HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:07:55 GMT
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual





>>I always find it interesting when an abusive father claims that he really
>>loves his children. Sorry, your message is not love to me.

>I understand that the things I say are not pleasing to your ears.  But
>trust me, I would not spend the hours that I do every day answering these
>posts and working with the local Mormons.  My conviction is that we are in
>the last days, and that many Mormons are lost because of the doctrines of
>the church.  That is my reason for what I do.  That is out of love. You
>know, Jesus didn't sound too much like love either when he said:

>     "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being
>      condemned to hell?"  (Matthew 23:33)

>However, He WAS incarnate Love.

Let me repeat once again what I said:

"If they would hand out rewards based on ego you would get the top prize.
You would go into heaven ahead everyone else."

Thank you for agreeing with my conclusion! However, I did err in scope in my
mind. I actually way under estimated the size of your ego

>>Let me refresh your mind. This is me (Frank Farkas):
>>
>>>>I don't believe that the Bible can be used definately to prove either your's
>>>>or my belief. You interpret passages one way and I interpret it another way.
>>
>>This was your response (Anthony Rose):
>>
>>>....your are right, but we have to be aware that the writer only meant one
>>>of the meanings.

>Yes, look closely at your words that you have quoted.  You were talking
>about "beliefs".  I never said that the Trinity concept couldn't be
>shown from the Bible.  The point is, that you are not open to looking at
>the proof.  Why is it that you refuse to look at the outline of the 700
>verses I offered for FREE, if you are open-minded?

This requires no further comments. Your words tell all, we all "get it" now.

>>If you enjoy a monolog, please continue to send messages to me.

>Do you mean on trm or personal email?  Either is alright by me.

I apologize for misleading you unintentionally. Let me put it differently it 
for you:

If you enjoy a monolog, please continue to send messages to me :-).

I hope that you get it that I was trying to use sarcasm as a form of humor.

I don't know why, but you remind me of Paul, prior to his conversion, before
he encountered Jesus on the Damascus road.

With brotherly love,

		Frank
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:38:50
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
	<Bz8BKK.EB1@spss.com> <1992Dec14.192516.9563@ac.dal.ca>
	<adams.724518272@spssig>
Reply-To: ncramer@bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.bbn.com
In-reply-to: adams@spss.com's message of 16 Dec 92 15:04:32 GMT


In article <adams.724518272@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
   >In article <Bz8BKK.EB1@spss.com>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
   >The Valentinian Gnostics (who used the Thomas Gospel, I believe)
   >traced their teaching back to Paul, through one of his disciples who
   >claimed to have received Paul's secret teaching.  Maybe you can have
   >your Paul and your Gnosticism, too!

Is this correct?  The one person that I've know who was involved with
a Valentinian group described their group as explicitly rejecting Paul
as a corrupter of the original doctrine.

(On the other hand, this is no doubt a rather simplified view of this
position and, furthermore, surely there must be _lots_ of doctrinal
disagreement among such groups.)

N
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23890 alt.atheism:23701
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Jack Handy)
Subject: Deep Thoughts
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 16 Dec 1992 07:46:52 UTC

What if -

A gigANTic, doNUT shaped, white space vehicle landed on earth -
And a tall, blond, Aryan-looking fellow stepped out and yelled so
***LOUDLY*** that eveRYONe in the world could hEAR:

"FEAR NOT! FOR I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA AND I AM HE THAT LIVETH AND
HE THAT DIETH, YET BEHOLD, I'M BACK! AND DON'T CALL IT A COMEBACK, I'VE
BEEN HERE FOR YEARS! ATTENTION ALL BELIEVERS, YE WHO CALL THYSELVES
CHRISTIANS AND YE WHO ARE BY NATURE SHEEP! HERE'S YOUR MESSIAH! NOW,
MAKE HASTE, COME QUICKLY MY SWEETIES, INTO MY ARK OF DONUT SHAPE, (sorry,
it's the beast I could do on sUCH short noTICe, at beast I got a good deal!),
COME ABOARD THE JEHOVAH-1, (aye, she be a just ship), FOR WE ARE BOUND TO
THE KINGDOM OF YOUR LORD. COME MY EAGER SERVANTS AND MEAT YOUR MASTER.
FOLLOW ME AND BE FREE."

Would the aNSWer ever be in QUESTion?

