HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:39:25 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Distribution: world,public

In article <1992Dec20.041754.2432@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>
>However, NO condescension was meant. Each person chooses whether or
>not to believe in _any_ god or goddess [and those who choose to
>believe in god or goddess or gods or goddesses choose to accept or
>reject various belief systems]. Every person either continues to
>affirm their choice or chooses to change their mind about their
>beliefs.

Errrrmmmm. I was not raised to be an atheist, my parents didn't expose me
to any religion. I learnt to read and think for myself at an early age.
By the time I was exposed to religion for the first time at school it all
seemed to be a silly game, a bit like my kid sister's pretend friend Iggy
who always had the last toffee, but my sister had to eat it for Iggy.

When I was a couple of years older, I was amazed that most of the other
people (including the adults) took it seriously. And I was even more
amazed that my teacher was amazed that I was amazed. That was the first
time I heard the word "atheist", but that's another story.

So I didn't "choose" to "reject" a belief system. I have never had a
religion. My atheism is the absence of any god or religion, which is
sometimes difficult for religious people to accept or understand.
Anybody who has tried to make me believe has never come come up with
any convincing argument. Partly because those who have tried have
used the sort or argument that only preaches to the converted.

>
>I believe Christianity is true, hence I argue from that point of view,
>particularly when someone (like Stephen) is arguing about what 
>Christianity teaches. Note, tho, I'm not claiming to have made it
>up or to even always like what it has to say. You are certainly not
>required to do any of the above.

But if you come to the atheists' board you have to argue it from their
point of view: any argument that presupposes a particular deity will
not be received very well, because atheists don't believe in that god,
or any of the others from any of the other religions.

Try substituting another god, another holy book, and another religion in
any argument, or even another interpretation of Christianity, to see how
it sounds to you. If this makes it sound silly then you have some idea how
the original soundsto someone who doesn't share your beliefs.

Most atheists accept that other people believe in religions, and they
don't have any problem with this. What causes the problem is when the
believers force their religion on others (which thankfully, most don't).

>
>-jen
> Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Your posting is very rare: you have come to a board whose members don't
share your beliefs, and said "I believe that.....", instead of the usual
assertion of fact. Please keep posting!

Thanks...........Chris Lee
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose ANSWERING --------------> Sean
Date: 28 Dec 92 03:09:23 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Dec16.140135.9619@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>existed since the twelfth century, or earlier.  Here's something
>to remember -- the fundamentalist views _you_ espouse are only about 200
>years old. For 1,800 years (90 per cent of the history of Christianity)
>the theology you advocate would have been regarded as wildly extreme
>and even heretical. In other words - non-orthodox. In other words, Satanic.

Bingo!  Even less than 200 years old, actually.  During the Middle
Ages, they'd have put poor old Tony on the rack for his "orthodoxy".

>One small point: ALL persecutors claim to be acting out of "love." 

They would have loved Tony to death in the Spanish Inquisition, wouldn't
they?

>Sure they would. The Mormons, for all their claims to be a new dispensation,
>etc., are really just preaching jazzed-up Paulist Christianity. Same old
>stuff.
>

Oooh, a low blow!  At least in my view, Paul is the least Mormon-like of all
the gospel writers.  Joseph Smith, in my view, retraced much of Paul's
deviation from what Jesus emphasized.  Mormons are more partial to James,
perhaps too much so.

>
>I wonder if you really do hate Mormons, or if you are just so in love 
>with the idea of "bringing souls to Christ" that you can't see the inhumanity
>of what you're doing.  Jesus used harsh language - but he knew what he
>was doing. Are you so sure of yourself as that?
>

He probably thinks he loves Mormons, but the statements about "sexual groping"
and "homosexual missionaries" I think show some of his true feelings.  Hate
is certainly not too strong a word to describe a person who flings out that 
kind of stuff.
 

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:52:03 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

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.

Well, when I am referring to my religion, I refer to Wicca or Witchcraft.  But 
if I am talking about, say, Wicca and Asatru and various other modern 
non-Christian religions, I refer to Neo-paganism.  If I'm also talking about
Hindus, I use pagan.  The word identifies us accurately, regardless of what
Christians used the word for.  If all you care to gripe about is the name we
refer to ourselves with, I've no more time for you.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:18:20 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <0fFn02vQ30Jx01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>> Certainly the restoration is a central belief of Mormonism,
>> but if you visit the Visitor's Centers and other points of
>> contact for missionary activity, you will see that rudeness and
>> denigration of other churches is definitely discouraged. 
>> Obviously, and religion that seeks to make converts must hold out
>> that they have something the others don't, but effort is made to
>> acknowledge the value of other religions and the sincerity of
>> other believers. If you visit LDS bookstores, you do not find
>> books on how awful the catholics or the Lutherans or the baptists
>> are.
> 
> You don't visit many LDS bookstores do you?  How about the
> three volume set of "They Lie And Wait To Deceive", where in
> these books, none of the issues of doctrines that have been
> brought forth are defended.  Instead the authors attack the
> characters of those who question the doctrines.  Why is it that
> they won't discuss the issues, but attack the characters?

It is my understanding that _They Lie and Wait to Decieve_ was
directed at the Tanners and others that use tactics similar to
the Tanners.

I was not aware that it was a flame against Catholics, Lutherans,
or generally at any other demonination (having only skimmed
through it).  If it is involved in charachter attacks, this would
seem to indicate that is is *not* a general flame on
Catholics, Lutherans, etc. but is directed at specific persons.

> Also, the title of the book slips my mind, but there is a neat
> little book in the missionary section that is set up like the
> script of a play, and it gives the missionaries a "role-play" of
> almost every faith and denomination out there.In this view, the
> LDS position of other faiths is clearly set forth.

Ah yes, _The Day of Defense_.  I have read this one, and I was
greatly unimpressed with it's methods and tactics.  It has a very
counterproductive, and un-Christ-like approach (IMHO).

To see the methods and tactics that the LDS Church *tries* to use
and approves of, I recommend _The Missionary Guide_.  You can
order this direct from the LDS Distibution Center in Salt Lake
City @ 800/537-5949 (Catalog # PBMT0900 7/89) with a Visa or
Mastercard.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:22:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Dec22.021333.3367@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <1992Dec22.011212.639@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> >> why did he even bother with the body?
> >Well, why did Israel need a lamb?
> 
> If I were religious, I'd probably answer that question something like this:
> Israel needed a lamb because the people lived in a culture which was accustomed
> to sacrificing lambs, so they expected it, and since they expected it, God
> told them to do it.

That's as reasonable as any other explanation.
However, they still need a lamb because sin did not go away with
the sack of the temple in 70ad.
> 
> This reason doesn't work for Jesus's sacrifice, needless to say, since modern
> socity no longer expects such a thing.

It is quite vague to claim _modern society_... unless the term
is meant _enlightened people in a modern society_:-)
Sin was not destroyed by the enlightened mind, but
by the eternal blood sacrifice of J, which is effective until
the fulfillment of time according to the word.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:37:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.165332.2018@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>
>Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Usually, when gods want to procreate
>(or as the mood may have it, a quick shag) they tend to come as
>beams of light, bulls or squid.
>
>Of course, Mary was unluckiest of all - none of the fun, all of the hard work.
>
I don't know... I'd suspect she had some fun with that Gabriel guy...

	Sven
From: bast@wam.umd.edu (Jaguar)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:44:17 GMT


Ta,mmy, I know an Apple/Orange.
She is a Pagan Christian.
That is how she describes herself.
She feels that christianity is unbalanced, in that it does not recognize the
feminine and the forces of nature very well.
She feels that christianity needs to have an acceptance of, and blending with
the forces of nature.
The earth honoring traditions are missing.
She is pagan in that she follows the wheel of the year, and its celebrations.
She honors the goddes.
However, she is christian as well, and grew up catholic.
She places Jesus as the consort of the goddess.
She sees noconflict in this.
"in wicca you place what you believe in in the place of god and goddess."
she had told me.
To her, jesus is another mainifestation of the male aspect of god.
To me, this qualifies as a pagan/christian.

Jaguar
rolling out the apple/pear/oranges....
(better get her out of the genetucs lab!)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec21.015111.23771@panix.com>
Date: 21 Dec 1992 10:08:22 UTC

In article <1992Dec21.015111.23771@panix.com> 
mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In article <fWStRGu@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>was found with child, she could be stoned to death if someone felt the
>>need to accuse her. However, if someone took responsibility for the
>>woman and child, I don't think she would be punished. The story of Mary
>>is a prime example.
>umm, if you are going to take Mary as "a prime example" then you are
>simply begging the question.  I might (indeed, I do to some extent)
>agree with the general principle on sociological grounds -- but then
>you can't go and *cite* Mary in support of it when your desired appli-
>cation of the principle is to CONCLUDE that Mary wasn't a virgin.
>Unless you have a sound body of *independent* evidence on this point,
>you can't use your *desired* conclusion to establish a damned thing.

Yes, I'll grant that using Mary as an example is less than ideal, being
that she has assumed mythical qualities. But, I doubt that the
authorities would have bought her argument that, although pregnant, she
was still a virgin. It was Joseph and perhaps some other men in her life
that saved her life and her child. So, I'm not trying to prove that she
was or wasn't a virgin, merely that she was an example of a young woman
who found herself pregnant, but not by her husband, and yet she was not
stoned.

>The only thing in all of this which is demonstrable is that the early
>Christians *did* think Mary was a virgin and *did* think that Isaiah
>7:14 applied as "prophecy" -- presumably with a certain degree of con-
>fusion entering because of the Septuagintal translation.
>(and anyone who takes this as a "defense" of Mary's virginity don't
>know me very well, do he? :-))

Presumably the early Christians were combing the country side looking
for the virgin birth as they thought was prophesied by the Hebrew
scriptures but in fact was a translation mistake. One has to wonder if
perhaps they looked too hard to find something that was never prophesied
in the first place. What is the reason for a virgin birth if it is not
prophesied? Is it possible that they got the wrong Messiah in their
haste to find a claim, any claim of virgin birth?
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: JOKE, Hee hee hee . . . the Bell Ringer
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:14:24 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

A priest had put an ad in the newspaper's classified. 
He was in serious need of a bell ringer.  Many days had passed 
but no one came to apply for the job. But then, one day,
a man came in looking for the job.  The priest looked
him over, but there was something mighty strange
about this man.  He didn't have any arms.

The man asked the priest, "I am looking for the
bell ringer's job.  Is it still available?"

The priest asked him, "Are you serious?  You want the
job?  But you don't have any arms!"

The man said, "Yes.  I really need the job.  I have been
looking for weeks and really need it.  I know I can do
it.  I just know I can.  Please, please, give me a try."

So after numerous pleas, the priest gave in and took him
up to the belfry to see if the man with no arms
could really ring the bell.

The man began in the corner of the belfry, then ran
towards the bell.  He lunged into the bell.   He
hit it with his face.  It rang.  Bong!

The priest was amazed.

The man then went to the other corner of the belfry
and ran towards the bell.  Sure enough.  Bong!  
Just like the last time, the man hit the bell with his
face and it rang resoundingly again.

The priest was amazed.  Flabbergasted in fact.

Then the man asked the priest, "Well?  What do you
think?  Do I get the job?"

The priest said, "Amazing.  I didn't think you could do it.
But since you need the job so badly, it is yours!"

The man was elated.  In his elation, he went to the corner
of the belfry and then ran towards the bell to ring it 
again. 

But this time, he missed the bell, ran past it, and 
went right out the window. He plunged down several
stories, hit the ground and died.

The priest ran outside.  By the time he got down there
several people were gathered around the body.  They asked 
the priest if he knew the dead man.  The priest could 
only answer,

"I don't know who he was, but his face does ring a bell."
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The 'wave-collapse' of logical reasoning
Date: 3 Jan 93 10:21:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <ksand-020193180605@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com 
(Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >OK, here's another Gedanken-experiment concerning a priori logical
   >statements -- such as the ones that theists use to define that their
   >doctrines have logical elements.

  Unfortunately, your comments merely demonstrate that you have made
no effort to understand what is meant by a logically valid argument.
The argument from the premisses "Jesus was a man" and "Jesus did not
die" to the conclusion "not all men are mortal" is a logically valid
one. You seem wedded to the idea that we are talking about "logical
statements", whatever you may mean by this, and that the truth of the
premisses or of the conclusion of the argument is somehow at issue.
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A deep bit of flame bait (long)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:25:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, arron@waikato.ac.nz () says:

>
>No ... of course not. It just means that if you beleive, then God will give you
>experiences that support your faith. But you can't say there is no substance to
>the claims of Christianity if you don't seriously ask God to come into your
>life and reveal the truth (divine revelation being an exception to this rule.
>eg. Saul's conversion in the 'Acts of the Apsotles').

What are you supposed to do if you try again and again to do as you suggest
and nothing happens?  Is it not better for you psychologically to say "OK,
I've tried and tried, it is just causing me depression and internal pain,
therfore I will quit trying."  This is what I did.  I am far happier now
than I ever was when I was trying to follow your god.  
-- 
All propositions are true in some sense, false in some sense and
meaningless in some sense.  
                               --Hagbard Celine H.M. S.H.
<this is a signature virus, to spread it, just copy into your sig-file>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 1/3/92   God's Promise in Hebrews 9:12
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 06:43:14 GMT

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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:11:16 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <BzJD0s.9r9@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>Take prospective translation and turn to Isaiah 7:14. If you find the word
>"virgin" therein, consign the translation to the flames. It is NOT a
>correct translation from the Hebrew.

It is not as simple as you think.  It is true that the word 'almah'
(young woman) is used in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament.
We have to keep it in mind that nobody thinks the Masoretic Text
is perfect, and the oldest manuscript we have for the Masoretic Text
is less than one thousand years old.  On the other hand, the
Septuigent, despite the admitted poor quality of its translation,
was based on a text tradition dated well back to the priestly Judaism
in Judea, well before the founding of the rabbinical Judaism, from
which the Masoretic Text comes down to us.  So it is rather presumptuous
to say that the Masoretic Text is correct and the Septuigent is wrong
whenever they disagree.

According to Prof. Frank M. Cross (a very liberal source, BTW, so you
can not say this comes from my own evangelical prospective,) the
Masoretic Text was probabily derived from a rabbinical text base
fixed at the early part of the first century, and this rabbinical
text base was NOT the generally accepted text, not even among the
rabbis, during the most part of the first century.  The "authorized"
text at that time was still the priestly text tradition, which, BTW,
is also the text base of the Septuigent.  Despite the poor quality of
the translation, Septuigent gives us a window, though not a very clear
one, into that ancient priestly text tradition, which is much older
than the rabbinical text base, from which the Masoretic Text was
derived.


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24601 alt.pagan:14555
From: lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Date: 25 Dec 1992 14:32 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: elroy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec24.205827.26678@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes...
>In article <24DEC199211060189@jane.uh.edu> lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>>It was the Xtians that changed the meaning of "witch" in the first place.
> 
>When?
> 
>Are you trying to tell me that some group called themselves witches first, and
>then some Christians got together and decided to use this word to mean "devil
>worshipper"?
>--

A "witch" was (as I understand it, please correct if wrong) a member of the
wiccan.  Members of the wiccan studied wicca.  Wicca means something like
"ways of the wise ones" or "ways of the old ones".  Therefore the original
meaning of the word witch is "practitioner of the old ways" or something like
that.  I really wouldn't call that devil worshipping.


Tammy the tired of such bullshit


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc