HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:59:33 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

[I don't have access to alt.pagan - so if it is worthwhile, please
forward this over there.]

In article <1993Jan1.091825.16976@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
|lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
|: > 
|: >Well, it depends on how you define/interpret the teachings....
|: >Honestly, is it fair for pagans to impose the definition of what it
|: >is to be Christian on others?  
|: 
|: I know perfectly well what it is to be Christian.  I was raised in a
|: Missionary Baptist church....not Southern Baptist, MISSIONARY Baptist...
|: you know, the guys that make the Southern Baptist look liberal.  While
|: this probably taints my view some, I still know what it is to be Christian.
|
|I would disagree strongly with your statement. You know that your particular
|sect of Christianity taught. That is all you can get from that sect. 

I disagree strongly with several statements you have made, too.
You seem to quote you understanding of the Scripture, but if you'd
cite the verse and/or contect (by including it in your post), we
see more clearly what you are trying to say.

It seems you need to tell us what you think is wrong with this
particular sect of Christianity, too.  A blanket statment about
the failure of a group to accurately represent Christianity
doesn't carry much weight.

|My mother was a devout Christian. However, she was also one of the most
|tolerant people I ever knew - far more so than most pagans I have met.

Here, you need to show us that tolerance is a desirable characteristic.
It may be desirable today for those who think nothing is wrong or that
there are no absolutes, but that is precisely the point.  Some of the
characteristics or rather gifts of the Spirit of Christianity are: love,
joy. peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentelness,
and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23.)

...

|: Once again I am discussing philosophies, not trying to divide.  Christians
|: would call the woman who refers to herself as Pagan/Christian a blasphemer.
|: She is welcomed among us.
|
|Once again, you are using too broad a brush. There are, believe it or not,
|many Christians who do not feel this way. I have met a number of them. Don't
|forget that there are also tolerant Christians.

Again, tolerance of sin or worship of things or beings other than God
is not a desirable trait.  The Apostle Paul tells us that there are
many lords and gods, but to us there is One.

|Bill

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
                          --|--   
Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:26016 alt.atheism:25831
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:07:38 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan12.141526.17765@pdn.paradyne.com>, nelson@pdn.paradyne.com (Bill Nelson) writes:
>
> I agree, the death (or at least bankruptcy) of our country does seem possible
> within the next few years.  But to blame that on people like Pat Robertson is
> not correct.  Our society was founded on Christian values but has progressively
> moved away from them.  In turn, the crime rate has sky-rocketed and instead
> of teachers worrying about students with gum in their mouths, raising their 
> hand to speak, or sticking someone's hair in an inkwell, they have to worry 
> about kids rioting, selling drugs, and carrying (using) guns.  Is there a
> correlation?  Some say yes, some say no, you decide.  Pat Robertson's stance
> is simply that he *does* believe that it is these movements away from Christian
> values that is causing the problems and he is taking action to try and 
> correct this.  Others on the other side of the fence that don't agree with him
> are taking actions of their own based on what *they* believe to be the roots of
> the problem.

I think it's worth reading this paragraph carefully, for it seems 
to me to be based on the "choose what to believe" ethic we were 
discussing earlier this week.

What Mr Nelson does here is to present a little rant about social
conditions, and then say that Pat Robertson has a "stance" which
is that he "does" believe that this-and-that is due to a move away
from Christianity.

Then you're invited to view the whole thing in terms of what one
side "believes" or what the other side "believes".

Well, it's not that simple.    We don't gain knowledge by picking
a side, and choosing to believe what that side yells at us.    If
Pat Robertson wants to convince any rational person of anything, 
he ought to spend a little less time making fiery speeches, and a 
little more time on research and constructing logical arguments.
It's not enough to yell "Here's some bigoted claims for you.  If
you like them, they're yours".