Even if you sudDENly found yOURsELF stRANGEly supERSTitIOUs?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Biblical Authority, was YOUNG EARTHERS...
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 20:25:56 GMT

(John Muehlhausen) writes:

>...Establishing the correct point of view and initial
>conditions for the Genesis creation chronologies yields a sequence of
>events in perfect harmony with modern science.  This accuracy is too
>amazing for Moses to have guessed.  He must have received divine
>help.

One, apologia for biblical creation accounts is a little more
thorny than indicated here, and Two, Moses did not write the
entire (if he wrote any of it at all) Pentateuch.

>[hang in there - this guy is suprisingly objective...]

Coming from you John, we'll just have to see now ;^)

>A cloud over biblical veracity had arisen even before the publication
>of Kant's works.  The first scholars to publish serious claims for
>multiple authorship and internal inconsistencies in the Genesis
>account of creation were Richard Simon, an Oratorian priest, writing
>in 1678, and Campegius Vitringa, a Dutch Reformed theologian, writing
>in 1707.  Their works, though, were largely ignored by their
>contemporaries and forgotten by later generations.

This isn't true. The first arguments of those who questioned
Mosaic authority were in the 3rd cent. A.D., notably the Christian
scholar Origen. 

In the 11th cent, Isaac ibn Yashush, a jewish court physician of
a ruler in Muslim Spain, pointed out that a list of Edomite kings
that appears in Gen 36 named kings who lived long after Moses
was dead.

There are of course many, many, more inconsistencies that
essentially make Mosaic authorship impossible.

>credibility of Genesis.  He concluded that in writing Genesis, Moses
>(or someone later) had interwoven material from several independent
>sources.  In particular, he said that Genesis 1 and 2 contained two
>contradictory creation narratives of different authorship.

Yes, the E narrative, and the J narrative.

>Integrating Genesis 1 and 2
>---------------------------
>Without question, the description of creation in Genesis 1 is
>markedly different from that in Genesis 2.  However, an examination
>of the point of view in each passage clarifies why.  Genesis 1
>focuses on the physical events of creation; Genesis 2, on the
>spiritual events.  More specifically, Genesis 1 describes those
>miracles God performed to prepare the earth for mankind.  Genesis 2
>presents God's assignment of authority and responsibility.

The evidence indicates that Gen1 and Gen2 were written by
two different authors at two different times and were later
`combined' to form one narrative.

I guess the problem I have with the rest of the analysis is 
that it is an attempt to take a biblical text -- which is
a history of a people -- and make it conform to something
else -- a history of science.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Finnish Bible Translation
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:31:33 GMT

In article <7923@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
>
>I think I'm having trouble with my news poster, so if you've
>seen this request before, sorry in advance.
>
>Would any Finnish speakers help me out with translating a
>passage from two Finnish bibles?  The more responses the better.

Where's Kent Sandvik?  I think he'd be a good bet for this task.

>This is from Jeremiah 29:10, in the Finnish bibles designated
>KR33 and KR92.
>
>KR33:
>   Silla nain sanoo Herra: Vasta kun ne seitsemankymmenta
>   Baabelin vuotta ovat tayttyneet, mina katson teidan puoleenne
>   ja panen taytantoon teita kohtaan hyvan lupaukseni ja
>   palautan teidat tahan paikkaan.
>
>KR92:
>   Nain sanoo Herra: Kun Babylonian seitsemankymmenta vuotta
>   ovat kuluneet, mina otan teidat jalleen huomaani.  Mina
>   taytan lupaukseni ja tuon teidat takaisin omaan maahanne.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Alan Feuerbacher
>alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
>


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23613 alt.atheism:23369 alt.slack:3420
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:37:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <schnitzi.724097538@eola.cs.ucf.edu>, schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes...
>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

>>There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
>>is empty.

>Fortunately, the hole is also about the size and shape of a large pepperoni
>and sausage pizza and a six-pack of Mooseheads.

Yeah, and they won't send you to Hell if you think the beer's skunked and
the pizza's cold.  

Uh-oh.  I sense a "Why Beer is better than God" posting.

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
From: indy@immacc.prepnet.com (Dave Tartaglia)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: David Ring Gospel Hour
Date: 15 Dec 1992 13:31:38 -0600
Organization: 'Immaculata College, PA '
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


I am looking for the address and/or phone number of a televangelist named
David Ring. I believe that his show is called the "David Ring Gospel Hour,"
and appears on stations in the southeastern US.

If anyone knows of this program or even what television stations it airs on
please email me.

He is currently running ads selling something or other and inadvertently
using my company's toll-free long distance line, so I am paying the charges!
Unfortunately, none of the callers has been able or willing to provide 
information as to where they saw the show.  

Thanks for your help.
--
Dave Tartaglia    indy@immacc.prepnet.com             === ZZ-|O\- .. _   
                                         VAROOOOM!......=(_)-=======(_)===
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:48:18 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>being christian to being pagan.
>>		 	  ^^^^^
>>I hate to nitpick, but this is the DUMBEST word in modern spirituality today.
>>ANd so many (not you) of these 'pagans' are about as true to their 'beliefs'
>>as the average Christians.  Yeargh.
>Why is "pagan" a dumb word? Do you know what a pagan is? Here's my
>definition so far from alt.pagan, enjoy:
I had read this before, but...

>>Hmm, OK, let me give you *my* definition of pagan:
>>1) Non-Semitic Religions
>>	For example: Christianity represents a pagan interpretation of
>>	the scriptures of Judaism and Islam represents a return from the
>>	pagan aspects of Christianity towards Semitic ideals;
>>	(separation of creator and creation, pure monotheism, no
>>	idolatry).
>>2) Various Religions of Babylon excluding Judaism
>>	For example: the Jews in exile in Babylon were exposed to a
>>	great variety of pagan religions coming from Greece, Persia,
>>	India and from Mesopotamia itself; yet they kept Judaism alive,
>>	in its original language, against all odds.
>>3) Religions prior to conversion to Christianity or Islam
>>4) Islam
>>	Christians refered to Moslems as pagans during the Crusades.
>>	Moslems refered to Christians as idolaters and non-believers.
>>5) Neo-Pagan religions
>>	Attempts to rediscover religions lost or nearly lost to
>>	Christian conversion.
>>6) Religions that attempt to combine all the world's religions into one.
>>	For example, Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy.
>>7) A personal and unique religion or interpretation
>>8) Misc. Religions that I've missed

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.

Matt I.
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 17 Dec 1992 19:45:57 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, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) says:

>You want to and God has enabled you to do so.  (John 6:44, 56)
>
>  
>
Speak for yourself.  *I* don't want to.

-- 
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>
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: Non-Christian Religions & Sexual Morality
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:23:49 GMT

In article <71900@cup.portal.com>, Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
|> 
|> As long as health issues are considered, sodomy is a very important
|> and worthwhile practice among consenting individuals, I think.  That
|> it has the name 'sodomy' is a very interesting thing to me.  I'd like
|> to see (and email me if it begins) a thread on the origin of the terms
|> 'sodomy' and 'fornication'.
|> 

The term sodomy comes from a Biblical reference, Genesis 19,
which tells the story of the men of Sodom and their desire
to rape the "men" which had come into the city and were 
staying with Lot.  The story precedes the destruction of
Sodom.  Its a fairly sordid tale.  Lot offers the men of Sodom
his virgin daughters instead.  The men refuse storm the
house, and the "men" (angels) strike the men of Sodom 
blind.  Lot and his family leave, the angels can't find
10 godly people, so the whole place gets the divine nuke.
Lot's wife looks back at the destruction, which was forbidden,
and she is turned into a pillar of salt.

I believe the reference is medieval-european in origin.

-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:37:52 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <f8Rg02xO2dG001@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>>The then-prophet, David O. McKay, stated in his own diaries that he and
>>others found hundreds of doctrinal errors in this book.
>
>Then why does the LDS church allow a book to be sold under the title,
>_MORMON DOCTRINE_, at all the LDS bookstores across the world, that

This was one of Pres. McKay's objections, the title.  They did
ask him to withdraw the book and he corrected some errors for
the second edition.  The book was not published by the church,
but published privately.  The church seems monolithic, but it
isn't.  From time to time apostles have published theological
treatises that consisted of opinions not accepted by many other
Mormons.  So it was in this case.  I can name you a dozen books
that have the same problem.  In fact, I can't think of many
that don't have errors in them.  That's the nature of human writing.
Once someone is an apostle, they aren't about to kick him out of the quorum 
because they don't agree with all his opinions.  Also, many of the 
apostles probably *did* agree with McConkie, and no one wants to have a 
purge in the quorum of people who aren't entirely doctrinally correct
by their own view (I hope, anyway).  That would be pretty arrogant
and just start fights.  
>
>Friend, as long as the missionaries can whip out the book to "prove"
>a point to me, then likewise I should have the same ability.  I have

The missionaries really shouldn't be using that book.  As far as I
know, they are supposed to use the scriptures plus two or three
books written for the purpose, such as Talmage's Articles of Faith,
and Jesus the Christ, and Richards' Marvelous Work and a Wonder.
These *are* published by the church, although that doesn't mean
they are scripture either.  What the missionary did is an error
that does not validate the book as canon.

