HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith becomes a Methodist, despite God's command.
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:01:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <f8D902kD29TM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
 >In article <1992Nov4.125932.9106@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:
 >>To add a little context to this rather nasty exchange.
 >>
 >>The portion of Joseph Smith's 1838 account which Mark objects to states
 >>the following:
 >>
 >>   I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong;
 >>   and the Personage who addressed me said that all their CREEDS were an
 >>   abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that:
 >>   they draw near to me with their lips, but they teach for doctrines the
 >>   commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power
 >>   thereof. (JS-H 1:19 - emphasis mine)
 >>
 >>   Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with
 >>   their mought, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their
 >>   heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept
 >>   of men: (Isaiah 29:13)
 >>
 >>   after the commandments and doctrine of men? (Col 2:22)
 >>
 >>   Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such
 >>   turn away (2 Tim 3:5)
 >>
 >>
 >
And Tony throws in this little sound bite:

 >Would I _dare_ suggest plagerism?
 >

Well, since when did it become plagerism for Jesus to quote
Himself?  Perhaps you think that the New testament writers
plagerized the Hebrew scriptures?


Robert
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Bearen Test rejects Christianty was (Re: Mormon Bashers Refuted)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:34:38 GMT

In article <1aGk02NE2apu01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1688@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>>agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>|
>>|markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>>|
>>|When God gives revelation (A), because we know that he cannot contridict
>>|Himself, He cannot lie, and will not change, then we know that any other
>>|revelation that comes along, (b), (c), (d), etc... will be in complete
>>|harmony with the oldest revelations (that is, if it is of God).
>>|
>>|Therefore, we can do, as the Bereans did in Acts 17, and compare the
>>|"newer" revelations against the oldest, and if it is in complete harmony
>>|with it, then it is of God.  If it is not in harmony with the oldest
>>|revelation that we _know_ is of God, then we can deduce that it isn't
>>|from God.  This is precisely what the Bereans did when Paul was preaching
>>|something "new" to them, and that is the example we are to follow when
>>|someone claims to have "new" revelations.  We need to follow that example.
>>
>>So where shall we start?  What do you propose as the oldest revelation
>>that we can agree came from God?
>>
>
>The Bereans used what we know today as the Old Testament.  Any newer
>revelations, such as the New Testament, that does not go against the old,
>has much crediblity of being from God.  It's the new revelations that
>speak out against what has already been revealed, that we know cannot be
>from God (D&C, BoM, etc..)


Ah good, then shall we appliy a _pure_ berean test and use _only_ the
OT and see what the OT would say about a claim that the promised one
of Isreal is _also_ God.     

If Paul _had_ presented this as doctrine to the bereans, would they have
rejected this  (true) Christian doctrine? Should we reject true
doctrine based souly on a Berean test.   No.


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:23:53 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Nov9.183238.9891@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
|
|kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
|
|>Hmm...let's see.  You imply by this that the only sort of reasonable
|>expectation for praise is when it's for a trait that you *did* have
|>something to do with, right?
|
|Replace the word 'trait' with 'accomplishment' and I have implied that.
|
|>You run into a real nasty problem here, though.  There is nothing (that
|>I'm aware of, excluding pure chance) that a person does that does not, in
|>some way, rely on one or more of his built-in (inherited) traits. 
|
|Certainly. But what the gospels do praise is the diligent use of your 
|inherited traits. See the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30). The 
|point of this teaching is to "use what you got". 

Or in other words:

                    Talent is from God
                        be humble,
                    Fame if from man
                        be thankful,
                    Conceit is from self
                        be careful.
                                  -copied.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 00:23:04 GMT

>|I agree that a meaningfule universal religion would be understandable
>|for someone in Borneo as well. This is the reason I don't know why
>|Christianity needs usually 4-10 years of intensive training 
>|(speaking about my Lutheran background).
Correction.  That is probably that specific *Lutheranism* that
needs usually 4-10 years of intensive training.  i.e.  Lutheranism
is neither necessary or sufficient for being Christian.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Religious Right Must Be Destroyed
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:31:38 +1030
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <1d2indINN1ko@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
> jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
> 
>>We cannot allow them to take over this country like they have the
>>Republican party.
> 
> Then Join the Atheist Left!  ;-)
> 
> Actually, I think it's good that the Republicans be associated with a
> bunch of loonies like these bozos in the Religious Right.  If the RNC
> leadership hadn't have gotten in bed with them to capture votes in the
> first place, they wouldn't be in the power position they're in now.
> And when regular God-Fearing folk begin to realize what their
> leadership goals are, it will be the Republicans who will take the
> blame.

I think the orgiginal postor has a problem with definitions
here. When most people say the 'right wing' they usually mean
dogmatic conservatives. It just so happens that in the West,
conservatives are mostly Protestants, so to try to keep the
people's support they try to use the old USSR as a kind of
proof that atheists are property-stealing baby-murdering left
wingers (see Pat Robertson's anti-feminist spew) and now that
the 'evil' communists are no longer in power the religious are
coming out in droves.

May I remind people that a number of British unions (such as the
damned luddites R Murdoch had to put up with) declared themselves
as 'Christian Socialists'.
(From 'The End of the Street', can't remember name of female author)

Your average Catholic layman usually votes for a left-leaning
party, to the point (in Australia) there was a definate takeover
of the leftwing Australian Labour Party by catholics early this
century.

I am an atheist, but I am also a right-leaning capitalist. There
is NO WAY that I can be considered a conservative. I listen to
heavy metal - does that make me a screaming satanist?? NO! So
why should someone who is religious assumed to be a right winger?
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bonney@esds.mdc.com (Greg Bonney)
Subject: comments on Neopaganism FAQ
Organization: Visual Simulation Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:16:57 GMT

In talk.religion.misc Eric writes:
>and it deals with mythology and the realm of the `spiritual'.  But, as
>we in the Judeo/Christian West have come to understand `religion' (an
>organized body of belief that connects the `supernatural' with an
>authoritarian moral code via `faith') neopaganism is effectively and
>radically anti-religious.  I emphasize this because it is important in
>understanding what follows.

Not all Christians put such a big emphasis on the moral code.  Faith has to do
with belief and trust, not following a bunch of rules.

>    Ritual and festive nudity are common; to be naked before nature is
>often considered a holy and integrating act in itself.  Sex is
>considered sacramental and sexual energy and symbolisms permeate
>neopagan practice (we like to contrast this with Christianity, in
>which the central sacrament commemorates a murder and climaxes in
>ritual cannibalism).

That's a very narrow view of Christianity.  First off, protestants (and
probably most catholics today) no longer believe that the bread and wine
actually magically become the body and blood of Christ.

Second, the emphasis isn't on the act of murder, but on the sacrifice that
Jesus was making for us.  Jesus knew he was going to be killed, but he didn't
split town.

I believe that Jesus' original intent was probably for us to think of his
sacrifice every time we sat down to eat (not just when we were at church).
The emphasis here is on communal rememberance.

In fact, most protestants don't even believe in "sacraments".  That's a
catholic idea.  Rather, we practice the communion simply as a reminder.

Most Christians would probably think your "sex as a sacrament" belief is
simply an excuse to practice immorality.  However, you have a right to your own
belief, so who am I to judge?

I just want to make sure you're aware that when you say "Christianity", you are
making a blanket statement about a large number of groups, each of which has a
different interpretation of the meaning behind those events which changed the
world almost 2000 years ago.
From: bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk (Adrian S Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:02:56 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Norman To (to@teecs.UUCP) wrote:
: Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?

Jesus Christ is the only way to God, your salvation can only come from Him.

If you really want to know God then I can testify that not only is it possible but that God wants you to love him. If you want more information then contact me at my e-mail address [bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk]. I would really like to to come to know Him as I do ......


In anticipation...

Adrian Harvey
From: wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:44:43 GMT
Organization: Red Wolfe @ The Wolves Den
X-Md4-Signature: 9b119d2d8de8f2971b215e27148ec22b

In article <BxH0In.520@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>If the government is given the authority to recognize the "IMPORTANCE
>OF PRAYER" by setting aside time for prayer, it would then also have
>the authority to recognize the "STUPITY OF RELIGION" by setting aside
>time for students to discuss this topic. This discussion would be
>student led, it would not be led a teacher or official. Different
>groups of students might think different things were stupid, if so
>they form separate discussion groups.

My my Carl.  How neatly you show your own prejudices.
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den, Durham NC	[This site is NOT affiliated  ]
wolfe@wolves.durham.nc.us			[with Duke University! Idiots!]
UUCP: ...!duke!wolves!wolfe      <Standard Disclaimers apply>
    Above All, we celebrate!  --Celebrate the Circle, Statement of Purpose.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:58:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.101554.14585@newstand.syr.edu>
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>If you can't tell the difference between calling someone a "cripple"
>as opposed to calling them "handicapped," then I doubt that you are
>mentally-equipped to take part in any discussion of language.
>
>The difference is akin to the difference between calling somebody a
>"pip-squeak" and calling somebody "short."

I know more people who refer to themselves as "crippled" than as
"handicapped".  I know a number of people who refer to themselves as
"short", but I've never heard anyone use "pip-squeak" in a self-
referential manner.  Is that the distinction you meant?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:06:21 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Nov11.012018.3204@medtron.medtronic.com>, ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
|> 
|> Wait a minute, you have not answered ALL of the questions.  You seem
|> to have difficulties finding all the contradicions, so I will list
|> the contradictory answers I see impossible to SIMULTANEOUSLY resolve.
|> 
|> Q1:  Mathew 26:14-15, 27:3-8 clearly says Judas returned ALL
|>      the money to the priests.
Really? I thought it said that he showed up with the 30 pieces of silver.
There is an implication that he wanted to return them all. However, the
priests did not want to take the money back. The next statement about
the money involves Judas throwing it. How much is not stated in that
verse. It is only by inference that you can determine how much he threw.
|> 
|>      Acts 1:18 clearly says that he bought some land with
|>      (at least some) of the money.
|> 
|> Q2:  Mathew 27:7 clearly says the priests bought it.
|> 
|>      Acts 1:18 clearly says that Judas bought it.  
I don't agree that it is clear that Judas himself went and made the
transaction. I doubt it is a point we can resolve, but it is good
to understand each others viewpoint.
|> 
|> Q3:  Mathew 27:5 clearly says he hung himself.
Agreed.
|> 
|>      Acts 1:18 says he fell and his abdomen burst open.  
Agreed.
|> 
|> Q4:  Acts 1:19 clearly says the potters field.  That is why
|>      it is named the field of blood. 
|> 
|>      Mathew does not give a location, but it probaly wasn't the
|>      potters field, becasue it is called that because the land
|>      was bought with tainted money.  (This is the weakest of the
|>      contradictions, alone it really doesn't matter very much.)
|> 
|> Q5:  Acts 1:19 cleary says because Judas dies there. 
Really? I've carefully looked at both v 18 & 19. Perhaps I missed it
but I find no mention of the word death, only falling headlong and 
bursting open. Granted, that if a person wasn't already dead such an
excercise would likely prove fatal, but cause of death is not clearly
stated in the verse. That has to be put in by inference.
|> 
|>      Mathew 27:6-8 clearly says because the priests used tainted
|>      money to purchase the plot.
|> 
|> The only answer I can give to it is that Acts 1:18-19 is reporting
|> the local gossip, and thus is not completely factual.  That seems
|> to be the best answer for this.
I could accept this explanation too. Again it results in no Biblical
error. However, I like it less because it requires inference.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:27:35 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <73143@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> It is legal, but the desire is for an organized voluntary period of
> prayer.  The idea is that we believe that prayer is important and should
> be a recognized part of national life.  You will have the opportunity
> to not pray, just as you don't pray now.  I don't know if this is part of 
> it, but maybe there should be a place to assemble for those who want to 
> pray, as opposed to a set period of time IN a classroom.  

Nothing stops people from praying during breaks, or even during 
classes if you really want to. I think we all would abhor a situation
where even this would be prohibited. In other words why all the fuss
for something that is available already?

However, if a public school pushes innocent children to pray in 
the name of XXX 1), that's something that clearly goes overboard
concerning the state dictating what the child should believe in.

Kent
1) Substitute XXX with Allah, God, Jahveh...
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: CONTRADICTIONS About God
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:57:28 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire


          
                          CONTRADICTIONS about God

               Christians should all HONESTLY and thoroughly 
          investigate the CONTRADICTIONS between the Old and New 
          Testaments in terms of their descriptions of God. 

               The God of the New Testament is described as a God of 
          LOVE, MERCY, and PEACE. 

               The god of the Old Testament is described as a JEALOUS, 
          VENGEFUL god, a WAR-MONGER.  He said "Thou shalt not kill", 
          and then proceeded to help the Israelites to kill TENS OF 
          THOUSANDS of Arabs in order to take their land.  [And the 
          zionist PIG$ from Israel are still doing it today!] 

               Can the two Testaments POSSIBLY be talking about the 
          same thing?! 


               The "god" of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE OF 
          RENEGADE SPACE CANNIBALS, with a leader named "Yahweh", who 
          was the commander of a UFO SPACECRAFT ("pillar of fire", 
          "pillar of cloud", etc.), and a GENETICIST who CLONED Adam 
          and Eve FROM HIMSELF and put them on this planet which was 
          ALREADY INHABITED at that time.  And the "first born sons" of 
          the Israelites became ROAST DINNER for the "JehovahS". 

               All of this may sound UN-believable to most Christians.  
          But try reading the Old Testament with these things in mind.  
          For example, read the part about one of the Old Testament 
          characters, Jacob, I think, WRESTLING WITH GOD, AND WINNING!  
          [ ALWAYS use the KING JAMES VERSION.  Later versions are PER-
          VERSIONS! ] 

               See also the book "THE LOST TRIBES FROM OUTER SPACE", by 
          Marc Dem, 1974, Bantam Books, Inc.. 



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:37:57 GMT

In article <ksand-121192182011@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.210910.18822@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>lungtt@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) wrote:
>> I don't know.  But I'm beginning to think there may be some useful
>> consequences of any kind of doctrine from the first day in school.
>> Do those other countries have as much rape, murder, drug gangs and extortion 
>> going on in their public *grammar* schools as we do here in the USA?
>> Is this a consequence of the *absence* of this kind of education from
>> the first day in school?...
>
>There are other countries that lacked religious doctrines in school,
>and these countries didn't have high numbers of rape, murder, drug
>gangs and extortion before they suddenly became free societies...

What kind of breakdown is there for where the *others* get their
sense of morality?  Are you sure it isn't religious?

Terence
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:58:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <76790001@teecs.UUCP>, to@teecs.UUCP (Norman To) writes...

>Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?

I'm not sure, but my travel agent has some good rates...  Maybe scalpers at
the Gates are selling Unlimited Access Passes.

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.slack,alt.discordia,alt.pagan,alt.conspiracy
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: MARK-OF-THE-BEA$T bar-code$/scanner$
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:44:58 GMT

In article <BxBL91.41A@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>'Del Monte Sliced Peach Halves in Light Syrup' is not the same as UPC! Laugh
>now, but try it when the Great Whore of Bablyon sits on your face!

I truly hope, for the sake of Mr. Harvey, that his post is a parody of some
sort....
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex