HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Tax the Church
Date: 2 Jan 1993 20:04:09 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu


     Untaxed churches get completely free municipal services: police and fire 
protection, street lights, storm sewers, maintenance of local roads, and in 
some places water and sanitary sewers.  
     Most churches do charitable work as a very small part of their activity.  
They exist for the benefit of their members: either socially or for the 
"everlasting soul".



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: reh@wam.umd.edu (Double Helix)
Subject: Robertson in US News
Keywords: Conservative Christianity
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:12:23 GMT

Did anyone else catch the letter Pat Robertson had published in
US News and World Report?  It seems that an earlier issue had the caption
below a picture of Robertson speaking at the Republican convention, "calling
for a religious jihad," or something along those lines.

Robertson replied that he wasn't a Muslim, and that this was an example
of the anti-Christian bigotry in America today.

As anyone who's checked out Robertson's TV show lately can tell you, however,
Patty Boy makes no bones about being at war with the secular humanistic
elements in society.   There's lots of military terminology, and -- of course
-- lots of appeals for $$$, since military operations are so expensive.

Where's Oswald when you need him?

-- 
Richard Huddleston  |  "The two most common things in the universe are
reh@cs.umd.edu      |   hydrogen and stupidity."
                    |                             -- Harlan Elison
Personal Opinions   |
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: 12/22/92   God's Promise in Hebrews 9:12
Summary: wrong
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:52:10 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <ksand-221292181110@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
(Kent Sandvik) writes:

>Paul at his best!

Hebrews was not (in the consensus view of modern scholarship) written
by Paul.  There *is* a tentative tradition associating it to him, but
no good reason for believing that.  The theology (and especially that
priest bizneh) is very different from Paul's.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 07:03:38 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
: In article <1992Dec31.125526.19576@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: >I also see few "rules" of Christianity, as a religion, that is in 
: >conflict with the "rules" practiced by pagans or Witches. In both
: >cases, it is a matter of interpretation of what is written.
: 
: But what _is_ the "rules" of Christianity?
: 
: The only reasonable definition I can think of is "whatever other Christians
: say the rules are".  In which case, the rules do really conflict with yours.

Including those of other Christians. That is why there are so many sects in
the religion. There is little, or no, universal agreement on what their
beliefs should be.

: Of course, if you pick your own rules for Christianity different from what the
: (other) Christians use, then you can find that this version of Christianity
: doesn't conflict with paganism--but then, that version of Christianity is
: far different from what we usually refer to as Christianity....

My point is - Christians, just like any other religious grouping, are not
uniform in their interpretation of what "rules" they have. As others have
pointed out - you are applying your definition to all of Christiandom, and
all of paganism. Such universal statements are not valid, and have been
refuted many times - in this group.

Bill

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,sci.skeptic
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: WITCH was PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 09:02:57 GMT

arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
: >>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"?
: >BINGO!
: 
: I was under the impression that despite claims otherwise, modern-day worshippers
: that call themselves witches generally started their religion in modern times,
: rather than having a direct connection to ancient worshippers.

And, just what does that have to do with the argument? Many have adapted what
they can from the older religions. Many of the beliefs parallel those of the
earlier religions. Why not use the term?

The various Wiccan faiths are just as true to the ancient faiths as modern
Christianity is to the original Christian doctrine/dogma.

Remember - at the time Christianity was invented, it was a modern borrowing
from existing religions. Just like with all other know religions, it is a
blending of previous beliefs/myths - just given a different cover.

There is nothing wrong with this practice. If a person needs a mythology,
why go to the great effort to invent a totally new one, when there are so
many myths already available for use?

Bill
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why do people give Mormons a hard time?
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:37:06 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Dec11.164533.9464@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>Note: if any Mormons think that a question like this will do more harm than
>good, just post a message saying so. I don't want to bring any more
>flak on you than I know you already get.  I'm just baffled by the
>animosity many people have against the LDS church. Is it just
>sectarian back-biting?
>

What you have been seeing here mostly is those who hate Mormons
because they have beliefs that step over some line that they
have in their mind and because they are a growing and successful
religion.  Most commonly represented are the first type, who are
mostly evangelical and fundamentalist zealots.
The second type are liberals who detest Mormons as being too patriarchal,
conservative, homophobic, or the like.  The former are more offensive
and noisy, but the latter are of greater practical significance because
they are often in positions of power, at least in our present 
society.  But the liberals are somewhat restrained from wiping
us out by force because of their philosophy.  God help us all if the former 
ever come to power.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 31 Dec 1992 09:42:02 CST
From: <U56597@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Catholicism

I was christened and grew up Catholic.  In recent years, my family has been
attending a non-denominational church.  However, I would like to return to the
Catholic church.  Would I have to go through a re-confirmation (I did take
communion and everything, too) or have a confession session or would I just
go back?


Love,

Karla
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: God's Lil' Buddy
Date: 23 Dec 92 05:09:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


|(me)
||Ergo, your example is a bad one, even by your own bible's standards.
|
|/(rpitts)
|/Ergo, what do you know about the Bible?  
|
|Evidently a hell of a lot more than you do.

/(rpitts)
/Hmm.  Have you come to Jesus of Nazareth, the fullness of God in bodily
/form, as the Scriptures so point you?  

Sieferman said he did.  I believe that he is telling the truth.  Why
don't you believe him?

The problem with your theory on this is that it's too naive, Pitts.

If the person used to be a Christian, but isn't one now, well obviously
they were never *really* a Christian.  The fact that they turned away
proves it.

All nice and neat and easy. And wrong.



|/(rpitts)
|/I think the Bible points to the fact that people can turn away and this
|/is what the warning in Hebrews 6 and 10 speaks to.
|
|Then how do you explain your statement that people cannot fall away if
|they are true believers?  

/(rpitts)
/There are different soils (or levels of responsitivity) and that is the
/point of my using the parable of the sower.

That is not what the verses in Hebrews say.  Post the verses from both
ch.6 and ch.10.



|/(rpitts)
|/You seemed to have put me in a predefined box.

/(me)
/|Your beliefs have put you in a box.  All I am doing is showing you how
/|tight the box is.  That is the fault of the box, not me.

/(rpitts)
/Maybe your view of the box is tight, 


You are the one who first called it a box, Pitts, not me.



/(rpitts)
/You have read, however, that narrow is the way that
/leads to eternal life and few there are that find it, but broad is
/the way that lead to destruction and many go down that wide road.

Again, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about, so why did you 
bring it up?  Do you always bring up irrelevant points during a conversation?

Remember when Sieferman said that it was impossible to discuss things with 
you, because instead of discussion, you ramble on into sermon or bible 
verses instead?  The above is just such an example.


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24363 alt.atheism:24129
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:49:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec21.165332.2018@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>
>Of course, Mary was unluckiest of all - none of the fun, all of the hard work.
>

  There's a small T-shirt maker here in Oregon called "Screaming Man
  Northwest".  Among his other establishment mocking there are
  several christian theme shirts.  One of them has Mary yelling at
  Gabriel: "Great! The pain of childbirth without sex!".  Another
  has a very timid looking Jesus stating "The meek are
  screwed".  Other humorous stuff too.

  I bought one about 1 month before the election that would
  determine the future of homosexuality in Oregon.  On the front is 
  the title "Oregon Citizens Alliance".   Underneath is a picture of
  Hitler, hand held high, yelling "We support family values".  I
  revelled in the shit that one stirred up.  (My apologies to Harry
  over being offensive about such obviously trivial matters).

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:16:52 GMT

In article <fWN6Wtc@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> 
> Anyway, I think a better analogy would be if Ross Perot volunteered to
> skip all interest and dividends on his net worth for one hour. Can you
> imagine the trauma, poor Ross would barely make it through that hour of
> zero cash flow, strike that, actually it would be a net loss due to
> inflation for one hour. Everyone says their burden is the heaviest, but
> oh yeah, com'on, who feels it knows it most.

Oh 'jamon, if Ross felt for 1 hour all the interest lost from
all the money from the beginning to the end of time, he would have
had a cardiac arrest.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:52:44 GMT

In article <BzFM6w.2M4@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> >Original sin just says humans are born with a propensity to disobey
> >God and what god wants of his people. If J was born with this
> >propensity, he could not qualify to buy back his people through
> >the eternal sinless(spotless)sacrifice.
> Peopensity, eh?  Why did He give us such a propensity?  Sounds like a
> nasty set-up to me.
> 
I'll have to ask. but if I got the correct answer, I could not
prove it to you.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Reply-To: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:06:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.225426.5119@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <00965ACA.D5CD65E0@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:>
>So if you call yourself a heathen, how shall I interpret it?  Should I
>interpret it to mean that you live on a prairie, or should I interpret it to
>mean you are not of the (Christian) faith?  I think you mean the latter, and if
>so, you are using the redefined word, not the original.
>--

                                                                
     Actually, I use the word"heathen" as in prarie-dweller.  I was born in
Southern Minnesota, (see "Little House on the Prarie") and now live on another
prairie with sheep and cattle everywhere.  I did sound misleading, though,and
that's just my own silly fault.  It's also a joke.  My middle name is Heather.
An old nickname was M. Heather the Heathen.(SCA joke, so of course everybody's
not going to think it's too funny.)  
     What I meant to do was show how a word that really had nothing to do with
any religion but more along the lines of whereabouts was used to mean an evil
person by another faith.  But then again, we've got lots of examples of this
sort of thing.
                                      Thanx,
                                      La Mort.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:55:33 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec27.090524.9997@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
> 
> As you read the "love" and "hate" lists, mark down the ones that
> bother you - that seem inconsistent with God.
> 
> Look up these verses and get the full context. 
> 
> If God hates something or someone that bothers you, search the Bible
> to find out why.  Was the occurence under the old covenant or the
> new?  Was God patient before revealing His wrath?  How does this
> verse, with context, affect your view of God and how you expect Him
> to deal with you personally? 

Well, two points:
1. As we are created in the image of God, and we both love and hate
of various reasons, I don't see the problem of God's hate as something 
profound. If we are capable of hate, so is he as well.
2. Yet again we are dealing with the personal introspection and
understanding
of simple concepts, and no wonder the Christian community can't agree
when the sources are not self-explainable.

Otherwise I also suggest to download the text version of NIV and 
do greps (or On Location or whatever nice text search engines you
own). For instance, when I looked for "Kingdom of God" references
in the NT I was astounded about the amount of instances where Jesus
talked about it, and it revised my personal view that this was his main
message, unlike something that Paul added later.

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
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:18:29 GMT
	<NICHAEL.92Dec22093750@kariba.bbn.com>
	<1992Dec22.154510.17305@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Reply-To: ncramer@bbn.com
Distribution: na
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: kariba.bbn.com
In-reply-to: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com's message of 22 Dec 92 15:45:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.154510.17305@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:

   It is my understanding that most individuals believe that the DDS Isaiah
   Scroll descends from the Septuagint tradition. Apart from this, I have
   NEVER heard that a copy of the Septuagint was found at Q'mran.

Sorry for to be fussy, but just so there's no confusion...

I've certainly seen it argued that some of the readings in the main
[DDS=DSS?] Isaiah Scroll may reflect the same (pre-Masoretic) source/
tradition that is seen in the Septuagint.

I presume this is what you mean by "[descending] from the Septuagint
tradition" (i.e. I assume you're _not_ arguing that 1QIs(a) is a
backtranslation from the Greek or anything like that).

(One does need to be careful around Usenet...   ;)

N
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:49:51 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <eb6k02Mm2e.E01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>Nah, I wouldn't say that.  It has helped me lead many Mormons to Christ!
>

Not the first time you've made that claim.  Care to back it up with
verifiable names?
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 24 Dec 92 04:17:36 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17895@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <b2YW02L42epu01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>>Well, you cut off the reference, but it came from the Ensign, June 1985,
>>page 16 (I believe, that is from memory).  But I know it was from the
>>Ensign, in the First Presidecy Section, by the Prophet, in which most
>>Mormons I know refer to as Scripture.

>Gag me with a spoon!

Man, that would hurt!

>I don't know a single one that refers to the
>Ensign as scripture, but you may know some that do.

Yep, sure do!  Work with plenty of them.  Notice I didn't say they
regarded the Ensign as scripture, but rather the First Presidency Section
of the Ensign as Scripture.  There is a difference.  You are not reading
what I am writing.  You are reading into what I am writing.

>I profoundly
>disagree with the quotation you made from the talk by Apostle
>Benson, as did many in the Church.  It was highly ill advised.
>I certainly don't accept it as true, let alone scripture.  There
>are many things said by apostles that are false.  For example,
>Joseph Fielding Smith said that man would never reach the moon.
>This is false.  Your theory that Mormons have to accept every
>word any apostle says as scripture is absurd.  Most of what they
>say is their opinion.  I think your problem comes from your belief
>that every word of the Bible is literally true and the word of
>God.  I can see where it is a small leap from that to thinking
>that Mormons have similar beliefs about their apostles and
>prophets.  

I don't think that the Mormons believe every word of their Apostles is
true.  But when they do tell me that they believe a certain article is
Scripture, I have to assume that they are telling me the truth.

About the talk by Apostle Benson that I posted and you referred to above,
I have sent a letter to the First Presidency about the validity of it.
Since you guys are denying it and saying that he was "talked to" for
saying it.  I mean, the church still prints those fourteen fundementals
in several books, but you guys say they aren't true.  I will share with
you what the First Presidency says about it.  I have sent a letter to
Jason that includes the letter I sent.  He should be receiving it soon.

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Date: 25 Dec 92 01:51:06 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Isaiah 8:23(JPS): For (o-)if there were to be(-o) any break of day for
that        which is in straits, only the former        would have
brought abasement to the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali -
while the later one would have brought honor to the Way of the Sea, the
other side of the Jordan, and Galilee of the Nations.(p)

Isaiah 9:1 (NIV)   Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom 
for those who were in distress. IN THE PAST he humbled the land 
of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, BUT IN THE FUTURE he will 
honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the 
Jordan-- 

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In particular, I'd be interested in hearing how they
>arrived at "IN THE PAST" and "BUT IN THE FUTURE" and "Galilee of the
>Gentiles."
>^^^^^^^^???????

>If you have the NASB available, it might be interesting to post it and
>compare, also the NRSV would be interesting. The more information the
>better.

NRSV has 

"But there will be no gloom for those who were in anguish.  In the
former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land
of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of
the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations."

It appears that "in the past" come from "former", which JPS reads as a
reference to "former king", but most other translations read as a
reference to "former days".  Similarly latter.  I assume NIV reads
"the nations" here as a referring to the Gentiles, a meaning that I
believe it does have in many places.  As a modern-language
translation, NIV would tend to replace Hebrew idioms with more
staightforward language.