HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:35:12 GMT

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:

>You can't prove God's existence, because he is too big for science. He 
>leaves it to you to decide whether to believe or not. 

Even if he did exist, why should I worship this so-called Father who 
decides to play mind-games with his children? Slightly childish behaviour
for an omnipotent entity, if you ask me. 

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Playing God (WAS Re: The C word)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:41:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.205537.20325@portland.mdc.unisys.com> tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
> In article <1992Jul19.013352.16985@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> >
> >So when did god tell you that its ok to eat meat containing blood? To
> >eat cheeseburgers? To cut your beard?
> 
> There is no reference to cheeseburgers in the Bible.

Dairy and meat together are not kosher.

If you want Leviticus to be your guide, you can't disregard
the bits that don't appeal to you when it's 11:30 PM, you've
been on the road for hours, and Mickey D's is the only
game in town, eh what?



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:22:25 GMT

lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:

[among other utterances, states]

>I keep an open mind just as long as what is being said agrees 
>with the bible.

Er, yeah. A new definition of 'open-minded' if ever I heard one.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:10:46 GMT

Ken Arromdee writes:

>Ted Babcock writes:

>>But, while a homosexual orientation by itself is not a sin (to the 
>>extent that it is not under one's control), it _is_ considered a 
>>physical defect, and so we may conclude that Jesus was not a 
>>homosexual, either in practice or "merely" in orientation.

>Having large nail holes through one's wrists is a physical defect, and it is
>clear that Jesus was supposed to have had these at least once....

  well, would i have a natural inborn physical defect if you were to smack
me upside the head?  no.  jesus by definition is sinless and flawless.  of
course he had wounds inflicted upon him.  that happens when you're crucified.
but it doesn't mean that he is not sinless or imperfect.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Jesus Would Gag
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:21:04 GMT

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>  disregarding the luke 14:26 red herring, i'll say that the bible is the
>one true path based on ten years of studying different philosophies and
>spiritualities from all over the world that claimed to explain much of the
>workings of the world.  all of them failed me in that they either couldn't
>answer all my questions or substantiate any meaning in life.  the bible
>answers all my questions, and through it i found meaning in life when every
>other avenue of exploration utterly failed me and i was left void of
>any purpose in life.

Out of interest, what questions did the bible answer for you, and what now
is your purpose in life?

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:14:28 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <91719@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>Yep. Why is that the story of the beloved disciple, John Mark, is overlooked?

Is that the newest theory in Bible scholarship or something?  Traditional
John  ben Zebedee has been considered the beloved disciple, as witnessed by
those who knew him.  

It sometimes seems like scholars are in a competetion to come up with the most
interesting story out of what evidence they can scrape up, especially
in regard to the linen cloth story.  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:43:33 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul29.173334.1518@brtph560.bnr.ca> n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
>Why, an abortion of course!  The "water" is clearly an abortificient...sort
>of a primitive version of RU-486.  

Aren't you reading quite a bit into this?  How do you know that the LORD
is not supposed to do something to the water, just as tradition or history
tells of how the cloth was turned from red to white when the sin of the
people was removed?  

>Note that I DID not have to stretch anything to reach the conclusion that
>this is about abortion - as far as I can see it is the most natural and 
>literal sense of the text.  (BTW, I do not have exact references, but have
>been told that the crucial Hebrew word here - the one translated miscarraige
>- is routinely translated as miscarraige in the rest of the OT)

Don't be so sure about this.  I have read from someone else who knows Hebrew
that miscarriage is taking quite a bit of liberty with the text.  Maybe
we can ask the question on alt.messianic.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Old Covenant and New (was Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:50:19 GMT

Malachi Robertson writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>  christians are christians because they acknowledge the new testament,
>>the new covenant in jesus as updating/fulfilling/replacing the laws in
>>the old testament/covenant.  i acknowledge god's words in the old testament
>>to be god's, but i also acknowledge that his new covenant with me [and with
>>all of us] replaces the old laws.
>>
>[Deleted part...]

>>  that would be to disregard the context of the bible.  sex within marriage
>>is sanctioned [so celibacy is not required].  and the new covenant through
>>jesus replaces the laws that would have bound me to the old covenant if it
>>if the new one didn't come along.

>I don't see how updating and replacing are consistent with fulfilling
>(which is the word Jesus used).  I don't remember 'updating' or
>'replacing' coming up.  In some sense wasn't the old covenant broken? 
>Also, what "laws" would bind a person to the old covenant? 

  jesus said he fulfilled the laws.  updating and replacing are my words to
describe what happens to the old covenant when the new covenant is installed.
the old covenant was broken as jesus was crucified.  at that moment the curtain
in the temple tore, meaning that the previous covenant was replaced since 
the curtain separate the most holy place where the law required the sacrifice
for sins to occur.  

  the laws of the old covenant, 613 of them plus however many more
would bind a person to the old covenant, but with the arrival of christ,
the old covenant was replaced.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Catholic Druidism in Watsonville
Date: 29 Jul 1992 21:11:09 GMT
Organization: Obfuscation Eschewers, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird
Keywords: See end of post

Apparently, Gordon Storga writes:

 >worship.  In Watsonville the other day a woman claimed to see the "Virgin
 >Mary" in the knothole of an old oak tree.  This was great cause for a
 >migration of Catholics to scamper to the area and begin worshipping the
 >tree. I say "worshipping the tree" because they have had to put a fence up
 >around the tree to keep the people from stripping the bark from it in an
 >effort to take some blessing with them.  Some people were shown on the

 <additional material in the same vein deleted>

 Then Stephen A Chaney writes:

      More religious bigotry, it seems. (Noted for future reference, as one
      might say...) 

Ok, a fair enough charge, I suppose, but:
 
     Gordon Storga, read this and read it well: 
 
Get ready to quake in your boots Mr. Storga. . ., now comes

<how religion doesn't affect his political views>
<then Mr. Steve "BOSS" Chaney goes on about his pro-life stand>

ending with: 

     I'm probably more non-sectarian than you and any _ATHEIST_ friends you
     have, Gordon, when it comes to politics. But of course, Storga, I have
     already proven that time and again. 
 
What a relief. I'm glad it's proven.
 
     Don't start it with me, Storga. You're only showing how vastly stupid,
     ignorant and unintellegent you are, that you'll pick on me with
     something that's weak and factually incorrect. In fact, pick on me
     with this issue and you might end up feeling like you'd lost fingers
     to pick with. 

Ah, a threat of physical violence. How convincing! Guess that ends
that one once and for all.

     You will lose this debate if you press it. 
 
Uh-oh, somebody better call the cops. This town ain't big
enough for the both of 'em according to the BOSS. . .
 
The only problem is, is that the post you include in your reply
DOESN'T mention abortion at all. Which makes me wonder why you
also included it in talk.abortion.

I can only conclude that Mr. Chaney is responding to some other
post; he ends his with a simplistic, fallacious, sweeping smear
against anyone who would call themselves "pro-choice".

Which sort of reinforces the intelligence of the whole thing.

-----------------Back--To--The--Point--Part-----------------------

One thing I would like to point out is that it is easy to ridicule
people who would see God in a tree, or who would leave home and
travel many miles to get a piece of the miracle tree, but one 
must wonder what their motivation is. Greed? I don't think so.

I think many "pilgrims" are all too typical. The news reported
about fathers bringing children who were very sick, mothers as
well; there was at least one blind person hoping to regain
vision, and so forth.

It's rather sad if you think about it.

Dano

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Jul23.152315.29088@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:23:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.152315.29088@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> akbloom@aplcen.apl.
jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:

   >Unfortunately, knowing what "truth" is does not help us very much.
   >What we really want to know is "what is the truth."

  Ah, but you can't expect a logician to help you with that! Whether or not
snow is white is something you will have to find out for yourself.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:41:19 GMT
	<1992Jul21.192501.17284@rice.edu> <12394@inews.intel.com> 
	<1992Jul22.045741.12128@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>

In article <1992Jul22.045741.12128@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>The JPS translation is quite good, but unfortunately the only edition
>I'm aware of lacks a really extensive set of scholarly notes. 

But it is annotated and indicates where translations differ substantially
from KJV or other standards and where the translation is vague or could
not be accomplished. Also it is composed as a text while attempting to
maintain sections of prose, but also has the verse numbers used in KJV for
cross reference.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Keywords: read the bible for goodness sakes.
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:34:05 GMT

As some people have said before, there's little to be gained by
taking the bait in the base thread here.

First, being a gay person (someone attracted emotionally and sexually
to the opposite sex) is not a sin in any branch of Christianity.
It's perfectly possible to be gay and celibate.  Furthermore, many
gay Christians would not recognize their genital activity as being
any more sinful than that between a married couple.  Such gay
people probably have rather mainstream-Christian views about fidelity
and committment and the meaning of sex in their relationship, and they
live their lives accordingly, taking into account the catch-22 that
they can't marry in most Churches, and their state isn't recognized
by the state.  When you keep using the word "sinner" there against them,
it's just going to roll off their backs.  They've made their peace and
accomodation with God, and a rabid dissenting Christian isn't going
to make much difference to what they do.  It is also possible to
discuss sexual "sin" in the context of promiscuity.  It should at least
be understood that this is a by nature a different matter and demands
a different approach than the former example.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Jul22.052804.14349@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
	<1992Jul22.134214.1319@cs.joensuu.fi>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 00:28:29 GMT

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
[About Revelation, chapter 17:]
>>(The whole passage is somewhat confused, because of the multiple
>>meanings.  The beast has seven heads, but it is also one of the heads.
>>The seven are seven mountains, but they are also seven kings.)

>They refer to 7 world powers of the history ( Dan. 2:31-45 ; 7:1-27). In 
>verse 24 one of the ten horns humiliates three other horns. 

Excuse me, but in my translation, both those passages speak about
*four* kingdoms, not seven.

The symbolism in Daniel is fascinating, and I've been meaning to do an
article about it for some time.  The four kingdoms are the Babylonian,
Median, Persian, and Greek.  The ten horns on the fourth beast/kingdom
in Daniel 7 are ten kings who were successors to Alexander the Great.
The rest of the symbolism is very intricate and has a close
relationship to the history from the fall of the Babylonians to the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Greek king against whom the Maccabees
rebelled.

>What power 
>took lead from these in 1500's - 1700's: Spain, France, Holland,       
>Britain ? That is the 7th power. Britain conquered the Great Armada of
>Spain, beated France in colonial wars and Holland become insignificant.
>The Anglo-American power gave power to the image of the beast: The 
>League of Nations. The head was wounded in WW I, but it became cured.
....

There's no doubt that you can use the symbols in Daniel and in
Revelation and apply them to other events.  However, I find this
activity uninteresting, because there's really no limit to the number
of things you can apply it to.  So far, no one has been able to use
these prophecies to make any successful *predictions*; all
interpretations have been after the fact.

>      Drusba ? Absurd !
Rats live on no evil star.

;     Edom mode
Sums are not set as a test on Erasmus.

>      E, Roma ? Amore !
Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

;     Devil lived
Straw?  No, too stupid a fad.  I put soot on warts.

Top that, if you can!


Keith
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:12566 talk.abortion:28547
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:49:07 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes about miracles being excluded
from the Biblical record:

>Scripture itself tells us that there were many other signs as well, "signs not
>recorded here".   And those were merely during the days of biblical times.
>Still, we need not even look to biblical times for miracle cures by Jesus which
>have not been recorded in the bible.   History is full of such cures and signs
>at places like Lourdes, France, not to mention cures and signs so close to home
>as to touch one's own family, including my own, and probably that of every
>Christian family at one time or another.

Aha! If it's good luck, it's a miracle.  If it's bad luck, it's just the
will of God to test us, or the Hand of Satan.  And if I have cancer and go
bathe in the waters of Lourdes and don't get healed, it's because my faith
is not pure enough.  Give unto me a break, Suzanne.  

So what's your stance on the "miraculous" (and fake) Shroud of Turin?  It
was a miracle, now it's not.  Sorry, wrong number...

This reminds me of the film "The Name of the Rose", where the monks
believed that the apocolypse was approaching because of some unfortunate
coincidences regarding where the bodies of their dead brethren were being
found.  It HAD to be: there was no other explanation, except perhaps the
truth.  

Beware the Razor of William of Occam, Suzanne.  

Alden - founder of druiexids for Jesus. 

Alden
From: labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle)
Subject: Re: "Evidence" of god
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro  OR
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 15:15:44 GMT

mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:


>Perhaps we should challenge YOU to demonstrate that the proton exists....

	After you accept the previous challenge.

>-- 
>C. Wingate        + "I bind unto myself today
>                  +    the strong name of the Trinnity,
                                               ^^^^^^^^

	At least learn how to spell trinity!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Bible is pro-choice    (Re: The sin of shaving?)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:13:20 GMT

In article <64766@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>
>Try this one out.
>
>How do you interpret Jeremiah chapter 1:5, where God says "that before I
>created you in your mothers womb, I knew you."  In fact, God had
>called Jeremiah to be a prophet at that point, hadn't He?

Jeremiah 1:5 is about God's foreknowledge.  It is an affirmation that
God is not bound by what we call 'time'.  To say that this verse implies
that Jeremiah was a already a person before God created him actually
implies the denial of God's foreknowledge.  I am not sure if that is
the theological position you want to take.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:13:33 GMT

Simon Clippingdale writes:

>Where an end to this speculation about what exactly is and is not in God's
>image? Well, we *do* know something, if indeed _The Bible_ is true, about
>God's image. If you're made in God's image, Terence, when do you next plan
>to massacre entire populations, children and pregnant women included, as
>The Good Lord did in Hosea? Or did that part of God's image get lost in the
>image-transcription process? If so, how do we know that homosexuality didn't?

  it is only through deliberate misinterpretation of the bible to conclude
that to live in god's image is to massacre entire populations etc.  your logic
that leads to that conclusion seems to go like this:  if the bible is true,
we should do everything in it, therefore we should massacre people.  the most
obvious flaw in that logic is to overlook HOW the bible advises us to live.  in
some cases it shows us how to live and in other cases it shows us how not to
live.  the context contributes to the meaning.  further, if god wants to 
massacre, say the egyptian soldiers in exodus, doesn't he have the right to
do so?  also he does explain why he does so.  further in trying to live a holy
life, i use christ as a role model:  god living as a human.  i do not believe
that being in god's image and wanting to live a holy life allows me to do what
god did.  i am not god and i do not have the freedom to do as he did/does.
his rules for me are to a certain extent restrictive.  if i created the universe
i would be justified in doing what god does.  since i didn't i am not thusly
justified.

>Have you considered the possibility that the whole shooting match is
>crap from start to finish? Just a thought.

  yeah, i have considered that it's all crap.  the overwhelming despair that
plagued me for a decade of thinking that led me to consider that it's not
all crap.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc