HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:15:56 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>In article <adams.712528909@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>But Paul, the bible is a book telling us how God intervened directly in Man's
>>affairs back then not now!!!  The bible was written aforetime for our
>>instruction today.  Why would GOD have any reason to involve himself in our
>>affairs today if we already have an instruction book per se?  Tell me, how 
>>many times have you heard the phrase: "if all else fails read the 
>>instructions"?

>Why would God have any reason to send Jesus to redeem mankind and involve
>himself in the affairs of the day, if they already had an instruction book
>per se?   Tell me, isn't the Torah an instruction manual?    Didn't it
>exist at the time of Christ?  Wasn't it considered Scripture?  (The Law and
>The Prophets)?  Remember, the Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers
>and Deuteronomy.

>Did God not send his son to redeem us right around 33 CE?  
But by your statment, we already HAD the rules...The Law and The Prophets.
Why would God have any reason to interfere at that point?

>Does that date come anywhere near 1992?  
No...that's not the point.

>Do you see anyone being resurrected today as happened in Jesus's day?  
Not with my own eyes...

>Do you see any miracles in the magnitude as was in Jesus day?
Depends on what you claim for miracles.  Healing the sick?  That's fairly
easy to do these days.  Miraculous cures?  They happen.  Unexplained
survival of horrible accidents?  It happens?

How about the TWA jetliner that burned in NY yesterday...it was a miracle
that noone was badly hurt...or was it just 'happenstance'?

>Some books of the bible were available then but not bound and as widely
>available as it is today.  Don't you agree?  
The Law and the Prophets were widely know to the Jews, God's chosen people.
They had lots of religious teachers to remind them...

>How could God hold them to something that not everyone had?
Hmm...sounds just like today...not everyone has access to the gospel....

>>Seems there's a problem with your arguement.  Try again.
>Why do you believe my argument be faulty?
Because you seem to think that God doesn't act in our affairs now, and give
as a reason an arguement that could have been made in the period before
Christ...and many times before.  Why do you think that the book of Judges
says "and Israel did evil in the eyes of the Lord, and He raised up a judge
(leader)" to bring her back??  Doesn't he provide similar guidence today?
What about the prophets?  How are they different than someone today telling
you to repent for fear of God's just punishment?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "Evidence" of god
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:14:51 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <59210@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>
>I've been around on this subject many times before with Mr. Gibson.  I
>don't think that the standards that he brings to this dicussion are
>realistic.  Proofs require a shared proof method, and this is lacking here.

I agree with Mr. Wingate when he says that unless we can agree
on the standards to be applied to the proof process, we can do
little but argue past each other.

However, I disagree with him when he claims that, for reasons not
entirely clear, we can't use some standards with which _I_ am
familiar, and which _I_ can employ.  Unfortunately, he doesn't
suggest any as an alternative.



-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The Bible and Abortion (was: The sin of shaving)
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:18:25 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Regarding abortion and Numbers 5:12-31 --

n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
[...]
> Note that: 
>    a) NOWHERE in this passage is their ANY HINT that God disapproves
>       of abortion!
> and
>    b) NOWHERE ELSE in the Bible is their ANY direct reference to abortion!

Numbers 5:12-31 does not seem to me to be a *direct* reference to
abortion, and it specifically applies only to cases of adultery. 
That's a rather limited scope wouldn't you say?

Exodus 21:22-23 is not a direct reference to abortion either, but
itmore explicit (concise?) that Numbers 5:22-23, and a bit more
direct:

"If men stive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit
depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be
punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and
he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"
(Exodus 21:22-23)

That what the KJV says.  How does the NIV and NASB render it?

--
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:04:24 GMT

From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
> <10068@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) said:
>>In article <84#x9g@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>><forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>><>From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
>><>> 
>><>> Can you list for me 10 merciful, loving, and sacrificial things that your 
>><>> god did for humans that was not done expressly for gaining or maintaining
>><>> converts.  In other words, he did them solely because they were to 
>><>> please others.
>>
>>[stories from the Gospels discussed]
>>
>><But you can't attest to the motives behind ANY of these things.
>>
>>The motives are debatable, because the effect is both that people
>>benefit from the deeds and that they are amazed by the tricks Jesus
>>knows, and become or are reconfirmed as his followers.  Was the goal
>>to feed the hungry/heal the ill and the side effect to impress the
>>crowd, or was it vice versa?  Here's a difficult question.
> 
> Hard to believe an omnipotent being didn't realize the end results of his
> actions.  If it was only to benefit the individual at that time and not to
> gain converts later then I'm sure that this god could have kept these
> "miracles" out of the bible altogether.
> 
> Gordon

In fact, he did keep most of them out.

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Organization: .
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:30:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.005000.15405@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>> 
>>>> Hard to believe an omnipotent being didn't realize the end results of his
>>>> actions.  If it was only to benefit the individual at that time and not to
>>>> gain converts later then I'm sure that this god could have kept these
>>>> "miracles" out of the bible altogether.
>>>
>>>In fact, he did keep most of them out.
>> 
>> Ok, Suzanne, Prove this one.
>
>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.

An odd standard of proof you have, Suzanne.  Next thing we know, you'll
be using said standard to prove that pi is 3 (of course, your weakness
in the field of geometry has been noted before).

>Still, we need not even look to biblical times for miracle cures by Jesus which

How you know Jesus had anything to do with them, did someone get his
autograph, finger prints, picture?  Maybe it was just somebody who
looked like him.  And what does your standard of proof say about
these later-day events?

>have not been recorded in the bible.   History is full of such cures and signs

Oh dear, then they don't meet your standard of proof, do they?

>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.

None of these events are supported by your standard of proof.  Maybe
you should get a better standard of proof.

>See whatcher missin', Keith?

At least his tires roll.
-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: SLOW DOWN!!
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 25 Jul 1992 22:16:54 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes,

>In every article posted on this group concerning my original post that
>HOMOSEXUALS ANYWHERE ARE WRONG, there has been nothing but arguing and
>bickering.  We are acting like little children.  I am sorry now I even
             ??
>posted the thing.

The "nothing but arguing and bickering"  which you dismissively refer to is
disagreement with
both the substance and the tone of your article.  Did you expect that
in a group called talk.religion.MISC that your decidedly Christian
pronouncements would  pass by unremarked upon?

>Would God in any form look on all this bickering favorably?  NO.  I regret
>sincerely the trouble I have caused by bringing this obviously sensitive
>matter into the open here.  Let me then, put your minds on a different
>task.  Answer for me this question please if you can.  (Questions deleted)

Bringing "this obviously sensitive matter into the open here"  is not at issue.
You must be new in these parts.   This topic is so mucH IN THE OPEN HERE THAT
IT WILL BE DECLARED A NATIONAL PARK IF IT TAKES Up any more space!


>I will accept ONLY scriptural referrences as valid answers.  OR, PERSONAL
>TESTIMONY !!  NOT personal opinion.  The bible does say after all, that we
>will defeat the devil and his agents by the power of the word of God, and
>by our testimony.  (or at least something to that effect.)

"ONLY scriptural references" eh?   Shall we guess which scriptures?
Is it safe for the Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Santerians, etc.
-- not to mention the atheists and agnostics --  to put away their
references for another day and another topic?  Are we to assume that the
"our testimony" referred to is somehow different from your opinions?

>Let's try to keep this in perspective please.

Perspective is what you are in large measure lacking, and this post is
perhaps even more offensive that the previous one.  Talk.religion.MISC,
remember?  If your ukase limits the discussion to a Christian frame of
reference it might be more appropriate to take it to an exclusively
Christian netgroup or mailing list.  Christian diktats for Christians,
Mr. Gross.  This is an open group and the limits you seek to impose
are inappropriate.

Jack Carroll.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:37:05 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Jul29.134833.28005@brtph560.bnr.ca> n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
>
>[Examples of laws Christians conveniently ignore deleted]
>And let's not forget Numbers 5:12-31, where god not only approves of but
>COMMANDS that abortions be performed on women suspected of adultery. This
>is the ONLY place the Bible directly addresses the subject of abortion...
>have you ever heard a fundie anti-choice preacher address it?

COULD YOU QUOTE some of these specific verses, for I read them and
do not see at all what you are talking about.

The offerings mentioned are for the jealousy (founded or unfounded) that
the husband had about his wife, who may or may not have committed adultery.

The concluding verse Numbers 5:31 says that "Then shall the man be free
from iniquity and the woman shall bear her guilt."   The point is that
the offerings were made for the man's actions/thoughts of jealousy and
the curse was for the woman's act of adultery, but if she had not
committed adultery, then she would not have to bear any guilt and if
she had no guilt, then she bore none.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Summary: All of my friends are lumberjacks and only a few are homosexuals
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:28:09 GMT
	<sbuckley.712260813@sfu.ca> <1992Jul27.185917.29741@cs.yale.edu> 
	<sbuckley.712266946@sfu.ca>

In article <sbuckley.712266946@sfu.ca> 
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
<  i did not mean to imply that because i was depressed and despairing that
<god necessarily exists.  rather, i meant that thinking the whole biblical
<ball of wax was just crap was an opinion i began to re-assess when my life
<was miserable.  my belief in jesus, the bible, god etc depends on more than
<just me having been depressed.  it had to do with my internal belief in god,
<rationally analyzing the irrational hatred of christianity i held, clearly
<and calmly exploring why one would be a christian and comparing it with the
<dozens of other spiritual practices/thoughts that i had examined and that
<had utterly failed to provide any peace in my heart.

What was there of Christianity that you hated? And how is Christianity better
than Islamism, Shiitism, Suniism, Gnosticism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, 
Zenism, Jainism, Taoism, Ying/Yangism, Lao Tzuism, Rastafarianism, Zoroastism, 
Nietscheism, Perennial Philosophyism, Unified Field Theoryism, Mandianism...? 
And which type of Christianity is best? What's wrong with the other types of 
Christianity?
From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.books,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Sincerity is Bullshit
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:34:35 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In <92Jul26.045535edt.47521@neat.cs.toronto.edu> cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:

>In other words, bullshitting.  Or at least it sounds like bullshitting 
>to me.  Although it rejects the ideal of correctness, it also appears
>to reject the ideal of sincerity: Rorty's eliminativist philosophy of 
>mind rules out the notion of any kind of self to be true to.  But the
>self that is left over to engage in the continuing conversation 
>seems to be big enough to warrant a charge of reactive sincerity.

	I suppose that Rorty's philosophical "preferences" are merely the
result of divers biochemical processes, which, though complex, are
entirely predictable.  I would advise Rorty that loan oft loses both
itself and friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.  But these
acts of loan and borrowing are mere social constructs.  Rorty borrows,
and yet, since his uptake of M.D. 20/20 (note here the reference to
marginalized subcultures) wanes, like Compton's little friend, we loan
him nothing.  Loaning and borrowing are thusly tossed upon the ashheap of
history, along with the toxic biochemical waste of "late capitalist"
culture.  Rorty rises, the New Man, the sort of man who votes for Lenora
Fulani because "it's fun."  There he is, self-admiring and content-free, 
in apprehension how like a god.
 
>Whether this charge sticks or not doesn't seem that important. In 
>either case, the similarity (in my opinion) between Rorty's brand of 
>edification and the ideal of reactive sincerity is that their
>reactions to the alleged demise of systematic philosophy and the
>ideal of correctness are both *over*reactions.  (At least, this 
>is what I would *like* to believe. Correctness isn't as straightforward
>as it used to be, what with God dead and all [2]).

	Not even a million armies of angels could have saved Him from
the perfection of ideology.


Andrew Aiken
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This
Date: 30 Jul 1992 20:33:49 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

In article <92211.13215734EP2A2@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> 34EP2A2@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU (Jill Maree Thomas) writes:
 *Pamela LaLond
  (temporarily under id 34ep2a2@.cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu)
      Hello, If you can bear with me for a minute.I'm new at this and
 I am unsure how long you have been talking about this subject. If you
 could indulge me and explain where you are at in respects to God. I
 feel like I came in the middle of the conversation. Then it will give
 me a chance to get things straight.I'm from Michigan and go to
 Central Michigan University.My roommate is letting me use her account
 until I can get one of my own. Thanks for your time.
 
 *Pamela LaLond
 (responses may be e.mailed to above address, no flames please.  JMT)


I tried to send this via email, but it bounced. . .

It would be far easier for you to do the "catching up"
yourself rather than make someone else summarize it all
for you. Althoug if someone is so inclined, hip-hip-hooray.

You can do this in the following way:

Once you have a subject you want to "research", in this case
perhaps "Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says]", then you
can press <CONTROL-P> in order to look at previous posts
with the same subject; eventually you can go back far enough
and see the whole thing in all its detail.

Also, you may want to ask your roommate how to use the "help"
menu.

Good Luck,

Dano
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:29:36 GMT
	<1992Jul21.192501.17284@rice.edu> <12394@inews.intel.com>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <12394@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

   In article <1992Jul21.192501.17284@rice.edu> 
   mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller) writes:

   >The KJV and NKJV are actually very good translations, especially
   >for the time.  The NAB is OK but not real good. (The Catholic
   >Bible) The Oxford Study Bible (Available in NRSV and RSV) is very
   >good and expensive.  In my experience, the NRSV (and the RSV) are
   >the versions most reccommended for their precision. I want to get
   >an NRSV whenever I've got $30 to burn.

   Most of these come very indirectly from the Latin Vulgate which
   comes from the Greek Septuagint which comes from the Hebrew as
   translated during a time when they really didn't know how to
   translate, it's not easy you know.  It's hard enough for someone
   who reads modern Hebrew to figure out what the writers meant in the
   Hebrew they wrote in. With that in mind, the best English
   translation of the "Old Testament" has got to be JPS Tanahk.  As
   for the "New Testament", well you take what you can get.

This is untrue.  ALL of these, including the KJV, were translated
directly from the Hebrew.  The NRSV (and, I think, the RSV) included
Jewish members on the committee for the translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures.

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:56:12 GMT

<1992Jul23.005000.15405@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>> 
>>>> Hard to believe an omnipotent being didn't realize the end results of his
>>>> actions.  If it was only to benefit the individual at that time and not to
>>>> gain converts later then I'm sure that this god could have kept these
>>>> "miracles" out of the bible altogether.
>>>
>>>In fact, he did keep most of them out.
>> 
>> Ok, Suzanne, Prove this one.
>
>Scripture itself tells us that there were many other signs as well, "signs not
>recorded here".   

Scripture specifically tells you to hate your parents.  Do you?

>                  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

And not one which has been verified by medical science.

>as to touch one's own family, including my own, and probably that of every
>Christian family at one time or another.

Besides, history is full of claims about other gods and goddesses. I
suppose you should give them as much credence, right?

>See whatcher missin', Keith?

Yes, - intellectual dishonesty.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:10:09 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul28.201756.13138@athena.cs.uga.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In article <92121@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>One finds the spirit of Christ through self-acceptance.

>Rather, one is empowered by the Spirit of Christ through self-denial.

Clearly, we disagree.
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JW and blood
Date: 20 Jul 92 16:07:37 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  Do you have references?  Of course, the real argument is about what is safer,
>not what doctors prefer.  I am asking out of curiosity.

	I think Denton Cooley has said it.
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived