HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 17:08:58 GMT

In article <69731@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) writes:

>I read the Newsweek cover story on Gays yesterday.  If we want to appeal
>to the media, then we could look there and see a calm person holding
>a sign against the homosexual movement and a finger pointing, jeering 
>crowd advocating the homosexual movement.

Of course, we might also mention that the sign ("God hates fags") held
by the calm person was calmly preaching hatred.  

I don't know what denomenation you belong to, but let me pick at random
and say baptist.  You walk out of your church and see a calm person
holding a sign saying "God hates baptists".  You hear baptists
denounced by other religious leaders, who point out that baptists eat
dog feces in the place of communion wafers, and molest children in
Sunday school.

As the campaign mounts, more and more baptists are beaten up, and then 
some are murdered.  One day your church is burned down by an arsonist.

What do you feel about the calm person now? 

Look at Bosnia and you can see where this "religious war" stuff leads.
It aint pretty.

>Pardon me for stating my supported views.  Love is has many faces.  It doesn't
>always say do what you want, but it can and should say "I love you too much
>to keep letting you do that."

If you embrace the principle of coercion for other people, you must be 
prepared to accept it for yourself.  Force leads to counterforce.  Is
this really what you want?

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:47:59 GMT

In article <fTzhqJa@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Before I put words in your mouth, perhaps you'd care to explain why one
>would not want a homosexual representing one's company? What is wrong
>with a homosexual representing one's company?
I can think of at least one reason. There is a lot of prejudice in
the universe. It may well be(not saying that it is) true that say
using a homosexual in one's advertising campaign might not be good
for sales.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are LDS Christian?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:48:10 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Mormons take passages in the Bible refering to the
anthropomorphic corporeality (what a mouthful!!) of GOod very
literally.

It seems to me that the question is not whether God has a body or
not, but rather that is literal and what is figurative in the
Bible.

In article <1edc023T24bD01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
> There are however, many other passages that show
> that God HAS to be a Spirit and not a physical finite man.  If he were
> a physical finite man, he could not "fill the heavens and earth"...

The is another area of interpretational variance.

"Fill the heavens and earth" with what?

1. Himself?
2. His glory?
3. His works and creations?
4. Cool Whip (tm)?
5. Cheez Whiz (tm)?
.
.
.

Let's suppose for a moment that we choose #2, his glory.
How does glory "fill" something?

(ie: "... the whole earth are full of his glory."  Isaiah 6:3.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: NIV Translation Question
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:36:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.191024.29927@linus.mitre.org> 
szobell@mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes:
>In II Kings 23:29, the KJV states that Pharoh Neco went against
>the King of Assyria.  I have reason to believe that other foreign
>language Bibles at the time agreed with the KJV on this. The NIV 
>states that Neco went to help the King of Assyria.  A fragment 
>from Mesopotamia translated in 1929 contradicted the KJV stating
>that Neco helped the King of Assyria.  My question is whether the 
>writers of the NIV used information outside of Biblical sources 
>to arrive at this translation.  Could someone with an NIV Study 
>Bible look into this?  Also, how do other translations deal with 
>this passage?

KJV IIKings23:29:
In his days Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of
Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he
slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him.

JPS:Tanakh IIKings23:29:
In his days, Pharaoh Neco, king of Egypt, marched against the king of
Assyria(o) to the River Euphrates; King Josiah marched toward him, but
when he confronted him at Megiddo, [Pharaoh Neco] slew him.
(o)-I.e., the Chaldean Empire; cf. Isa. 52.4 and note
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:50:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

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
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?

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: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Online Bible v6  Help wanted
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:31:05 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)


Has anybody tried installing the ONLINE BIBLE version 6???

I have downloaded (twice at least) this version and cannot get it to
install. I have been using v5.xxx for a while so it shouldn't be the hardware
or Dos (5.00)


Whenever I type INSTALL, it creates the relevent directories in the BIBLE
directory, asks me if I have a colour monitor, and then after I type 
Y (or N, I've tried both!) it dumps some register status' and give me an
error message - something to do with running out of free space. I should
have written it down!! I have more than enough hard disk to install, 4
megs of RAM - which is plenty. I have tried installing without windows
running as well. The INSTALL program is out of the OLB600.ZIP from 
wuarchive.wustl.edu, which UNZIP's with no problems.

  Any Ideas????????????

                                                             .

-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:43:56 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <16773@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.121630.13063@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>
>>1. Before examining LDS theology, I feel that it is important to define 
>>orthodox Christian beliefs that would be considered the "Fundamentals" of the
>>faith, and not those doctrines unnecesary to salvation. The list that follows
>>is terse and is not supposed to be a theological treatise.
>>
>>        a) There is only one God, who created the heavens and the earth.  
>>        b) Jesus is God incarnate, born of the virgin Mary. In saying that Mary
>>           was a virgin, I mean that she had never had sexual relations with a 
>>           man or (as LDS theology says) with God. Jesus being God incarnate 
>>           means that Jesus is God.
>>        c) God exists as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Separate but indiv-
>>           sible, otherwise known as the Trinity. This is important in recog-
>>           nising who Jesus is. To reject Jesus as God is to reject God.
>
>So you are saying that anyone who rejects the virgin birth, for example,
>rejects God and therefore, despite any other profession of
>faith in Jesus (even as God) and throwing one's self on His mercy,
>is invalid, and that person is not a Christian?
>

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.

>>        d) A Christian is somebody who: 
>>           - accepts that they are in a sinful state and are separated from
>>             God because of sin.
>>           - believes that Jesus was crucified, buried and raised from the
>>             dead thus breaking the law of sin and death.
>>           - believes that the only forgiveness for sin is through the blood
>>             shed upon the cross. That forgiveness is complete for those who 
>>             have accepted the free gift of grace from God.
>>           - believes we are save by grace through faith, and not by works. No 
>>             person can do anything in their own right to rid themselves of  
>>             the burden of sin. Being baptised, joining a group or following
>>             certain laws cannot save a person.
>>           - believes that when a person accepts Jesus as Lord, the Holy
>>             Spirit (who is God) dwells within them.
>
>I think that Jesus would be a bit upset with so many Christians

God was upset with everyone, that is why he calls us sinners!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 17:57:06 GMT

In article <adams.717517550@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>Am I really seeing what I think I'm seeing?
>
>I dunno...what are you seeing?

Somebody on this newsgroup actually thinking, and willing to change
their views in the course of debate?
--
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_
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS Syllogism? ( was Re: Arrogance (was Family values defined))
Keywords: Luke14: 26: Followers, obey His word!
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:16:55 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <fToSsQS@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
|rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts):
|>No problem.  I don't preach myself - rejection of me is rejection of  
|>the Lord, for I preach Jesus as Lord and me his servant.
|
|In article <1992Oct01.184422.38915@watson.ibm.com>  
|jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:
|>let's rearrange: "i preach jesus as lord and me his
|>servant.  therefore, rejection of me is rejection of
|>the lord."  sounds like unmitigated arrogance.

I (Pitts) responded with the words of the Lord where he told us that
this rejection would happen.  For rejection of the message, is the
rejection of Jesus who gave us the message and rejection of Jesus
is the rejection of the Father. Jesus also said the world would hate us, 
for it hated him.  

|In article <1992Oct2.012022.29318@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> 
|johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
|>     Uh oh. Next thing you know, the LDS are going to be using the above  
|>syllogisms as follows:
|>     "Joseph Smith didn't preach himself - rejection of Joseph Smith is  
|>rejection of the Lord, for Joseph Smith preached Jesus as Lord and him His  
|>servant."
|>and
|>     "Joseph Smith preached Jesus as Lord and him as His servant.  
|>Therefore, rejection of Joseph Smith is rejection of the Lord."

I'd have to let a LDS person answer what Mr. Smith preached.  

For LDS, is Jesus the Lord, the creator of the universe?  Is he the ONLY
Son of God?  Is Jesus God?  I think the LDS position, Mr. Smith's position,
is a little different than that of the Bible, for you know they have their
own new revelation via Mr. Smith.  

|So, this means Richard Pitts isn't a Christian, right? So, if he's not a
|Christian, what is he?

Hmm.  Let me see.  I believe that Jesus was born to Mary without the
aid of Joseph, that he lived and performed many miracles and taught
with authority.  He pointed us to the Father.  He was crucified on
the cross and was buried.  He rose again on the third day and gave
many conviencing proofs that he was alive.  He ascended into heaven
to sit at the right had of God and will return to proclaim the Day
of God's Wrath.  I have committed myself to following Jesus - that is
to conform myself into His likeness.  Jesus gained victory over the
grave.  He died and rose from the grave NEVER to see decay or suffer
death again.  He lives today.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: radams@cerritos.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sure Made ME stop and wonder...
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:20:43 PST
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA

In article <1992Oct1.213304.28176@wetware.com>, 
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

> Thank god Christianity is Not a Religion,
> or it too would complicate matters.....
> 

Christianity, as it is defined by many people, should be called a "religion" 
(in the organized sense of the word) in that it has doctrine that must be 
accepted in order to have salvation ie. either you accept Jesus Christ as 
your savior or you will spend the rest of eternity roasting marshmallows on 
the flames of Hell. Quite aside from the insult to God that this is (ie. that 
a loving Father could do this to His loved ones), this constitutes a doctrine 
that either you accept or reject. If you accept it, then you are considered a 
Christian by other people who accept this doctrine; if you reject this 
doctrine, you are considered a non-christian or unsaved one by those who 
believe in the doctrine. The existence of a doctrine, whose rejection or
acceptance determines your salvation or damnation in the minds of those
who believe in the doctrine, constitutes an institutionalized religion.
Perhaps people who claim Christianity is not a religion are just trying
to separate themselves from the only-on-Sunday worshippers that practice
churchianity but are avoiding a daily personal relationship with God but they
usually also believe in the above-mentioned doctrine (which separates them
from most of the christians that I know). Only a philosophy which has no
ultimatum about whether you accept so and so as your saviour or not can
be said to be _not_ a religion (such as the philosophy of Vedanta).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Roger Adams
	radams@cerritos.edu               To those in whom love dwells,
	Cerritos College                  the whole world is one family.
	11110 Alondra Blvd                             A Hindu Proverb
        Norwalk, California 90650
	USA        		          :-)  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion,alt.secular-humanism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sure Made ME stop and wonder...
Summary: better hold that thought!
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct1.182043.7303@cerritos.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:56:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.052443.12902@midway.uchicago.edu> 
eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Cthulhu for President - when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
 
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>I heard Cthulhu is a religion, Elizabeth. Making one of them a President
>would horrendously endanger the First Amendment.

In article <1992Oct1.213304.28176@wetware.com>, 
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Thank god Christianity is Not a Religion,
>or it too would complicate matters.....

In article <1992Oct1.182043.7303@cerritos.edu> 
radams@cerritos.edu writes:
>Christianity, as it is defined by many people, should be called a "religion" 
>(in the organized sense of the word) in that it has doctrine that must be 
>accepted in order to have salvation ie. either you accept Jesus Christ as 
>your savior or you will spend the rest of eternity roasting marshmallows on 
>the flames of Hell. Quite aside from the insult to God that this is (ie. that 
>a loving Father could do this to His loved ones), this constitutes a doctrine 
>that either you accept or reject. If you accept it, then you are considered a 
>Christian by other people who accept this doctrine; if you reject this 
>doctrine, you are considered a non-christian or unsaved one by those who 
>believe in the doctrine. The existence of a doctrine, whose rejection or
>acceptance determines your salvation or damnation in the minds of those
>who believe in the doctrine, constitutes an institutionalized religion.
>Perhaps people who claim Christianity is not a religion are just trying
>to separate themselves from the only-on-Sunday worshippers that practice
>churchianity but are avoiding a daily personal relationship with God but they
>usually also believe in the above-mentioned doctrine (which separates them
>from most of the christians that I know). Only a philosophy which has no
>ultimatum about whether you accept so and so as your saviour or not can
>be said to be _not_ a religion (such as the philosophy of Vedanta).

Religion has NOTHING to do with it! [Except for the Hindoo notion of ZERO]
There are two choices, Christendom (mishomony) or Secular-Humanism 
(philohomony). Now, are you with us or against us? Anti-Life or
Pro-Life? Rest assured that no matter which side you are on, nobody HATES you,
they just HATE what you do! As in: "HATE the sin, love the sinner, love the
sinner to death."
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 2
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:02:50 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep28.164101.59246@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>In article <c0c202DN234D01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
>agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>[...]
>> To further stress the point.  The dates are really insignificant if you
>> ask me.  Does the fact that he was not an Apostle when he wrote it mean
>> that he was evil when he did and that the book is all wrong? Was he not
>> educated enough before he became an Apostle?  And if any of these things
>> are so, why didn't he correct his "mistakes" when he became Apostle?
>
>No, he didn't correct his mistakes because he wanted people to
>see that he was as human as the rest of them.  I heard a qoutes

Yeah right!

>made to this effect to his son Joseph Fielding McConkie, but have
>had trouble finding the source, since is was some years ago.

Likely!

>In all of his publications, McConkie *clearly* states that *he*
>alone is responsible for what is contained in them.  If you want
>to take issue with his statements, you'll have to ask him to
>defend them, not anyone else.

Kind of hard since he is dead.  If he were alive I certainly would
send him a letter though.


>> Looks like since the Church continued to publish it without change
>> after he became  Apostle, that it tas approved as Apostle quality
>> writing.  
>
>_Mormon Doctrine_ to date has *never* been an official
>publication of the LDS Church.  That it has been published by
>church owned companies doesn't make it LDS scripture any more
>than the cookbooks and novels the same companies publish are LDS
>scripture.

Agreed, but you know as will as I am all the other Mormons reading this
that the Church has had a pretty solid history of discarding of books
that come out that they disagree with.  I am certain that if the things
in this book misrepresented ANY of the church positions and doctrine,
the same would have been done with it.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17610 alt.atheism:18341
From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 28 Sep 92 05:09:58 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <fTaev7S@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us
(Paul Harvey) writes:

>Math is of course
>symbolic, it symbolizes something that is transcendent of writing.

No; Plato was wrong.  However, math has *utility* that is 
transcendent of the symbol systems which it defines.

>What is the meaning of 1 + 1 = 2 ? Is it just true or false, or is it
>metaphoric?

It can be used as a metaphor of sorts, but then its truth/falsehood/
accuracy depends greatly on the circumstances of a given use.

>How about a = 3.624 ? Does that mean a is 3.624?

It means that, within a certain scope, "a" and "3.624" are
interchangeable.

>1+1=2 was not defined true.

The truth of "1+1=2" can be derived solely from the definitions of
"1", "+", "=", and "2".

>How do you cope with this possibility of failure?

By realizing that the possibility of failure increases when one
refuses to recognize it.

>Do you ignore the possibility of failure or do you accept it as part of
>that which you perceive as reality?

The latter.

>Why do you go on in the face of possible defeat?

Because going on is better than not going on.

>Do you have faith in the unknown? Faith in yourself?
>Faith that you will do the right thing? Even though death takes lives
>beyond number everyday, do you still have faith in life? In your life?

I do not have faith.

>>>>the proper definition of faith (what you call "blind faith") [...]
>
>Widely used? Is that not authority?

No.  It's convention.  If you want to be understood, you use the
linguistic conventions that your audience understands.

>The faithful take the word of authority and use it as they see fit,
>but always question the validity.

Then they are, by definition, faithless.

>When the student is ready, the teacher appears. If the teacher says,
>"Follow me and be free", do you have faith or blind faith?

Neither.  I say to the teacher "tell me where you're going, and give
me some evidence that there will be freedom there".
--
Brian Holtz