HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten)
Subject: Re: What is Christianity
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:05:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.021507.9103@bnr.ca>, bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec14.195110.4076@cs.cornell.edu>,
|> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
|> |>In article <1-g20t_@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec325.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel
|> Norman Johnson) writes:
|> |>|> In article 20330@cs.cornell.edu, rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick
|> Moten) writes:
|> |>|> >For you who denounce Christ,  
|> |>|> >
|> |>|> >What does it mean to be a Christian?
|> |>|> >
|> |>|> 
|> |>|> Perhaps it would help if you could tell us all who it is you
|> |>|> think is "denouncing" Christ? I have never seen anyone do this
|> |>|> on this group myself.
|> |>|> 
|> |>|> Perhaps article quotations would help, so we (or at least I :) ) can
|> |>|> see how and why these folx denounce Christ.
|> |>|> 
|> |>
|> |>I'm trying to find out the criteria people use to qualify someone as a
|> Christian.
|> |>
|> |>Rod
|> |>
|>                    
|> If they answer "yes" to the question "Are you a Christian", I
|> would say that they are a Christian.  (Of course there are
|> different TYPES of Christians, many of whom know very, very
|> little about the Gospels.)

You are right that many people who answer "yes" to the question "Are you a Christian" know very very little about the Gospels.   In order to be a Christian one must be a follower of Christ.  So everyone who says they are a Christian is not necessarily a Christian.  In order to follow Christ and be like Him, you have to be born again or born of God.  For more information on the criteria for being a Christian, read John 3:1-5, Romans 12, Ephesians 4 and I John. 

|> Two questions for you, Rod:
|> 
|> 1) What do you think is "denouncing" Christ?
|>    (see above)

Not expecting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.  You have to except Him as Lord and Savior not only Saviour. 

|> 2) What criteria do you use to qualify someone as a Muslim?

From what I was told by Muslims, one who submits to Allah.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What would you have said?
Date: 11 Dec 92 13:14:41 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <31007@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White) writes:

Re: Dialogue between Roman Ruler and Christian. 

> Sean,
> 
> Can we infer from your post that since the Christian does not make another
> response that he still stands with his/her orignal reply?

Hmm...my intention was just to show how silly and pompous those answers
might have seemed to the people that heard them. I suspect that
the Christian would have indeed stuck with his or her original reply. Why
would he change it?  When you've got all the answers, when you know that
your particular interpretation of events is not an interpretation, but
the Truth, why change your mind?  You've got the world by the tail. And
you can feel special and chosen and elect all the way to the headsman's block. 
    
> Peter White

>		His anger lasts only a moment,
> 			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5

Hey, mine too...!

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

A professional indulger is rarely a pitiable man. -- Usenet Survival Guide.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Kermit's "Christlike" example for the non-Mormons
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:26:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec17.135226.5333@infonode.ingr.com>, tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes...
> 
> Nope, doesn't look like a forgery, must have been me. I don't remember
> posting that <tastless> post. If anyone who read it, was offended, I'll
> still apoligize.

	I don't think that anyone was `offended' by your comments on 
sex and marching band.

	It just shows another facet of your character. In addition to the 
dishonest editing of replies, the sophistry and the ad hominem 
abusives, we can now add 'crude' to the qualities that the LDS Jesus 
has wrought in your life.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:02:21 GMT
Summary: a minor qualification on Kermit's statement

In article <1992Dec14.133740.3213@infonode.ingr.com>, tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
> Let's summarize this argument:
[Kermit's summary of Tony R. deleted]
> 
> Oh just for comparison's sake Tony thinks that Mormons should be beliving
> in ever little part of McConkie's MD while Barry Olson thinks that Mormons

I think Tony stated that the mormons he runs into and knows in
his private life, pretty much use McConkies's MD book to help
their arguments or mission raps. So Tony feels he can use the 
Same book for counter arguments. You thinks wrong Again.
However, net lds mormons are a different breed, the open forum
demands it:-)
> should be nailed to the wall because they don't execept everypart of
> Brigham Young's JoD.  It's very frustrating because those mormons

Once again Kermit proves he cannot coordinate a coherent summeral
conclusion from what he reads once the words pass through his
clouded filter(it really gets tiring after some time).
My argument was that Bringham Young was a prophet ansd president
which gives him the big three titles. Yet nothing he wrote was ever
considered scripture, yuet he himself thought much of his words
were scripture:-) Some prophet. The net lds downplay most of his
bizarre statements hiding behind the noninfallible veil. Some prophets.

orthodox christianity has the prophetic word, yet no claim to prophets.
Mormonism boldly claims living prophets which is better than orthodox
christianity, yet not one of these prophets can make a prophetic utterance
no different than what orthodox claim. Something is really smelly here.
Or maybe a big paper Fish void of meat!
> 
> Why if they believed what people told 'em that Mormons believe, those
> Mormons would be "baaaad  people, wouldn't they?

What if the sun really is peopled?
From: arron@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:35:22 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Hi Ivan ... how's it going ... just a few points.

> Nonsense.  Read the Qur'an to see what Allah does to kafirs.  Read the
> Hindu scriptures and the teachings of the Buddha to see what happens
> if you don't work towards your liberation from samsara.

Sorry about the generalisations ... it's pretty hard to be specific in 30
words when your faith means so much to you. It does SEEM to be a bit of a thing
in New Age philosophy that it doesn't matter much how you get to
heaven/whatever. That's not true for me, Christianity is the only way, we just
want to share it with anyone who will take time to try it.
> 
>>for aethiests
> 
> High time to learn the spelling of "atheist".

Apologise for that, it doesn't matter much to me how it is spelt though, as I
am hoping that there will not be anyone to use it on in the future. (Not
likely, but you have to have some goals eh !!!)

>>it's a safe option if you ARE wrong.
> 
> No, it isn't.  This is the only life I have, and I'm not going to
> waste any of my (limited) time and energy on rubbish.
> 

Yes it is the only life YOU have, for me it's just a start. I enjoy my life a
lot, and I have a joy when I see people come to the Lord, and that happens
pretty regularly, so I'm regularly pretty happy !!! My limited time has purpose
and direction. And it IS safe, because if you ARE wrong you have the Lord, if
yoy ARE right, you will have enjoyed life just as much anyway !!!!

******************************************************************************
form:arron@waikato.ac.nz			Arron Scott
						University Of Waikato
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Purpose of Religion   was Re: God etc
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:29:22 GMT

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:

>Ideally this would be done with a large group of several thousand 
>children, to make the experiment valid.

I was looking for a baby-sitter, but,
uh, never-mind.

Dano

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:40:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.160423.17953@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, gcohen@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Gregory Cohen) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec17.170237.21411@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> ecasey@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Edward Casey) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> Much deleted ... but that's probably for the best anyway
|> 
|> >
|> >I, for one, would gleefully follow the herd down to the landing site,
|> >watch as they boarded (were eaten by?) 


"To Serve Man", eh?


-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Defining the kingdom of God
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:53:54 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc


[Sorry about my mumbo-jumbo entry, something strange happened with 
my copy-paste command, and the message looked strange, and I can't 
delete the news entry from this user-friendly system, sigh].

To rephrase the issue, could we take the issue of the Christian trinity
and define it using logic? If this worked well I might even eat up
my words that Christianity and logic are non-orthogonal.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: In response to Jack Carroll on Hinduism?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec11.064046.1446@s1.gov>
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:36:21 UTC

In article <1992Dec11.064046.1446@s1.gov> 
lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	And what is the Hindu Hell? I thought you get reincarnated a
>lot. :-)

Hindu Hell is reincarnation as a Hare Krishna. Talk about BAD karma.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:36:41 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1glgcdINNiis@cascade.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>In article <77785@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>'sin' via _The Scribnew-Bantam Engish Dictionary_ is defined as:
|>n.      1. willful breaking of a divine law or violation of the
|>           principles of morality;
|>        2. any serious fault or offense;
|>vi.     3. to commit a sin.
|>
|>Which of these do you believe do not exist (the first or second
|>part of 1, number 2, or number 3) ?  Depending on how you answer,
|>do the others exist?
|
|
|  In the same breath I'd say all of them and at the same time, 
|none of them. At any rate "we" are the ones who needs to be 
|forgiving others. If we can get to a place where we can do that,
|miracles will freely flow.

David, you don't think there is any serious fault or offense being
committed or possible to be committed?  Do you believe this 
physical body we live in can be hurt or cause hurt?  Does the
physcial body we live in exist to you?

Sincerely,
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: A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Reply-To: A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk (Alan Robinson)
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:54:52 GMT

In article <SUOPANKI.92Dec11010230@stekt2.oulu.fi> suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi writes:
>
>...because hot looking Chirstian babes will have sex with you.


Thinking about it (I am the original poster), it worked for me.

She did, we stopped being Christians, and got married (in a register 
office [civil ceremony]).

Maybe we were blinded by our sin (pre-marital sex [GOSH] but what 
is worse, guiltless lovemaking or Christian 'were not doing it
honest guv' substitutes including everything your granny 
never did ?)

Maybe we wised up and got on with our lives.

Alan.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Defining the kingdom of God
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:51:44 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

[Saturdays are nice, you have even time to check out the Net for 20
minutes]

Let's take this the other way around, what it one of the formal Christian
logical
statements and definitions related to the trinity concept? This would be an
excellent
test to verify if Christianity and logic works hand in hand!

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:13:43 GMT

In article <1eM2023k2fTq01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <lis0mrINNm53@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>>
>>"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

	The words of PT Barnum the Great Amerikan Profit comes to mind ...

>>
>>
>>This requires no further comments. Your words tell all, we all "get it"  ow.
>
>Posting my words out of context proves nothing.

  sauce for the goose has become bile for the gander.
>
>
>Do you really have anything to sy relevant?  I mean, this whole letter is
>juts a character assination.  Can we discuss issues?  Like why you and
>Brigham Young worship different Gods?  Who was right?


 Just two points:  1) This is what Tony calls "character assination"

		   2) This is what Tony thinks of as "relavent issues"

 Based on the amount of Email that I recieved this morning, I say that
 you have exhausted the amount of relavent issues that people seem to
 be able to tolerate. Only two LDS responded, the rest (18) were EV'rs
 Only one of them seemed to have any tolerance for you and your
 venamous spew (hi Robert)


 Do you have _anything_ of relevence to discuss?  I thought not...

-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Perfectly Psychotic
Date: 18 Dec 1992 01:51:01 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, hill@spot.Colorado.EDU (Michael Hill) says:
>
>These endless discussions kill me, they really do.  It's none of my
>business and little of my concern how others try to reconcile themselves
>with eternity.  But those who place themselves as judge over God (over
>what is fair, what is logical, what is arbitrary, etc., ad nauseum)
>really crack me up.  I hate to be cynical, honest.  But if you got a
>bitch with God, you could always take it up with Him; whether you com-
>municate with Him now or during eternity (or during your time of
>judgment; whichever) is, I guess, up to you.  But why not take it up
>with Him directly, instead of endlessly griping about it here?!  :^)
>Who knows, if you look for Him, you _might_ just find Him!
>
The easiest way to get out of an abusive relationship is to not get into
one.  By avoiding your god we who do not follow him are saying that we want
no part in the abuse that he is so fond of.  Why should we WANT to get into
such an abusive relationship?


-- 
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: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Non-Christian Religions & Sexual Morality
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:14:08 GMT

kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:


>In a post in bit.listserv.christia, Michael Kline quotes Pat Robertson as
>saying this:

>> [ Sodomy ] is a sexual practice that is condemned by every major religion.
>> [...]  EVERY MAJOR RELIGION, you name it, and they're opposed to sodomy.

Tao.  It is major.  Sodomy never comes up.  "How am I to know what is good and
what is bad?" -Chuang Tzu

>Anyway, Mr Robertson did not mention eastern religions.  According to my
>almanac, there are 700 million Hindus, and almost 400 million Buddhists; those
>both sound `major' to me.  Also, since they are thousands of years old, they
>hardly qualify as `New Age'.  I was under the impression from some of our
>Hindu and Buddhist posters that their religious traditions did not include
>the detailed proscriptions of sexual activity found in Judiasm &c.

>So then: are there any adherents of any `major religions' that wish to take
>issue with Mr Robertson's statement?

I take issue with it.  PAt Robertson is..oh, I'll forgo insult.  I don't like
him, and he serves his faith poorly, in my opinion, always trying to hurt the
'bad' but never helping anyone.

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: NON-CONFORMISTS UNITE!
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:19:47 GMT

jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
: O.k., now repeat after me the non-conformists oath:
: 
: I refuse to say things other people say.
: 
: ...(silence)...
: 
: Good!
: 
: [remember Steve Martin?]

Similarily, when the Unitarian Universalist church I attend accepts new
members, one of the questions asked of them is if they will give up
their own beliefs and accept the teachings of our church.  The new
members respond by saying "Absolutely not!".

-- 
> Jeff Young <
> Personal   <               I'm not lost, I'm exploring.
> opinions   <
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Date: 12 Dec 92 13:03:44 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <fWuRbMM@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> In article <adams.724125297@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>In article <adams.723754865@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>> [Luke 14:26 - the verse that wouldn't die!]
>>>>It is most likely
>>>>that Christ spoke the Luke text...why would Luke use those words otherwise?
>>>I agree. The Luke version is definitely more potentially confusing. 
> 
> By the way, if you assume that Jesus spoke Aramaic and the authors of
> the NT later recorded these words in Greek, aren't these the kinds of
> "screw-ups" you'd expect?

I suppose so...but all we can work with is what we have, eh? Also,
the Thomas gospel appears to translate in accordance with Luke on this
point. 

> And the more I think about:
> "For my mother gave me falsehood, but my true mother gave me life,"
> the more I like it. It's got that nice pagan Goddess feel to it. I
> wonder why Thomas was tossed into the Apocrypha bin? What is there to
> hide?

Elaine Pagels says that Thomas was not only tossed into the Apocrypha bin,
but was actively suppressed by the Paulist church. The Nag Hammadi find
is conjectured to be a forgotten stash of texts hidden from the Paulist
book-burning Thought Police. 

The reason, apparently, was that the Thomas gospel contains some sayings
attributed to Jesus that undermine a Paulist understanding of the man. 
The "Gnostic" Christians (hated bitterly by people like Irenaeus)
found justification for their activities in GoT (and other books like it). 
 
Personally speaking, if the Valentinian Gnostics were still around, I'd
probably join up and be a Christian. As it is, my non-Paulist understanding
of the gospels leaves me out in the proverbial cold. Sic transit gloria
mundi. 

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Are you really sure you want to DO that? -- Usenet Survival Guide.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Subject: Re: What is the "least common denominator" ?
Summary: ecclesia reforma sed semper reformata
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:39:24 GMT


Along the theme of reconstructing Christianity, which
Russell Turpin seems to think is an ultimately benighted
enterprise, let me offer for his (and everyone's) perusal
eleven points summarizing Neo-Orthodoxy (Barth & Brunner
are usually considered it's main proponents; also, Niebuhr,
but I'd consider him more of a liberal). Were I
to write the book Russell Turpin calls forth in his gedanken,
it might be along these lines (with a liberal dose of
Hans Kungianism thrown in for good measure); the issue is,
what here must be seen as casting off from the shore
of the mass of believers? Yet if it can be done, then 
an intellectual *approach* to Xtianity (not 'an 
intellectual Xtianity') is proof in one instance 
against the charge of nostalgic special-pleading (a la
Marxians and neo-Randians).

(from A_Handbook_of_Contemporary_Theology, by B. Ramm,
 Eerdmans, 1966, p.89 ff) [My paraphrasing in sq. brackets]

        Neo-orthodox theologians ...

o	believe they are the true heirs of
	the Reformation. ['Reformed' churches are seen to 
	have formalized the insights of Calvin, et al, and
	lost his (their) dynamism.]

o	believe that orthodoxy [= 'Reformed
	Theology', 1520 - ca 1900 ] R.Catholicism, and
	liberalism ['liberal Xtianity'] represent dead ends
	as options in theology.

o	believe that the Bible is not revelation itself but 
	is a witness to revelation.

o	believe that revelation is a dynamic concept, God 
	himself in act, man in confrontation with Jesus Christ.
	disclosing activity of the Holy Spirit.

o	believe that special events of Scripture have a special
	character ... the realities they signify are true
	historical realities, but historical in a very 
	special sort of way.

o	believe that existentialist philosophy is the best 
	point of departure for Xtian theology [esp. the
	existentialism of Kierkegaard].

o	believe that the key doctrines of theology are in
	the logical form of a paradox...God as transcendent
	is always escaping human conceptual schemes.

o	believe in the absolute centrality of  Jesus Christ.

o	believe in the real sinfulness of man.

o	generally agree that God is transcendent.

o	generally agree that any rationalistic or empirical
	approach to God is wrong, if not wicked.


Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc