HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: Reasoning about the self-righteous
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 14:52:35 EST




In article <1992Dec10.094455.10259@sei.cmu.edu>, dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> In article <1992Dec9.215617.28836@cs.cornell.edu> (Roderick Moten)
|> writes:
|> 
|> >I could explain this too you, but you don't understand the simple
|> >things of Christianity like the baptism of the Holy Spirit,
|> >righteousness by faith and the victory of the cross.  
|> 
|> The presumptions and arrogance here are mind-boggling.
|> 

To which Mr. Moten responds:

>How can I talk to you about God making man in His image and 
>you don't know what the image of God is?

To which I must repeat:

     The presumptions and arrogance here are mind-boggling.

You just don't get it, do you?  Let me spell it out for you:  you know
absolutely nothing about my background or beliefs.  NOTHING.  In
addition to this, you make the astounding assumption that somehow you
are more capable of understanding God or God's image than I am, this
shortly after you proclaimed it impossible for any of us to understand
these things.

Your continued avoidance of anyone's questions seems to make it clear
that you fear discussion.  Your faith appears shallow indeed.

>By the way, do you know what it means to be born again? To be a Christian?

I am extremely well aware of what it means to be born again.  Go back
to the drawing board.

I must point out yet again that you have failed to answer a single
question of mine, and instead insist on posting more red herring
questions. 

I challange you to go back through the two or three postings that I
have made in reponse to your postings and answer my questions.  If you
can't do that, the weakness of your faith will be manifestly obvious
to anyone with the intestinal fortitude to follow this thread.
From: seshadri@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Re: All the Same God? (was Re: In response to Jack Carroll on Hinduism?)
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:39:28 GMT
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA

-/ hpindda:talk.religion.misc / emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) /  9:43 am  Dec  9, 1992 /

-From what little I have seen, Hinduism offers an excelent spiritual
-metaphore of the universe. Where does one learn more?

-Eric

	Not being an organized religion with a single set of compact
	teachings or church, Hinduism comes in several flavors. A
	good place to start in your exploration might be the Vedanta
	Society in Fan francisco, which fortunately has a serene
	monk as its resident head. You could arrange for a talk with him;
	there is also a good bookshop there with several of the most
	important books. 

	You may also contact the Ramana ashram at Santa Cruz; the
	Chinmaya Mission at San Jose etc. Feel free to call me
	at 408-946-5186 if you need more help.

	Regards,
	Raghu
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Talk.religion.slam.mormons?
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:55:31 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


Summary: Get on their good side, or you may wish you had!

I haven't worked it out, but the percentage of material on this
newsgroup that is related to attacks on the LDS church seems awful high.
You don't see the same kind of vicious propaganda war being waged 
against other religious organizations -- I would say this is good news
for the Mormons. They're rattling people's cages, big-time.  You know
you're a threat when the other guys start devoting huge amounts of time
and resources to doing you down, by means fair and foul. 

Congratulations, guys!  Oh, and by the way, when you finally get around
to establishing your theocratic global hegemony, be nice about it, eh?

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: dennis@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Thomas A. Dennis)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:41:56 GMT

In <1992Dec10.172246.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> holt_c@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:

>In article <1992Dec09.233339.23836@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu>, 
eknipp@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu (Ethan R Knipp) writes:
>> Sex is evil-
>> Evil is sin-
>> sin is forgiven-
>> so sex is in!
>> 
>I don't know why, but this reminds me of the absolute weirdest sin I've ever
>been accused of.  It came during my infiltration of the Church of Christ here
>on campus.  Basically they said my sin was not having a girlfriend at that
>moment in time.  Their actual words were, "You are depriving some girl of
>yourself."  And I thought I was strange.  Does anybody out there feel that I 
am
>depriving them.

Well, maybe, but I really think that the Church of X should have been a bit 
more specific... they should have backed up their assertion with a list of 
EXACTLY which girls you were depriving of yourself, EXACTLY which part of 
yourself you were depriving them of, EXACTLY which position(s) you should not 
have been depriving them of yourself in [sic?], etc.  I have no particular beef
with the Church of Christ, but this is sloppy work.

--
>---<

Tom Dennis                  | "I have seen all the works that are done
dennis@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu  |    under the sun; and, behold, all is 
(217)384-2504               |      vanity and vexation of spirit."
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:54:24 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   17 Dec 92 21:00:58 GMT
>FROM:   Publius <pub@riscee.pko.dec.com>
>
>In article <1992Dec16.001353.3965@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>
>>  ... To me, the words
>>"separation from God" have a neutral connotation--maybe no pleasure,
>>but no pain either.
>
>No pain?  You should talk to some of those little children who are, for
>one reason or another, separated from their parents.  Ask them if
>they feel pain in their hearts.  Or, are you one of those who believe
>only the corporeal punishment causes pain and suffering?

More than one fallacious argument per phrase.  Not bad.  
1. Presumption of ignorance (talking to the children would clear this up)
2. Generalizing from the specific (Were some parents molesters?)
3. Presumption of Result (The children will say they are suffering.)
5. Fallacy of the false question (Child has pain -> Away from god is pain.)
6. Fallacy of the false analogy (Child:parents/Adults:God)
7. Appeal to misery 
8. Fallacy of the straw man (anyone who would believe [x] sucks)
9. Argumentum ad hominem (This is your brain on logic, Publius)

There are actually a few more in there.  Anybody else want to play?

>
>> ...  I exist in a state of separation from God right
>>now, and it does not pain me.
>
>Because you are having too much fun in this age.  But just wait until
>when Jesus comes back ...

Sorry.  I really gotta run, but if he shows up, you can tell him I was here.

-- 
>For Christ and His Kingdom
>-- Publius
>Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.


  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C---->>It would benefit everyone if they were.  
;;| >-  `.__),;;   Unluckily, they seem to be the norm.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Straw Poll: Mormon Specific Newsgroup
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:37:03 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Dec12.042151.61979@cc.usu.edu>,
 slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:

> I know I'm gonna regret doing this *again* but ....
> 
> Since the volume of traffic in talk.religion.misc regarding
> Mormon related postings has leveled off somewhat, I'd like to
> conduct a straw poll.
> 
> Don't post to the net.  Email your reply to: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
> (Replying to this post *should* do the trick.)

Since most of us will be going on break for the holidays, I'll
continue the polling a few weeks into January so that everyone
that wants to gets a chance to participate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23957 alt.atheism:23803 alt.slack:3503
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 16 Dec 1992 07:37:14 -0800
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.ens.tek.com

Jen Kilmer writes:
>Christianity is true.

  And so are many other spiritual traditions.	




        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
                                        Thomas Merton


	David Hatcher
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 02:56:09 GMT

Kent Sandvik notes that he justifies his dichotomy (we understand all
or nothing about the trinity) with his formal Lutheran training.  As
he has been arguing against what is evidently not a Lutheran
understanding of the trinity, I do not see why the discussion must be
constrained by Lutheran doctrine.  I further fail to see why Mr.
Sandvik would wish to constrain the discussion thus, having already
suggested he has rejected his Lutheran training.


                               Gregg Skinner
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What would you have said?
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:12:57 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <Bz9Gw8.35G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
|> I feel that Christianity as an institution, a 'religion,' and as an organized
|> force has done far more bad than good.  Moreover, it has done soe while 
|> violating its own ideology flagrantly and repeatedly.  Not just honest mistakes,
|> but serious masses-killing whoppers of ridiculous proportions.  Thus, I feel 
|> that church is invalid, that people trying to 'save' me is invalid, that the
|> Moral "Majority" is invalid, and that Christian influence in government, as an
|> institution, is a spooky thing, not to be trusted when one looks at history.
|>  
|> Again, I am critiquing the religion in an organized form, not the individual 
|> faith.  The church is corrupt.  It needs hard core reforms.  Until those 
|> occur, I am not interested.  Any belief that is so compellingly true would 
|> surely, in my view, be harder to corrupt on such agigantic scale than that.
|> 
In general I accept your criticism as valid. 

However, I am hearing you say that a church that sticks close to the
Biblical model has a decent chance for success. 

That's the kind of church I go to. It has problems since it has the limit
on its design that it include people.

Its interesting to me that simple churches have existed since the first 
century. Some of the people killed in the Inquisition belonged to these
kind of churches. There is an interesting book called, The Pilgrim Church
by Broadbent or Broadstreet which documents the history of this part
of the Church from the first century up until the late 1800's or early
1900's. Its been a while since I've read it. Your local Christian
bookstore might be able to procure a copy.

I think we need to always separate the message from the messenger if we
are going to advance in our knowledge of truth. Just because some 
Christians have done a lousy job representing Christ, doesn't mean
that Christ is lousy. Part of the Christian message is that Jesus will
take anybody. Nations which send out ambassadors are inclined to be
much more selective, but even with a rigorous selection process
some of the ambassadors turn out to be lousy representatives of the
country.

This is not to justify or excuse the atrocities that have been and are
committed in the name of Christ. 

It is to say that the Christian walk and the church can be done right.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
	Matt	Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you
	11:		hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk,
	4-6		those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead
	NIV		are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.
			Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."
From: arron@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: A deep bit of flame bait
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:59:45 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

It seems to me that a lot of you readers in TALK.RELIGION.MISC really enjoy
winding up Christians by putting out smart remarks/replies to any old subject.

I would just like to clarify that there is some cause for us to defend our
Faith, it does become very important to us, and I can imagine we do look very
funny biting the way we do.

However, it does leave me sad to think that all you guys out there are so happy
to throw your insults at Christianity just because we appear to be dumb suckers,
and you don't seem to want to take your lives seriously. Study, knowledge and
understanding are all great things, but babies don't learn why they should eat,
or indeed what is and isn't good for them as kids, before they start eating.
Also you can't know exactly what it feels like to gain control of a car sliding
in gravel until you've done it.

Christianity is real life, not textbook life, and you have to give it a go
before you can really experience it. I don't want to make anyone a Christian,
because that could make me proud. I want everyone to look for Christianity
themselves, then the Holy Spirit (who Christ left to support the Church) can do
the work of revealing to you all the truth of Christianity. And I am looking
forward to meeting all of you who seek earnestly for him, in heaven at the end
of these days.

Sorry that I care about you all, but it's too hard to stop me now.

Catchya ... Arron.

*******************************************************************************
from:arron@waikato.ac.nz			Arron Scott
						University of Waikato
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Why do people give Mormons a hard time?
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:38:21 GMT

In reference to your note about Mormons, I think you could substitute the 
word Jehovah's Witnesses just as easily, if not more readily.  Jehovah's
Witnesses are clean, ultra-moral, honest, hard-working, non-racist people 
that are constantly attacked by the media, comedians and people in general.
Having been a JW all of my life, I know what I'm talking about when it comes
to harassment and religious discrimination.  Thousands of JW's were imprisoned
and slaughtered in Auschwitz and other hard-core concentration camps under
the regime of Hitler, and today thousands of JW's are rotting in  prisons
because they refuse to go to war and kill others.  So-called Christians
will readily kill one another on the battlefield, including Mormons killing
Mormons.  However, not one JW will kill. Think, if the world was all JW's,
there would be NO war... Hmmm... So, if you wants to talk about REAL
"hard times", ask a JW what it's all about...

A.A. Parker
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<BzGp8w.J74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:28:58 UTC

In article <BzGp8w.J74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 
ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>The whole point is the term 'pagan' is, I believe how Christians caharcterized
>non-believers. For a person to call themselves pagan is to, at best, engage in
>mocking Christians (not that I have any problem with that, mind you.)  I just
>think it is better to use, oh, I dunno, the actual NAME of your faith system,
>if it has one, and if it doesn't, then why throw a silly Christianity-derived
>term on there?  I find the word is used largely for attention-getting and 
>pretense.

Aren't you being Christo-centric here? There are pagan Christians by the
way. It is true that many Christians use the word pagan in a derogatory
sense, for example: Spreading the one true word of Christ to all the
PAGAN peoples of the PAGAN New World. The implication is that pagan is
old and dumb, useless, backwards, uneducated, uncivilized. You don't
really agree with this propaganda, do you? Isn't the truth quite
evident? Many Christians use the term pagan as an insult, quite ironic
given the paganism that is quite evident in Christianity. Why feed the
propaganda machine and also consider the term pagan to be an insult?
There is nothing insulting or stupid or backwards or uneducated or
uncivilized about being a pagan. As they say, half the story have never
been told. Don't let the Christians dupe you. The history of
Christianity is one of lies built upon lies. That doesn't mean you
should reject Christianity, but if you are interested in the truth, you
should question all, and that certainly includes anything Christian.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An Unprovoked Act of Aggression. (wuz: Re: Luke, Derrida, etc.)
Date: 13 Dec 92 13:30:23 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <fWxE4Bo@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>Hmm...I'm feeling cantankerous today. 
>>M'sieu Harvey...
>>Are you "enlightened" in the Buddhist sense of the term?  That is,
>>have you discovered for yourself the truth of the Buddha's awakening?
> 
> The best have all been humbled, even the great Indra. I sir, am not as
> enlightened as the best. Didn't I clear the land, and didn't I plant the
> corn and didn't I work the fields? I am of the most ordinary, born from
> the dust of the earth, earning my living from the dust of the earth, and
> it is there that I shall return. We are not so different, you and I. We
> are not the first, nor are we the last; a to z, alpha to omega, `aleph
> to tav.

I see. What is the difference between you and "the best?"

>>If you would answer yes, I ask: How did you come to this conclusion (that you
>>are "enlightened")?
> 
> How does one know he or she is enlightened?

That's what I was wondering.

> I stand here before you, at
> least my words do. Why do you ask *me* this question? Is it *one* you
> expect *me* to answer for *you*?

Nope...just curious.

>>If you would answer no, I ask: What makes you think you know what you're
>>talking about?
> 
> I, of course, know exactly what *I'm* talking about. My knowledge of;
> "worlds above and worlds below, no *one* in the world like me" gives me
> this power, this self-assurance. I control the horizontal and the
> vertical. I am not a number, I am a free man! Does my self-confidence 
> make my words any more or less valuable to you? Why?

Nope...just wondering. 

> And, have I not answered your questions, as you have asked of me?

You have indeed. Muchos gracias, senor. 

>>There is nothing outside the text. -- Usenet Survival Guide
> 
> But, there is everything *outside* the text. The letters come alive, a
> to z.

Sort of the "words made flesh," eh?

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Un debauche de profession est rarement un homme pitoyable. -- De Sade.
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec12.131541.9486@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 12 Dec 1992 20:28:06 UTC

In article <1992Dec12.131541.9486@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <fWuOHKc@quack.sac.ca.us>, 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> In article <adams.724125297@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>Just out of curiosity -- what is the source of your confidence?
>>>Good question.  If I say from myself, that denies that there is more to it
>>>than that, and I believe there is.  That confidene comes from God, through
>>>the Holy Spirt.
>>>I suspect that the atheist response to that is that it does come from me,
>>>and me alone, and I just won't take credit for it.
>> Aha! The perfect chance to present my Zen Koan [J. ko,public + an,matter]:
>> "Worlds above and worlds below, no *ONE* in the world like me!"
>[...other koans deleted, in the true Zen spirit...:) ]
>Why do I get the feeling you were just waiting for a chance like that? :)

All my life (lives) I've been waiting. 
How did you know? 
Waiting for what?

>> Of course your confidence comes from God, through the Holy Spirit. 
>> But, these are after all metaphors. For what? 
>> Final Koan: Does saying this, even loudly, make it true?
>I am speechless. (except for that statement..oh, and this one, and the one 
>following this one. This one, too, but you already knew that, from reading
>the previous one. There'll be one more, by the way. Nope, not this one, 
>the one before. This one, and the immediately preceding one, are extras,
>tossed in to make the third one false. This one just slipped in, I dunno
>how.)

Western shotgun style. You like?

In the East, one puts value in quality of word, thus one speaks little
but with great value, covering much ground with few words.

In the West, one puts value in quantity of word, thus one speaks much
and with great volume, covering much ground with many words.

When in Rome, do as the Romans.

The central mountain is known by you as Harney Peak, South Dakota - but
The Central Mountain is everywhere.	- Black Elk

Are you with me on this?	- R. Perot
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:09:50 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

[Regarding Bruce R. McConkie's _Mormon Doctrine_]

In article <BzBEvJ.5u9@javelin.sim.es.com>,
 gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:

[...]
> You don't have to go that far, just try a desparate book store
> in SLC, and you'll find MD in the Missionary section.  Heck, they
> even have special missionary edditions.  (cheaper bindings,
> paperback.  Common binding with other books that have been
> repudiated by mormons on the net as not being appropriate for
> defining mormon doctrine).

Ah, so not inexpensive binding is the indicator if what is
officially endorsed and what is not.

It seems to me that, like other paperbacks, it is more is an
indication of a book that sells well.

So all the paraphernalia in the "Missionary Section" of LDS
bookstores is offical and endorsed by the LDS Church?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc