourself to the use of those "colourful metaphors" to express your opinion
>(a.i. "asshole").  
>
>
>ECM
>

sorry, yes, i am embarrassed by the poor expression.
i see Pat Robertson only rarely and yesterday was one of
those days and i am very worried about what's going
to happen in the next few years. the death of the country
itself seems within the realm of possibilty. something
at least as bad as the 60s.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:04:02 GMT
  <fWYBWCD@quack.sac.ca.us>  	<adams.725124795@spssig> 
 <fXsr6Sz@quack.sac.ca.us> <root.726157205@spssig> <765348d8172325t240@witsend.uucp>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:

>In <root.726157205@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)  wrote:
># pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
># >adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
># >>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
># >>>You think what you know is the absolute right, the absolute truth. 
># >>Almost every religion makes this claim, implicitly or not.  That it holds
># >>the one, true way, and is the sole possesor of God's truth.  Christianity,
># >>Islam and Judaism sure do...
># >
># >This statement is not correct. This kind of dogmatic thinking is largely
># >limited to the two great conversion religions: Christianity and Islam.
># Hardly 'not correct'...first of all, I said 'most,' and secondly, all three
># of the ones I pointed out fit the bill (ie those that make up >95% of
># western religion.  In any event, a religion is basically a system of
># truths, which generally rejects other systems of truths.
>
>  Can't say for Islam, but Judaism hardly claims to have the whole
>  program for anyone except Jews.  Aside from the seven Noachide
>  requirements there are no restrictions on Gentiles, and obviously
>  the historical thread is only the Jewish one.  Judaism makes no
>  claim one way or another about separate revelations to other
>  peoples.
>
>  This misunderstanding may arise out of projecting Xtian
>  characteristics onto Judaism, perhaps from a belief that the
>  two are more closely related than they actually are.

Excuse me, but a plain, clear reading of the Book of Genesis, without any
Christian characterists applied to Judaism, implies the superiority of YHWH
over any and all comers.

Note well that all gods associated with things such as the sun, moon, sea,
animals, etc are neatly dismissed by the fact that YHWH created all of
these things.  This seems to be a pretty clear claim to truth, also.

The types of laws applied to Gentiles has no bearing on the sovereignty of
YHWH.  Christian claims have nothing to do with this...

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:24:52 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <fXGHeGr@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <C0IK8B.36L@rice.edu> 
>swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>>In article <fXE0AtT@quack.sac.ca.us> 
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>[regarding Idolatry in all it's glorious forms:]
>>>Except that Christians seem to choose to ignore it, even the ancient
>>>Hebrews did with their practice of bringing the ark of the covenant into
>>>battle. 
>>  And we all know how well that worked, don't we.
>>(For those who don't remember, the Phillistines captured it.)
>
>Yes, but no body should freak out now, because it's safe and sound in a
>secret location in Ethiopia. Yes, that's right, and one more thing, only
>ska beat and dreadlocks in heaven, natty dreadlock if jah know what I
>mean.
>
And it was Heilie Sellassie (sp?) that set up the secret ninja team that
snatched it out of that U.S. Gov't. warehouse, after Indy found it (how
else did he become Holy?)! 

>=====
>Planning a vacation? Jah-Guides! We get you true the valley, yet fear no 
>evil! Ask about our weekly special: Cut cane, and drink champagne. Plus,
>exclusive limited ski packages on Blue Mountain. Free travel tip: Don't
>even t'ink of driving up a down road mon.

Not without some of that fine stuff, mon!

	mark
From: SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:55:12 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1993Jan11.214149.22353@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) writes:

> I just saw part of Pat Robertson's TV show "The 700 Club" for the
> first time today while I was home on my lunch break, and I'll admit,
> it frightened me.  I was never really aware of what large Christian
> organizations are doing these days.

While I, and others,  may not be enamoured of many traditional Christian
dogmas and viewpoints I don't think that what we have to fear is
Christianity in general.   What Robertson and others represent is a
blending of conservative evangelical Christianity and an aggressive
ultra-right wing political agenda.  And I feel that this hybrid
is as much political by this point as it is religious.

If you feel that Robertson's public persona and his televised statements
are threatening, you ought to check out the Christian Reconstructionists.
Christian Reconstructionism, or Dominion Theology, seeks nothing less
than the destruction of the U.S. constitution and the implementation
of "Biblical Law", complete with religiously enforced capital
punishments as detailed in the Christian Old Testament.

While the average fundamentalist or born-again believer may not
be familiar with the movement's leaders, e.g. - Rushdoony, his
son-in-law, North, etc. their writings have a wide influence among
fundamentalist and evangelical (and televangelical) preachers.
Robertson's Regent University now has a law school to train future
lawyers and some of its professors are openly associated with
Christian Reconstructionism.  Pat has professed his approval of
CR, but has stopped short of claiming to wholeheartedly embrace
their positions -- quite wisely as he seeks to influence the leaders
of the very government they seek to destroy.

In the soc.religion.christian newsgroup there are two very thorough
postings on Christian Reconstructionism, one dated 1/7 and the other
1/8.  Their America would make Orwell's 1984 look like a Roman
Carnival of freedom, and it is the Christian Reconstructionism which
is disseminated throughout Christian right wing politics --
regardless of which demagogue is making the pitch.

It is a movement which is as anti-democratic and as hating of the
American constitution and the Bill of Rights as ever Soviet
Communism was.  It espouses naked dictatorship kept in place with
raw force and violence.

It is as "Christian" as Goebbels, Himmler, Hitler or Stalin were
Christian.

If ever you want to see a pig dressed in silk check out those
articles in the other newsgroup.  And remember, these folks are
Pat's chums.  They have big bucks and they are not going away
anytime soon, and if you don't want them -- they want to have you.

Jack Carroll
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:08:58 GMT

In article <root.726157599@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>>>To what end is this "the best you can do?"  In concrete terms, what do you
>>>>hope to get out of this, that you choose to follow the way of another
>>>>rather than your own?
>>>To have a right relationship with God.
>>Why do you desire this?
>Because I beleive it to be proper...since I believe in God, then such
>action is proper...

Forgive my lack of understanding...since I do share your premises, I fail
to understand your conclusion.  I sense that we will go in circles on
this forever...not claiming that either of us is "right," but just that
we are different.

>>I perceive that it would be very difficult for me to adhere to a deity whose
>>moral standards were so alien to my own.  But I respect your feelings on
>>this point.
>
>It is not that the moral standard is alien...I wouldn't repeat those
>actions at this point.  No way.  My point is that looking at the situations,
>I don't see how I could have made different decisions, seeing as who I was
>then...

You have changed.  Is there a difference between "repent" and "regret" that
you understand?  Do you regret those actions?

>I disagree with the analogy...in the case of the woman, BOTH of her choices
>results in bodily invasion by the man.
>
>In the case of God, there is a true choice.

Disagree.  If you choose God, I perceive a renunciation of free will.  If
a woman chooses to have sex, it is a voluntary "bodily invasion."  If you
do not choose God, you end up in hell - a definite "bodily invasion" if
I ever saw one! <g>

To be honest, I would say that the rape analogy is a _mild_ one, as I
consider my mind/will to be more important than my body.  A better
analogy might be a man saying to his prisoner: "If you consent to be my
slave from now on, and love me and serve me without question, I'll be
nice to you.  If not, I'll slowly torture you in ways you can't even
begin to imagine."  Would you say that this man "deserves" to be
tortured if he refuses to become a slave?

>I don't see that I give up on who I am by honoring God and humbling myself
>before Him.  I *WANT* to do it...

"He loved Big Brother."  (George Orwell, _1984_)

-- 
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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:44:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.92Dec31060601@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> 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.

I think I'm trying to make a more deep point about validation of 
statements than something like 'plain truth'. See earlier postings.


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: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: And over to you Sean... (a mixed bag of subjects)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<root.726508832@spssig>
Date: 8 Jan 1993 19:37:41 UTC

In article <root.726508832@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>I sometimes think that if there is a Creator, he must like it better
>>if we stare around us in bogglement and wonder, rather than thinking
>>in our vanity that we have the Inside Info on the state of the universe.
>We can't know anything about God for a fact....I can speculate, but I will
>always miss the mark.  The Bible is correct about the transcendant: His
>ways are higher than our ways, his thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
>We can never, ever figure God out...

Unless, well, you're a family man, you're watching your children grow
up. You've no doubt seen a dandelion flower progress to a seed-head. You
may have even seen children blowing dandelions, dispersing the seeds.
Perhaps you have even done this yourself. Perhaps you have seen your
neighbor curse dandelions and apply expensive potions in an attempt at
eradication. Perhaps you yourself have a love/hate relationship with the
dandelion, the flower with the teeth of a lion, the source of that great
wine. Perhaps that *is* it.

>>> Of course, there is the metaphorical aspect, which I suspect you'll be
>>> happy to tell us about right now! ;-)
>>All in good time, grasshopper. :)
>Oh sure.  He has the answer and won't tell.  ;-)

Don't we all. If knowledge is the key then I am the lock.

>Ya know what, though.  I have a feeling that even if I'm right about God
>and salvation, He's got a loophole for people like you... ;-)  In fact, I
>think most Christians are going to be quite surprised about who ends up
>where...

The idea of a club with benefits of membership does seem a bit, well
Madison Avenue. Everyone claims their burden is the heaviest, but oh
yeah com'on, who feels it knows it most. You can talk about the chacha
and talk about the mamba, but when you're talking rocking steady, jah
betta be ready. Rock stead easy, steady rock easy. When first I heard
rock steady, trilled me to the bone, well, you know the flavor, I saw
the head bobbing that means the neck knows.

>>And now we're back to the question of narcissism. Isn't this fun?? :)
>Everything is a circle, my boy, just ask the American Indians...

Just ask your Mother.
[A sort of word to the Mother, as it were]
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: ankh (you very much?)
Date: 12 Jan 93 11:21:10 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <00966694.C9122180@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>                         Ankh if you love Isis;
> 
>                         La Mort.

La Mort, `death'?  Very interesting.  "Ankh", it shall be reminded, is
Egyptian for `life'.  Dialectic unity?

-- 
 `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
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:41:04 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <C007np.45B@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:

>and so on." Kimball asserts that "we shall go back to our Father and 
>God who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this 
>Father is connected with one still farther back, and so on..." 
>McConkie wrote that "the elements from which the creation took place 
>are eternal and therefore had no beginning."
>
>	The LDS universe is a beginningless universe. Time always 
>existed, but there was never a beginning. Time, in fact, existed 
>before "our Father" did.

No, this is not correct.  In Joseph Smith's cosmology, there was
never a time when "our Father" did not exist.  In fact, there was
never a time when that intelligence we now know as Robert Weiss 
did not exist.







-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: k087682@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Scott A. Martin)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 19:10:22 GMT

All these quotes about a "jealous God" sometimes make me wonder why
people choose the Christian religion.  Doesn't exactly sound like a
deity I'd like to devote my soul to.


Scott Martin            Kalamazoo College

All Gods are one God, and all Goddesses one Goddess, and there is but
one Initiator. -Dion Fortune

An it harm none, do as ye will.

k086782@kzoo.edu


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:25:46 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:19:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <SCG.93Jan5234731@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
> >I'm trying to push for the important issue that how could we judge
> >that something has a logical element, when we can't even agree upon
> >the premises.
> 
> you don't have to even know the truth value of the premises of an
> argument to discuss its logical validity.
> 
> if i understand you correctly, this is what you're talking about when
> you are talking about 'logical elements'.

OK, I think I need to re-phrase some of my opinions. The nice thing
with argumentation is that with the right people you learn a lot,
with the wrong ones you get only pissed.

Anyway, I agree that we have cases where the premise don't need
to be fully asserted, neither qualified, nor understandable. Examples
of such constructs are tautologies and contradictions (as well as
paradoxes, but those can't really be defined as logical constructs, or 
could they?).

However, when we suddenly use many of the other logical a priori
definitions to produce the end result, we need an agreement on the
premises. For instance if we all agree how God is like, we could use
God and God's attributes to produce an end result. If we don't have 
an agreement on God and his/her premises, I don't see any value in
producing logical constructs that may or may not be true, and we will
never know about them. Or as early day Wittgenstein said:
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent".

I spend too much time just re-instating these opinions, and I really
need to do a lot of work, so if anyone wants to continue with this,
feel free to send me email. However I have to step down and do some
grunt work in order to justify my high salary :-).

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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:53:43 GMT

In article <Jan.7.02.52.28.1993.6531@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>the first.  I'm not so sure that it teaches the second.  There are at
>least two ways that Jesus could save a non-Christian:
>
>  - God may act in someone's life, and be present in their heart
>	without their realizing that Jesus is involved.

Thank you, Karl Rahner and C.S. Lewis (on his bad days) :-).
But is there any biblical evidence for this? In the end of revelation,
the spirit and the Bride invite the world to come into the city (the church).
Outside there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. It seems like an either/or
with little room for anonymity.

BTW, do you remeber me, I used to post about 4 years ago?

>Almost (?) all Christians believe that Jews living before Jesus could
>be saved.  The NT certainly seems to support this.  This does not in
>itself prove that others can be -- it could be a special case.  But at
>least it's a demonstration that someone need not explicitly know about
>Jesus to be saved.

Well, they had faith in the coming messiah person. Heb 11. And there is
no other name given under heaven whereby we may be saved.

paul duggan

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc