HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: FTPable KJV?
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:56:13 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:

>I have seen several people refer to an FTPable KJV.  Could someone
>give me a pointer to the location so I can download one?  Thankx.

Try wuarchive.wustl.edu.

You can find the Authorized Version (=KJV) in /mirrors/msdos/bible.

You can also get the OnLine Bible, which has the AV (=KJV), ASV, Webster
Bible, Greek & Hebrew bibles on the same server, in /doc/bible.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: charlie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
Organization: Stanford U
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:56:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.150122.4635@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>
>I, being a scientist, once believed that evolution had all the answers.  But,
>evolution presents some gross inconsistencies with modern scientific laws. 
>Evolution requires that all matter somehow came together to form life.  The 
>law of entropy states that all systems will tend toward a state of maximum 
>entropy (maximum disorganization).  If this law is valid, then how, without
>some outside force, did matter come together to form life?

Having been a young man during the 60's, I can affirmatively testify
that there are plants that have leaves or fruit that will alter one's
world view.  That alteration may be on a temporary or permanent basis.
The point is, there exists evidence of the possibility.  For that
reason, there is no doubt in my mind that Adam ate the fruit.  It's
been a fairly bad trip ever since that no human seems capable of every
straightening out.

Mike also raises a signifcant point.  Evolution fails to explain
both the differentiation of living cells to organization and the
organization into an organism.

C
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Catholic Church on marriage
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:53:13 GMT

In article <Bt8u78.CCz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

:   Loren, this debate has deteriorated to the point that your arguments are
:nothing more than you (incorrectly) telling me what I believe and what my
:church teaches, rather than giving any valid arguments against what the
:Catholic Church really teaches.  I will not say why I think you are
:misrepresenting these teachings of the Church, because I don't presume to
:know what you are thinking, or what your motives are.

	What gives you that idea?

	I was only trying to interpret all that Vatican rhetoric, to
state it in plain terms.

	After a lot of thought, I have concluded that those aged
celibates seem to believe that a woman who gets pregnant but who gets
an abortion is shirking her duty of bearing a child.

	There is also the question of why they expect people who don't
want children not to have sex, even if they are married to each other.
Does the Vatican think that celibate marriages are a good thing? I
know that they once did, calling celibate marriage Josephite marriage.
Has the Church turned around in recent decades and clearly (and I mean
_clearly_) stated that the Josephite marriage is an unworthy ideal?

	And what of sex past menopause?

	[more whining about my supposed misrepresentations deleted...]
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: self-worship
Keywords:  What's going on here?
Organization: Who is god?
	<Bszn8I.LrJ@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <66293@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
	<Bt79HF.E87@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <sbuckley.714252726@sfu.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:05:14 GMT

Paul Harvey writes:
One True God for the one, each and every one coming to 
find one's own One True God. This is just the way of the individual, the
authentic individual living an authentic life.

Stephen Buckley writes:
  and the way of self-worship because there is nothing certainly-knowable
greater than yourself [like God(tm)] to judge whether you've got god or not.  
at this level when you are in control of god's definition, you control god,
thus you are god.

---
What? I think you've taken some kind of grand leap of faith. Are you saying you
control god and are god? And what's this "self-worship" stuff? Where did you
get that from? I assure you that the way of the individual has absolutely
nothing to do with delusions of grandeur or "self-worship". Where did you
pick up that propaganda?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: Morphe: Hear ye PAUL
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:26:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.071129.3397@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:

>Several net.christians have claimed that Phil 2:6 'proves' that Paul
>*did* believe Jesus was God incarnate, and I reply that the proper
>translation of 'morphe' and '(h)arpagmos' shows that (i) no clear
>conclusion about Jesus' metaphysical status can be made on the basis
>of this passgae and (ii) it indicates that Jesus and Yahweh were *not*
>equal in Paul's eyes. 

>Tim O'Neill 

If one were to continue in the same passage they would find the exalted
Jesus to whom every knee shall bow and ever tongue confess:

Phil 2:9-11 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave
him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.

Thus what is in question in verse 6 is confirmed in the rest of the passage.
All creation shall bown down to this exalted Lord.  This is fact according
to Paul.  

Now going even further, compare this to Isaiah 45:23

"Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and
 there is no other.  By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all 
 integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow"


Paul, in this letter to the Philippians declares the omnipotent Lord Jesus
who has power of all things:

Phil 2:20-21 20 But our citizenship is in heaven.  And we eagerly await
a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that 
enables him to bring all things under his control, will transform our lowly 
bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Paul declares that Jesus is life to him (for me to live is Christ 1:21)
and that nothing compares to knowing Jesus:

Phil 3:8 What is more, I consider all things a loss compared to the 
surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake
I have lost all things.  I consider them rubbish that I may gain Christ...

Compared to Jesus Christ, Paul counted all things rubbish.  In Ephesians
chapter 3 he declares that the love of Christ surpasses knowledge.

Friends, we are talking about one awesome, exalted and omnipotent Lord
here.  May all give him the glory that is due his name.

With love,

-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Keywords: Luke 14: 26 means follow me and be free
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Aug16.035213.6003@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <hb#n--h.gordons@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:32:16 GMT

somebody wrote:
>>Even though we may have
>>good intentions, they may end up resulting in "evil" (i.e., not good) if we
>>do not have all the information relating to a particular situation.  Christ,
>>too, advanced from grace to grace and knowledge to knowledge.  Sounds like
>>we need a church with a living prophet at the head so that we do not "wrest
>>the scriptures unto [our] own destruction." [2 Pet. 3:16]

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>Or, we need to toss aside this yoke of religion and get on with our own
>lives.

Exactly! Religion is not supposed to serve as a yoke. The Lord delivered
us all FROM slavery, not into another form of self-imposed slavery. And
yet many people want to cling to the broken shackles as a reminder of
the days of slavery, many people still want to serve a master. Why
Europeans aspire to this self-imposed slavery is beyond me. We are all
FREE. If the Lord has delivered us FROM slavery, what purpose does it
serve to cling to the broken shackles? What purpose does it serve to
desire the Lord as slave master? Why don't we follow the Lord's wish and
act like the FREE people? Why do we cling to the broken shackles? Why do
Europeans cling to the broken shackles? What is this love of the old
days of slavery? Slavery is a disgrace to both slave and master. You may
desire the old days of slavery, the old days of serving one all knowing
master, but those days are gone as sure as the days in the garden of
Eden are gone. The Lord has delivered our people, Homo sapien sapien,
FROM slavery. Why do you cling to the broken shackles?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: To Herb Sutter.  Good insight, Herb.
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:11:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.022131.454@sdf.lonestar.org> corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
>1) How did the Supreme Being get here?

In a stretch Cadillac limo?

>2) Why does man have an appendix?

Because God forgot to include everything in the main body of man's text?

>3) Why does man have nipples?

Chests look awfully funny without them?

>4) Why does man have the vestiges of a tail bone?  Why do some babies
>(very rarely) have fleshy tails at birth?

God likes jokes?

>5) Why do man's genes (semen) pass through the verysame opening
>our liquid wastes (urine) go through?  Just think of such wonderful
>design.

You think that's bad -- just look at birds and lizards, in which all wastes
go through the same opening that contains the sex organs, not just the liquid
wastes.

>6) Why was a whale, _Basilosaurus isis_, found in the deserts of Egypt
>with the clear remnants of hind legs? (pelvis, tibia, fibula, etc, etc)

Because it wanted to get to the other side?

>7) Why do some snakes have vestigial pelvises?  

Ah, this is easy.  Snakes had legs before God cursed them for tempting Eve
to try the forbidden fruit.

>8) Why does man develop gill slits when developing in the mother's wound?

You looked!  This is just another example of God's sense of humor.

B^) B^) B^) B^)

   \_\_\_                               \
    \_   \_          \_                 /   -Pete Zakel
     \_   \_  \_\_    \_     \_\_       \
\_\_  \_\_\_ \_   \_ \_\_\_ \_   \_     /       phz@cadence.com
       \_     \_\_\_    \_   \_\_\_     \    or
        \_     \_        \_   \_        /       ..!uunet!cadence!phz
         \_      \_\_      \_   \_\_    \

		Gimmie That Old Time Religion

We will follow Zarathustra,		We will worship like the Druids,
Zarathustra like we use to,		Dancing naked in the woods,
I'm a Zarathustra booster,		Drinking strange fermented fluids,
And he's good enough for me!		And it's good enough for me!
	(chorus)				(chorus)

In the church of Aphrodite,
The priestess wears a see through nightie,
She's a mighty righteous sightie,
And she's good enough for me!
	(chorus)

CHORUS:	Give me that old time religion,
	Give me that old time religion,
	Give me that old time religion,
	'Cause it's good enough for me!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:41:43 GMT

In article <36726@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, sobarr@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Carlos Saul Menem)
writes:
> 	ok che, what ever your name was, i got your post confused
> with someone elses.  maybe i should put it this way.  micro
> evolution is on the cellular level, macro evolution is on the
> population level.  depending on how you denote species, one could
> say that the microevolution aspect is dealing with genotype, and the
> macro with phenotype.  I realize that this is not exactly true, but
> it might help others out.  again i urge anyone who dosen't know the
> diffrence to look at a population genetics book, and a "regular"
> genetics book.

  Hold on, can we just get one thing streight.  Evolution is a change in the
gene pool of a species.  If we have a change in the cellular structure, and it
is evolution, then that change has happened throughout the population.

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference your trying to convey is
that microevolution is a change in the genome of a species on a small scale, and
macroevolution is a change in the structure of the species (ie change in hair
color is micro, an extra head is macro).  the barrier is very amorphous as it is
based on the opinion of the observer.

  The standard definition of macroevolution that I have come across is a
formation of a new species.  (Two animals are of a different species if
interbreeding does not produce viable offspring).

  Note that evolution of new species have been observed three times in the last
110 years.  Apparently it happens all the time, we just didn't know what to look
for before then.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Noah's Ark Apologetics (was Laura questions)
Keywords: DOGMA IS DOGMA
Organization:  Promote Family Values, like Luke 14:26
	<1992Aug20.165305.26051@gboro.glassboro.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:56:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.165305.26051@gboro.glassboro.edu> 
kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>% For scale, the wettest place on earth is Mt Waialeale, Hawaii, which gets
>  only 38 feet of rain per YEAR.

I thought the wettest place was some place in India that gets near 1,000
inches per year and actually still has a dry season. Check Guinness' Book of
Records. And the tallest mountain is not Everest, it is Hawai'i herself, home
of THE Goddess of Creation and Destruction, Pele. But, on this whole flood 
thing. The big flood is an old myth that proceeds Christianity by who knows 
how many thousands of years. The thing to keep in mind is that it is myth and 
metaphor. To even think that it might be fact is a classic example of 
dogmaticism. Dogma is to learn FROM, it is not for the enslavement of the 
student into dogmaticism. And yes, that is actual and ph-actual. Why is it that
so many get fooled into thinking that dogma itself is fact?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<1992Aug5.170223.13932@oclc.org> <12776@inews.intel.com> 
	<1992Aug11.115707.12671@phillip.edu.au> 
	<1992Aug11.171145.8583@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <12903@inews.intel.com> 
	<sbuckley.714027054@sfu.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:08:34 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714027054@sfu.ca> 
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>  no hinduism is polytheistic because there are over 330 million gods
>being worshipped under the hindu theology.

330 million, hmm. In Hinduism, there is the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva
and there is Krishna, whom you would call Christ, but all of these are just
manifestations of THE TRANSCENDENT. I suppose you could say Hinduism has
330 million gods because Hindus believe all gods are valid gods, so Hindu
gods include J/C/I Gods and Mesopotamian Gods and Egyptian Gods and American
Gods and even Pagan Gods, but all of these gods and many more are just
representations of THE TRANSCENDENT. Sound familar? If Hinduism is 
polytheistic, Christianity is polytheistic. That which you call GOD, Hindus
call THE TRANSCENDENT, it's the same thing. That which you call Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, Hindus call Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, it's the same thing. That
which you call Jesus (Christ), Hindus call Krishna, it's the same thing. 
Those whom you call fundementalists/evangelicals like JW's, Hindus call Hare
Krishnas. Why is this a problem? Don't you find these similarities 
enlightening, or do you find them threatening? Why? If you follow the words 
of Christ, why don't you at least read the words of Krishna? The Mahabharata 
awaits you. Why not read it first before you decide to call it the work of
the Christian Devil?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: Re: Brutal Honesty
Organization: Glassboro State College
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:24:35 GMT


In the most amazing reply I've ever gotten, Steve Gross attacks me because
I *didn't* flame him.  Well, I'm not going to flame him again.

Basically, Mr Gross said something very condescending; Steve Dyer flamed him,
and a few people got on Mr Dyer's case.  I responded by saying that while what
Mr Dyer wrote wasn't exactly how I would phrase it, he did basically say what
I was thinking.

In reply, Mr Gross writes:

> As for your comments about what I write, you are much worse than Mr. Dyer,
> because you don't have the balls to come out and say what you really think.
> You try to fancy pants your way around it under a guise of fellowship, and
> friendship.  HA  people like you are pathetic.

Mr Dyer's exact words were these:

 < Go fuck yourself and crawl back into that BBS of yours, you prissy,
 < sanctimonious twit.  Gad, I can't believe the morons who wander into here.

That isn't EXACTLY what I was thinking, but I can't think of any polite way to
say exactly what I was thinking.  Margaret Thatcher could blast you to bits
and never say anything even vaguely offensive to anybody; when I can do that,
I'll be sure and attack you more often.


> At least Mr. Dyer commands respect with his arguments.  He does not call
> me names, or downgrade me personally because of an opinion.  He attacks
> the opinion.  If you have something to say to me, then say it, otherwise
> just SHUT UP!

Well, if you insist:

  I find your articles badly written and poorly reasoned.  I find your
  apparent glee at the impending damnation of billions of humans revolting,
  and I am convinced that you have no soul.  Since your articles are both
  mechanically and stylistically irritating, I have skipped almost all of
  them since the first half-dozen.  In fact, discussions you are involved
  with usually degenerate into pointless arrogant one-upmanship, so I kill
  most threads that I see you participating in.


I really had no intention of communicating with you at all, because I think
that is a pointless endeavour.  I only posted to defend Steve Dyer against
somewhat unfair criticism.  However, since you asked, I told you.  I'm sorry
if you don't like my comments, and I'm sure you are a wonderful person in
real life.

However, this isn't real life, this is Usenet.  I have a feel for the kinds of
contributors and discussions which are merely a waste of time -- and you fit
my usual standards of "useless contributor".  Don't take that personally: it's
not that you have nothing worth writing, it's that you never write anything I
consider worth reading.  There may be people who find your usual topics
fascinating, and who enjoy your writing style.  But I am not among them.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.motss
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Gore Vidal's new book: LIVE from Golgotha
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:21:11 GMT

	I am cross-posting on soc.motss because Gore Vidal may be of
interest from his portrayal of homosexual people (male ones, at any
rate).

	Gore Vidal is publishing a new book: LIVE from Golgotha, which
covers some of the subject matter discussed here recently, that of
sending a research expedition to find out what Jesus Christ had been
like.

	Here goes, courtesy of Vanity Fair, September 1992:

	The story is narrated by St. Timothy, the traveling companion,
and (at least in the Gospel according to Gore) cute, blond, hugely
endowed lover of St. Paul. Timothy is inlisted by competing 20th-cy.
executives, who return to Biblical times after a mysterious Hacker
erases nearly all record of the life of Christ. The Jesus whom Paul
saw on the road to Damascus was a grossly obese smooth talker with a
compulsive craving for halvah and a tendency to lie about his age. Or
so Timothy thinks, until he learns that this was not Jesus at all, but
Judas -- and that Our Lord pulled a fast one on the Roman soldiers,
nailing his accuser in his place. And who was the real Jesus? Well, he
was thin, as one imagines, but otherwise he was a far cry from the
loving, forgiving figure depicted by Paul. The actual Jesus is a
fire-breathing Zionist eager for Armageddon, and he has turned up in
the 20th cy. with bad teeth, a fondness for Spago, and a blueprint for
nuclear holocaust.

	The _Vanity Fair_ article continued that _LIVE from Golgotha_
is GV's summing-up of all he finds ludicrous and odious about
Christianity.

	GV also wrote _Julian_, about the Roman Emperor who wanted to
give the Empire some of that old-time pagan religion instead of the
newly official Christianity. Unfortunately, at least in GV's opinion,
he failed.

	About Christianity, GV has a rather low opinion. The logic of
the Trinity, he says, "is so gorgeously absurd that it makes me
laugh".

	The article continued with GV's comment about how this AIDS
panic seems eerily familiar -- AIDS is today what syphilis had been
before penicillin was discovered.

	GV has had controversy in the past; one of his works back in
the 1950's was _The City and the Pillar_, about an athletic
all-American young man's unrequited passion for another such man after
a youthful sexual encounter. It was written in a style that suggested
some sort of thinly disguised autobiography; according to GV, some
aging pederasts are convinced to this day that he was once a male
prostitute with an excellent backhand at tennis. It caused a big
scandal at the time for treating homosexuality in a straightforward,
non-moralistic way; he was sternly lectured by various critics on the
joys of heterosexual love.

	Follow-up to my previous post: on how to get that souped-up
DeLorean to Israel: a military cargo plane is probably the most
suitable way, although any means of transportation would somehow have
to cope with Israeli customs. If convincing Israeli customs that it is
not a super-duper car bomb is hard, then explaining it to some
suspicious Roman official may be even harder.