I've started to think that one of the most destructive influences
that Christianity has on our society is the way in which it tries
to reduce all questions to "who do you believe".   Running your 
life as though you just have to decide who to believe is a seriously
dumbed-down way to live, because you are effectively handing over
control of the agenda to competing demagogues, and then letting the 
mob decide which demagogue they like best.

Pontius Pilate tried that technique, and look who the mob chose.

jon. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:28:59 GMT

In article <fXE0AtT@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Except that Christians seem to choose to ignore it, even the ancient
>Hebrews did with their practice of bringing the ark of the covenant into
>battle. 
  And we all know how well that worked, don't we.
(For those who don't remember, the Phillistines captured it.)


-- 
Mike Swaim            | "101 Dalmations? Yeah I saw that."
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | "You Did! REALLY? The same film?
Disclamer: I lie      | Let's stop driving! We must get out and jump
up and down and up and down and dance around and around!" Matt and Delerium
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:36:02 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <Bzs8pv.AJz@acsu.buffalo.edu> bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:

>	Not really. `Creator of all things' includes *time*.
>	The LDS Jesus didn't create time.

And you have some Biblical statement that God created time?
I think the notion that God created time flows from philosophical
idealism and not revealed religion.
There are LDS who think God is outside time, incidentally,
although I don't agree with them.  

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 7 Jan 1993 18:11:01 UTC

In article <1993Jan7.013543.8389@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> 
billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>someone wrote:
>:   You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything
>: that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or is in the 
>: water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
>:for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity
>: of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me.
>This has nothing to do with the argument - it is a straw man.

Except that Christians seem to choose to ignore it, even the ancient
Hebrews did with their practice of bringing the ark of the covenant into
battle. Idolatry is a tricky thing. Why is it bad? Because it is easy to
worship the idol and forget what the idol is supposed to symbolize. In
the end, the transcendent is transcendent. Idols are only idols.

>: Exodus 34:14
>: for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous,
>: is a jealous God.
>This might have some meaning. I will have to check my Bibles. Maybe our
>scholar at Brown will comment on this - from primary sources - not the
>politically correct babbling (for the time) if the KJ version (which is
>frequently the basis for more recent versions.

JPS has Impassioned, so KJV is not far off with this translation. Some
points to keep in mind: The Mosaic Law is the Law of and for the Hebrew
tribe. If you are Jewish (Hebrew) and you take this Law literally, then
it would be wise to follow, not because of punishment or reward in the
next life, but because of punishment or reward in this life, the only
life you will get. If you are not Jewish, then *your* tribal Laws,
whatever they may be, apply to your case. In any case, it should be
obvious that we are seeing a patriarchal war god here, through the human
eyes of ancients who were patriarchal warriors. The key word is
Jealous/Impassioned. Have we progressed any since then towards the
Golden Age of the future or have we regressed from the Golden Age of the
past? Is this passage of *Exodus* a command or a test? If you worship a
Jealous God, then surely it is wise to worship no other for fear of
invoking jealousy in your Jealous God. So, the question is: Do you worship
a Jealous God? Is Jealous transcendent or human?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 1/7/93   God's Promise in Romans 8:34
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:50:19 GMT

psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>	Who is he that condemneth?
>	It is Christ that died,
>	yea rather,
>	that is risen again,
>	who is even at the right hand of God,
>	who also maketh intercession for us.


	Ah, this Jesus fellow?
	Who died but then came back to life again,
	so that his death meant nothing?
	Who was fully man, so he could not have known what it is to be God?
	Who was fully God, so he could not have known what it is to be man?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:14:00 GMT

ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:

>This is why I'm going through the effort of creating a system of Ceremonialism
>which is all in English.  The whole point of my system is to have something
>simple, clear, and meaningful.  I don't have too many good sources to draw on
>in CM. :) :(

Have you done any reading in the works of William Gray?  He relates the paths
of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life to English letters, and the elements to the
English vowels...etc...

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:29:35 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:

>In article <root.726157599@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>Because I beleive it to be proper...since I believe in God, then such
>>action is proper...
>Forgive my lack of understanding...since I do share your premises, I fail
>to understand your conclusion.  I sense that we will go in circles on
>this forever...not claiming that either of us is "right," but just that
>we are different.

I think you are correct in this...I'm having trouble expressing it any
other way...

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

There is a difference between regret and repent.  At this time, I regret
one thing in particular, but there are others that I neither regret nor
repent....even though I know they are wrong in God's eyes.  Guess I'm in
serious trouble...

>>I don't see that I give up on who I am by honoring God and humbling myself
>>before Him.  I *WANT* to do it...
>
>"He loved Big Brother."  (George Orwell, _1984_)

This about sums it up, I guess...that's why I removed the stuff above it.
There really isn't much of a free choice, as I've conceded to Sean
Hartigan.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: ankh (you very much?)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:29:12 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b


Folks,
   I have recently become aware of a lot (relatively) of people, specifically
women, wearing ankhs.  Do they have a current symbolism, or have they become 
a new "in" thing (again)?

	mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: 1/3/92   God's Promise in Hebrews 9: 12
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:22:15 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

In article <1993Jan3.064314.5279@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>
>>	Neither by the blood of goats and calves,
>>	but by his own blood
>>	he entered in once into the holy place,
>>	having obtained eternal redemption for us.
>>
>>	Hebrews 9:12
>
>
>	Yet not content to take the blood of his beloved son,
>	still the god kills thousands by the day:
>	many not even with the mercy of blood,
>	but rather through the slow torture of starvation.
>	If this is what it means to be saved,
>	perhaps it would be better to risk our own fate.
>
>	Personal experience
>
>-- 
>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
>/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
>  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
> /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau

Again, the invalid pressumption that God is the culprit behind
all the bad stuff in the world.

God gave us wills of our own.  As it was in the beginning, so
it is now.  Men are still finding scapegoats for their own
irresponsibilities.

------------------
Brian Ceccarelli
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JESUS DIED AND IS RISEN (Re: Jesus Has Died)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 17:15:43 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan11.025855.16617@news.ysu.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>
>JESUS HAS RISEN!!!!

Only if he is placed in a bowl and left in a warm
moist place for two hours.

(interminable bible quotations, mercifully deleted)

Did you actually READ any of this stuff before you wasted
gobs of bandwidth?  Did you notice the numerous incongruities
and contradictions between the different resurrection stories?

What is your point?  Did you expect thousands of eager net.readers
to say, "Hmm, Jesus is Risen.  I didn't know that.  Sounds 
interesting, tell me more"?  Did you expect us to throw ourselves
prostrate in front of our terminals and weep, "Oh, Jesus, forgive
me, boo hoo hoo"?  Or are you just a net.graffiti artist, and your
terminal is an acceptable substitute for a can
of spray paint?

Is any part of your brain still capable of critical analysis?
Return to Earth, and you will be saved!

-- 
---  Overheard on soc.religion.christian:
By our sin, you and I and Wesley Allen Dodd are guilty of killing
the Son of God, Jesus Christ; THAT IS worse than killing and raping children.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: bast@wam.umd.edu (Jaguar)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:47:02 GMT


Well, there is an interesting rebuttal to that quote.
For reading on the topic I sugest  The Gnostic Gosples
and other books by Elaine Pagels.
It has been sugessted that line represents a pwoer grab by early church, 
in order to establish itself as the supreme authority in spiritual matters.
Some contend that the biblical texts have been heavily edited by the early church.
In the gnostic gospel of thomas there is the quote attributed to jesus:
Jesus said. " I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become 
drunk from the bubbling stream which I have measured out.... He who will
drink from my mouth will become as I am : I myself shall become he, and the
things that are hidden will be revaealed to him."
Quite different in flavor heh?
disputes on biblical texts are what caused all those sdifferent christian
sects. Starting way back in the !s 1st century.
Not all have the same views as the modern fundamentalisit.
The gnostic christian sects were much more open mided. More like pagan
or eastern outlook to thier religion.
Jaguar
hiding the l kindling.....
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:01:02 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <fXwN2t9@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Judaism does not reject other religions or Gods. The LORD of the Hebrews
>is the only LORD - of the *Hebrews*. Judaism is not a conversion religion
>and there is no after death penalty or reward.

I think the Jews did convert people - they still do today.

If there is no after death penalty or reward, why did Job say that
he would see God in his flesh?  To you or in Judaism, is there
a life after death?  God is the God of the Living not of the
dead.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
                          --|--   
Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Straight talk on free will. Only for the brave.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1993Jan10.124222.10050@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 10 Jan 1993 20:42:17 UTC

In article <1993Jan10.124222.10050@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <fXL3X08@quack.sac.ca.us>, 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> In article <1inem1INNdbp@hp-col.col.hp.com> 
>> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>> So here it is, the Last Word on free will: It doesn't exist! So forget it!
>>>> If you think you have free will, that's your delusion.
>>>Is it a matter of free will to accept or deny this delusion?  ;-) 
>> YES!
>Could you explain what you mean by this? I sort of feel like I want to 
>agree with you, but I need to know more about what you mean.

Hmm. You of course realize that you are asking me to violate the elegant
simplicity of my poetic response. It obviously meant something to you
and that is in fact the meaning, the meaning of the metaphor, the beauty
in the eye of the beholder. Why do you say you want to agree with me? It
is your own thoughts you want to agree with. I have done nothing but
answer a question in a way probably not expected, a rather simple device
even Zarathustra's Ape could manage. I have provided no other meaning,
only a catalyst. And the catalyst works because my unexpected response
makes others think I must have great insite, I must be the true
individual, the true overman, but I am not the one. You are the one who
has seen something. It would not be wise of me to mess with your
vision. Tell us what *you* have seen, and *I* will agree, but - probably
not in the way you expect. That is all right, it is not easy to capture
in words that which words can not capture.

>NOTHING WILL HAVE TAKEN PLACE...
>BUT THE PLACE.
>EXCEPT, PERHAPS...
>A CONSTELLATION.

The central mountain is known by you as Harney Peak, South Dakota, but -
the central mountain is everywhere. - Black Elk Speaks
From: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WHEN does human life BEGIN?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 04:44:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says:

>In article <1icth2INNiol@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes...
>> 
>>[lengthy quotes omitted--go back to #66273 if you'd like to read
>>them]
>
>	Numbers are meaningless to reference a post when you are 
>sending a message to the "outside." Each system or node has a 
>different numbering.

Sorry, I'm new to the newsgroups...still learning.
>
>> 
>>Throughout the Bible, the beginning of life is associated with the
>>first breath. Likewise, the end of life is associated with
>>the last breath. Simple. If that doesn't fit people's theology or
>>denominational dogma, oh well.
>
>	Well, how does Jeremiah 20:17 fit into the above dogma?
>
>	``because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would 
>have been my grave...'

What is your point? Jeremiah was bemoaning the difficult job God had given
him, saying, essentially, that he was sorry he had been born. I don't see
what this has to do with the issue at hand at all. By the way, the beauty
ofthe KJV is that it italicizes words added/changed from the earlier
texts...just an extra 2 cents from me. :)
 
>>The bottom line is that the government has NO right to legislate to women
>>what they can do with their bodies. And the vicious "rescue" groups that
>
>	You mean that they are making the choice to abort their own 
>bodies?
>
>No, they are making a choice to abort a fetus, which has not yet breathed.
You have the right to your opinion, whether expressed sarcastically or not.

=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
>

Someone smarter than I once said (but for the life of me I don't know who):

   A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I'm not trying to get anyone to change, just to think rationally and 
nonjudgmentally. Too many people (Christians and otherwise) are too
busy judging others instead of nurturing their own relationship with
God.

Linda Zinn
-- 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25903 alt.atheism:25733