The other thing you fail to realize, is that Mormonism contains
a wide spectrum of people of different beliefs.  You seem to
act like everyone believes the same or should.  Why don't you
just argue against beliefs you see someone actually defend
rather than someone who is dead and can't defend his?  




-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:52:22 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Oh for crying out loud, here I decided not to call myself a witch because
>>too many twits were going to give me grief over it, and now some twit tells 
>>me there'll be problems with "pagan" too.  When will it end?  "Hi, I'm
>>a tree-hugging pantheistic nature worshipper, but I call myself a 
>>pan-Presbyterian so my mom doesn't panic."  What words *wouldn't* they
>>have fun with?  Maybe a Scientific Discordian, huh?  Do you think
>>cynics would have fun with that one?
>Ah yes. It's so difficult to be politically correct in this day and age,
>isn't it? What if you called yourself an atheist-pagan-heretic-gnostic?
>No doubt someone would find that belittling. Well, you can always call
>yourself Dawn Hardin, human-being. I have no doubt that is really what
>you are.
This I don't agree with.  I'm not askling them to be politically correct.  I'm
asking them to have a little sense and, *if* a label is needed at all, to 
use one that has a more easy to swallow connotation.  Of course, if they wish
to change that connotation, I can understand that.  Or maybe she can just use
her name, like you said.  Why a label at all, and if a label, why that one?

>>(do you get the impression that I don't care what cynics think of me?)
>Yes! And good for you! It's not easy being an authentic human being, is
>it? Ah, life in The Village, what a crackup. Be seeing you!
No.  Like I said, those who don't care what I think tend to ignore me, thus
prompting me to go away.
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God etc
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:24:31 -0600
Distribution: talk

In article <TORKEL.92Dec13170605@bugs.sics.se>  writes:
>
>  I find it baffling why, from the point of view of religion, it should be
>considered a question of importance whether or not there is a God who
>created the world, or again, whether or not Jesus was in fact a Savior
>of mankind. Surely all this business about the universe being created,
>about eternal life, about damnation and power and hopes and fears, is
>irrelevant to what religion is about?

Yes and no.
It is for you and me, but some need to be taken in hand and led.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:08:36 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec18.160331.12894@waikato.ac.nz>, arron@waikato.ac.nz
wrote:
> > a) free will is a universal attribute, it can't be created.
> >   -- this would imply that there are things God *can't* create
> > b) free will and original sin was part of God's master plan
> >   -- which would imply that he didn't mind people suffering, something
> >      that is considered to be non-compassionate for a eternally 
> >      loving God.
> > 
> > So, we have the solutions, either the idea of free will and the
> > original sin are not true, has a hidden meaning that even Christians
> > don't know about, or something else. Anyway, I personally do think
> > that this is one of the sore issues with the doctrine of free will.

> a) God could have made us without a free will, forced to love and always follow
> him like robotic drones. But he chose not to. Therefore he 'gave' us free
> will's.

In other words God was *not* able to create a form of free will that 
didn't have the robot attributes, or another form of will where people 
could grow as beings. 
 
> b) God being all knowing knew that sin was in the pipeline, but he wanted us to
> live as people not drones. He has throughout history tried to give us ways of
> breaking free from OUR stuff ups. He could have given up but he loves you too
> much.

Again, an omnipotent God would have solved this problem long time ago.
As it looks he hasn't solved the problem still today.

Thanks for the comments, but as you see my faith in an omnipotent
being is near zero due to these issues.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs)
Subject: Re: It's a joke son (was Re: You should be a Christian because):
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:15:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.200204.4415@cs.cornell.edu> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.023056.2115@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike 
>|> B. What relevance does your question have anyway?
>
>I want to know whether atheist understand what makes a person 
>a Christian.
>
>Rod
>
>
	Brainwashing would be my first guess....{
===============================================================================
	|||				...Your future hasn't been written yet.
       / | \				   No one's has. Your future is what 
    =Mysh+Krysa=			   you make it...    
							   -Emmet L. Brown-
-- 
Your future hasn't been written yet.
No one's has. Your future is what
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc