HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Bring On the Cases....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:13:04 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

] > rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
] > >Depends on the situation - I can see why one would not want a homosexual
] > >representing one's company.

Please Do feel Free to Clarify this point at any time Richard.
] 
] Our company actually has a rule that it is illegal to discriminate
] based on sexual preferences. Actually this rule is now law in California.
] It's another great step towards equality amongst humans. I don't see
] *any* cases where homosexuals should not represent a company, with the
] exception of prejudice (which is not allowed anyway by the new laws,
] haha!).

sorta sums up the american way rather neatly 
there kent....

Maybe in Richard's world there is some
other way of doing things?

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Research by Encyclopedia and Christian Propaganda was (I'm God)
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:10:30 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <BvvD28.E28@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
|In article <70546@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
|rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>The encyclopedia I looked at this afternoon had 10 pages on Jesus Christ,
|>but it only had about 2 pages on Julius Caesar and associated Juliuses.
|
|ENCYCLOPEDIA! Please! Ask a reference librarian for some basic history books.
|Check out the library, if you want to learn the TRUTH!

That's what I did.  They had the American Encyclopedia and the World Book,
I used the former.

|Do you really want to know the TRUTH? Ask a reference librarian. The TRUTH
|is not to be found in Christian propaganda.

The library branch I went to did not have a book on Tyre.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God created the Word?
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:08:11 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Oct9.120648.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|Can anyone explain the following verse in terms of the Trinity (note: I am not
|a JW):
|   The Lord possessed (created) me (the Word) in the beginning of His way,
|   before his works of old.
|                          Proverbs 8:22
|--Ray Cote 

   Prov 8:12   "I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge
      and discretion.

It is wisdom and not Jesus nor the Word that was created - widsom is the
focus of Proverbs 8.

Here is the account of Jesus, he who was responsible for making all things,
including wisdom.

   John 1:1   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
      the Word was God.
      John 1:2   He was with God in the beginning.
   John 1:3   Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made
      that has been made.

   John 1:14   The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have
      seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father,
      full of grace and truth.

   John 1:18   No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at
       the Father's side, has made him known.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Idaho (criticism that "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers)
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:38:44 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Oct12.180113.3311@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>In the spirit of the parody, I have question the ability of a
>disbeliever to travel to "Idaho" and independently verify that it
>exists.  How will he know that he has entered "Idaho" without relying
>on the testimony of believers?

Because "Idaho" is defined differently from "God".  Idaho is defined as "so-
and-so land in so-and-so place with so-and-so government".  You'll know that
you're in Idaho because land and place and government are things you can check
for yourselves.  There's no question of only believers being able to see the
land.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Two kinds of judging
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:51:05 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: Judgement and jury duty
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

It seems to me that the Bible talks about two kinds of judging.

There's one kind, where the purpose is to be judge, jury and executioner
(particularly executioner). In this kind of judging the motive in the
judge is to put someone else down as opposed to helping them.

The other kind of judging is that of making an appraisal. If the appraisal
finds someone or something in a negative position, the motive in the judge
is to help and restore. I forget the reference and which translation but it
goes something like, "The spiritual man judges all things." Other translations
use appraise instead of the word judge. 

In the old testament we have the book of Judges. The judges were held in
high regard. Jesus talked about going before the judge and nowhere 
indicated that the position of judge was bad. Paul admonished us as
Christians that we shouldn't go to the world's law courts because Christians
should be competent to judge those type of matters.

The issue in judging is a matter of heart. When you find the desire to 
harm or put down in your judgement, scripure teaches that that is a sign
to look within. Judge not, for in that you judge, you judge yourself for
you do the very same thing.

-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
			If you don't know the truth, I hope you'll find it.
			If you do know the truth, I hope you'll maintain 
			   at least some semblance of humility.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Heresy was (Re: Mormons are not Christians)
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:05:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct9.132753.6411@infonode.ingr.com>, tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes...

[...]

> Rose and other Evag. "Christians":  Even little children are inheirently
>      Sinfull. It is their nature, because of a sexual act on th part of 
>      their parents.

	No, it not the result of sex in marriage, it is the result of 
our nature. Ephesians 2:1-3. We are by nature children of wrath.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Jesus's bloodline mystery and two different Jesus's was (I'm God.)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct12.150842.5351@digi.lonestar.org> 
	<ksand-121092120612@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:19:18 GMT

In article <ksand-121092120612@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.150842.5351@digi.lonestar.org>,
>gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) wrote:
>> The argument that Luke's genealogy refers to Mary does not stand
>> up very well.  There definitely appear to be two genealogies of 
>> Joseph.  Assuming that neither account is in error, we have a dilemma.
>> Or, rather, a mystery.  There is another possible solution that cannot
>> be resolved on the basis of the speculative debate format of this 
>> newsgroup, but it is at least worth mentioning for anyone who would like
>> to explore it further.  The resolution lies in that Matthew and Luke 
>> are talking about two different children and two different sets of parents.
>> The names (Jesus, Joseph, and Mary) are the same.  This is based on the
>> work of Rudolf Steiner, which is neither meant to be taken on faith or
>> taken as a speculative interpretation.
>If we want to further speculate we are dealing with identical twins, and one
>of them died, and the other appeared afterwards and the disciples believed
>that he rose from the dead! Wow, this starts to get really interesting.
>However, I would like to point out that the Gospels concerning the
>genealogies are a mystery; either a problem adjusting two different
>writer's background information (the most likely problem), or then
>there's something fundamental that the writers didn't inform the
>readers (less likely). As long as we don't know the hidden meaning
>why we have two genealogies, the Occams razor tells us to rationalize
>and select the most obvious case, in other words the Gospel writers screwed
>up.

Those were my words exactly. Of course there are those who still insist
that the Bible is 100% true, yet we know that this can not be the case.
Clearly there is only one possibility, the Bible is a myth.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: What is Halloween?
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:12:16 GMT


What is the purpose of Halloween?
When and why was it started?
Why are ghosts, witches, skeletons, and fixation on death key symbols?

Comments are welcomed!
-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:22:17 GMT
Summary: Must all accounts be perfect?
Keywords: LDS, Mormon, Joseph Smith


As I was continuing to collect the Daily LDS Bashing to see if there is
anything significant to add to my response, I read Robert Weiss' critique
of the various accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision. Based on what Mr.
Weiss chooses to relate and what he fails to discuss I am assuming that
his source is based on the Tanners' material (which was composed around
1968).

If Mr Weiss wants me to take a few days off and type in a number of
lengthy articles that directly responded to the Tanners I will be glad
to do so.  If not, may I suggest that Mr Weiss, Rose, et al. take an
hour or so and carefully look at a number of published responses:

First, please look at Dean C. Jessee, "The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith's
First Vision," _BYU Studies, vol 9 (Spring, 1969), no 3. He covers the basic
documents, similarities, and differences.

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

Third, may I suggest Marvin Hill, "The First Vision Controversy: A Critique
and Reconciliation," _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_, vol 15 (Summer
1982), no 2.  Sometimes I think that only those graduate students who
survived Hill's History of American Religion class or his course on Jacksonian
Americana can appreciate how throughly he examines the differing points of
view. I find it difficult to swallow the Tanners interpretation or to take
Wesley P. Walters very seriously after watching Hill pick everything to
pieces.

Since all three articles have been published by "Mormon Miscellaneous" I
doubt that there will be too much problem concerning typing them all in.
Is it worth it? I doubt that the net critics will pay any attention to it.
The only value that I can see is to have it in ascii form for the next time
Weiss or someone one else decides to down load their data base again.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
From: jhays@boi.hp.com (John_D. Hays)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:05:59 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division

In article <1992Oct14.190632.21593@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
>> IMHO, at a distance from which the people in the BoM claim to be
>> getting to within 6 miles of the center of Jerusalem, I think is
>> pretty darn good. Couple that with the description of his mother
>> and the way that she concieved, you'r proably right there were
>> two of 'em born at the same time.
>
>The LDS 'description of his mother and the way she conceived' is
>not the Bible description.  The LDS historically have taught that
>the 'virgin birth' was merely God the father, an exalted man with
>a body of flesh and bones, having sex with Mary.  LDS leaders
>have stated this repeatedly, their is nothing figurative in their
>language.  Jesus was the son of the Father in a literal way, begot
>in the same manner we beget children.
>
>Mark
><standard disclaimer>

Mark,

Would you get off your sexual hangups...

LDS, do not now, nor have they in the past taught that God the Father
and Mary had physical sex.

LDS teach that God the Father is the literal Father of Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of the Father.  This does not imply physical
contact --- LDS have no scripture or doctrine describing the process
of Jesus' procreation.  I am sure you can come up with a bunch of
quotes how one LDS or another said that it was a "natural" process
or that it was "like" or "in the same way" that our children come
into the world, these statements do not say, nor specifically imply
a physical union, only that the coming of Jesus Christ into the world
was accomplished through the natural birth process.  There is such a
thing as non-copulating reproduction, why even we mortals have figured
out artificial insemenation and "test tube" fertalization, would it
be so difficult for God the Father to cause His gamete to 
occupy the space near the gamete of the mortal woman Mary so that
an embryo could be formed and that this embryo would develop into
His son?  This process would be "natural" for God the Father, who
is not bound by many of the same time and space constraints as
the rest of us, it would be "natural" yet miraculous, Mary would
remain a virgin (having been with no man) and yet would carry the
Son of God in her womb.  I speculate that role of the Holy Ghost
in this whole process was to carry out the will of the Father in
causing the placement of the gamete.

It is a carnal mind which twists Holy events to a base description.

John
-- 
John D. Hays [KD7UW]           |Email: [UUCP]          ...!hplabs!hpdmd48!jhays
Firmware Engineer              |       [INTERNET]              jhays@boi.hp.com
Boise Printer Division         |       [GEnie]                             HAYS
Boise, Idaho                   |       [Compu$erve]                   72725,424
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:20:43 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <71065@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> |Sigh, these are the things I oppose. Imagination used to create all kinds
> 
> You oppose all of these things I mentioned????????
 
I oppose the way to use imagination to fix problems mentioned in the
Bible. This is not how the words of Jesus should be used in real life.

> |of hypertext links from one place in the Bible to another. Even worse,
> 
> Where did I use imagination to connect these things?????????
> Read Luke 2:10-11 and John 1:1-18 (note verses 1 and 14.) and see
> who is this Jesus of Nazerath - is he a noble man?

You gave an excellent sample of how Christians work by using various
small snippets of statements, and building a higher level of abstraction
using such patch work. You know, I could do exactly the same thing to
build a Zen-Islam-oriented Christian church. And this is the way we
have created all the other alternate Christian churches as well. 

It's not exactly a nice way to use Jesus' words to create your own
favourite doctrines. I don't think he would have accepted this method
as well.

> |to use what Jesus said to justify all kinds of strange doctrines. No wonder
> |we have so many original Christian sects...
> 
> Which words of Jesus do you question as being the reason for there
> being so many original Christian sects?  Which original sects?

The original church was the one founded in Jerusalem. Paul got into
his way, and started to create his own alternate system in the land
of Gentiles. Ultimately the Jerusalem church withered away when the
second coming never happened, and the Romans crushed the Jewish
culture. Meanwhile Paul gathered more forces and took control from
the disciples themselves (!).

> Could it be that common sense is blinded to the message?  Paul tells
> us that things of the spirit are hidden from those without the spirit.
> Jesus told us that he spoke in parables, which fulfilled the prophecy
> of people ever hearing, but not understanding - ever seeing, but not
> perceiving.

If you state that common sense is blinded by bizarre imagination, fine
with me. If your brand of faith can't stand common sense, then it's your
own problem, not mine. I actually do believe that a possible God is
a *smart* person, and he/she/it would create doctrines that *nobody*
could question. It's one sign of omnipotence, actually.

> What was your father's cousin's independent confirmation, which you
> previously said he had?

He saw Jesus many times, and ultimately he killed himself due to
personal problems. I don't want to talk more about this personal
tragedy, actually, it was a really sad case.

Regards,
Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: WANTED: A Christian in or near Mobile, Alabama
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:13:52 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu


If you are a Christian, or even if you aren't, I would like you to
contact me by e-mail.  This concerns the arresting of a pastor in
Mobile for harrassment.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
From: luriem@reis54.alleg.edu (Michael Lurie)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: question
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:19:31 GMT
Organization: Allegheny College

Are there any Jewish students at allegheny?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Idaho (criticism that "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers)
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 14:15:27 GMT

In response to my partenthetical comment,

> (There are, of course, vast differences between the claim that Idaho
> exists and the various claims about Jesus.  Valid criticisms can be
> made of the latter.  But this particular criticism [that the
> "evidence" for "Jesus" comes only from believers] is pathetic.)

Charles Board wrote,

>There is one CRUCIAL difference. A disbeliever in "Idaho exists" can
>independently verify that the statement is true (by going there) - he
>does not HAVE to rely on the testimony of the believers.

This is a different criticism, one of the "valid criticisms" I already
mentioned, and one which I am not addressing.

My only point has been that the fallacy of the criticism that
"evidence" for "Jesus" comes to light when the parallel criticism is
applied to "evidence" for "Idaho."  The response above does not
counter that point (perhaps it was not intended to do so).
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:57:09 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <46P002N026nP01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>My point was simply this:  It is apparent from the writings of Paul, that
>it is possible for a counterfeit to show up, and indeed will.  The gospel
>and Jesus of the LDS church is certainly "different" than that of the
>orthodoxed Christian faith.

So how do you tell the difference between a counterfeit and a real one?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.atheism
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:27:49 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <BvqBt1.956@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.190910.6964@unislc.uucp>, mls@unislc.uucp (Michael Simons) writes...
>[...]
>
>>I think you'll find that if you use the Fundamentalist Muckraker definition
>>of Christianity that pretty much everyone but them are excluded.  Mr. Rose
>>should tell us if he includes Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic,
>>Church of England, Presbyterian, Unitarian, etc, in his definition of
>>Christianity.
>
>Mike,
>	This is called equivocation.
>	Address the issue please.............
>	and let the unitarians rest in peace.
>
>
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu


I agree with Robert, but to answer the question, whether you are a
Christian or not has nothing to do with what organization you belong to.
What matters is:  Do you know ABOUT Him, or do you KNOW Him?

-Mr. Rose
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: QUESTION
Keywords: Typical Anti-Mormon Misuse of Social Statistics
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:59:30 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct13.112556.7628@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
>In article <abZS02GF25lb01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>I am not exactly sure where Mr Rose got his particular social statistics
>(though he doesn't actually show us any numbers), but they are not unlike

>As for the murder rate. Perhaps Mr Rose will be so kind as to provide the
>actual statistics with comparisons to the national averages and some sources
>to follow up on.
>-- 
>
>              Willard C. Smith
>  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
>   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                   (You might!!)


I'll look at my references and post my results.  My stats came from a
secular source.

subject pending.......