HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A deep bit of flame bait
Date: 24 Dec 1992 06:55:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, arron@waikato.ac.nz () says:

>>>I will keep you in my prayers.
>>>
>> This statement is the epitome of condescension.  I have always felt, even
>> when I was a christian, that praying for a person should only be done with
>> that persons consent.  To do otherwise is to make choices for a person that
>> are not yours to make.  Anyone who has left the church has their reasons
>> and it is not up to *you* to second guess those reasons.
>
>I can't agree with that statement. If I see something I would like God to
>change, then I MUST pray, as that is how I most commonly communicate with God.
>In saying I will keep you in my prayers, I am just informing someone of what I
>am doing to follow the call God has for my life.
>
I do not want to be in your prayers.  Your god has done me enough harm as
it is.  I do not want to have to worry about further interference from it.

>If I don't pray for things then I am not really showing God how I feel about
>situations. I also am prepared to tell someone that I am praying for them, and
>don't hide it behind their back.

You should also respect another persons wishes and leave them unless they
request otherwise.  Your interference is NOT appreciated.
>
>Finally if someone really does care about whether they have made the right
>choice or not, then they should be prepared for me to do my part to help them
>discover if they did choose correctly. If there is no God, then my prayers will
>go unanswered, if there is (which of course I believe there is), then my
>prayers may help them make the right choice.

It may also cause them undue stress due to interference which is competely
undesired! 
>
>I don't see that I am being condescending in ANY way, just me doing my part to
>follow the faith I believe in.
>
Follow your faith.  KEEP ME OUT OF IT!  I WANT NO PART OF IT!

-- 
All propositions are true in some sense, false in some sense and
meaningless in some sense.  
                               --Hagbard Celine H.M. S.H.
<this is a signature virus, to spread it, just copy into your sig-file>
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Good "Quotes"
Date: 23 Dec 92 03:14:05 GMT
Return-Path: <amail.amdahl.com!rich.bellacera@juts.ccc.amdahl.com>


"The Church is the only Fellowship in the world where the one requirement for
membership is the unworthiness of the candidate."
                             - Robert B. Munger

"A man who will not stand for something is quite likely to fall for anything."
                             - anonymous (?)

"In Germany they first came for the Communist, and I didn't speak up because
I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew.  Then they came for the trade unionist, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.  Then they came for the Catholic,
but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.  Then they came for me --
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
                             - Pastor Martin Niemoller, Berlin, 1946

"The devil can quote scripture for his own purpose."
                             - William Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice ACT1:3)

"Christians are the greatest reason for accepting Christ, but they are also
the greatest excuse for rejecting him."
                             - Charles Finney

"The secret of praying is praying in secret."
                             - Leonard Ravenhill

"I have elected to stand on the ramparts of Biblical Christianity as taught by
the apostles, defended by the Church Fathers, rediscovered by the Reformers.."
                             - Walter Martin, M.A.,PhD

"You can't appreciate Jesus as all you want until He's all you've got."
                             - anonymous (?)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 20 Dec 92 04:00:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation


In article <1glaalINNfjm@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> maupb@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J L Saunders) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.045805.22624@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@csd-d-4.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>%In article <1992Dec10.172246.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> 
>%  holt_c@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>% 
>%> ...this reminds me of the absolute weirdest sin I've ever been accused of..
>%> Basically they said my sin was not having a girlfriend at that
>%>moment in time.  Their actual words were, "You are depriving some girl of
>%>yourself."  And I thought I was strange.  

You just hadn't bought the popular BornAgainChristianMindSet which
equates "married"=="adult" and "unmarried"=="child/irresponsible/slacker".

Unmarried men in particular are dangerous. Unmarried men are frequently
barred from becoming pastors or otherwise engaging in FullTimeChristianService.
Unmarried men are also usually not elected as elders, deacons, or other
church leadership positions.

Unmarried women may be eligible for some positions that married women
aren't, because "an unmarried woman is focused on God", and a married
woman "is subject to her husband". (She couldn't take a job that
might reduce her ability to help her husband or might require relocating,
now could she?  And she can't make a commitment because he may disagree
or need to relocate!)

Note also that the HighestAimInLife for Women is to become a loving
WifeAndMother. Thus "you are depriving some girl of yourself".

>%This sounds like the most sensible thing I have ever heard a religion
>%say.  Imagine the pickup lines "Excuse me, but God wants me to go
>%out with you".  

I may try that one sometime ;>

>Brings a whole new meaning to "I'm on a mission from God"

Indeed.

-jen

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec21.175006.21374@engage.pko.dec.com>
Date: 22 Dec 1992 02:06:34 UTC

In article <1992Dec21.175006.21374@engage.pko.dec.com> 
pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>In article <fWT9KJT@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>I think this is a split here. The NT references the Septuagint (LXX), so
>>for the founding Christians, it *was* the OT. Jesus himself may have only
>>known of the LXX.
>This is rather presumptuous.  As I mentioned in another post,
>the "authorized" OT text in the first century was the priestly
>text tradition, instead of the rabbinical text tradition from
>which the Masoretic Text was derived.  This same priestly text
>tradition was also the text base of the LXX translation.  Since
>the NT and the LXX both used this priestly text tradition as the
>OT text base, it is not surprising that they would agree with
>each other in some instances.

The theory that Christianity is based on a Hebrew version of the
Scriptures that differs from the Masorah has no support from the
findings at Qumran, which did include a copy of the Septuagint, aka 
LXX. So, for example, there apparently was no Hebrew version of Isaiah
found at Qumran that prophesied a virgin birth or it would have been
released since it would have been quite sensational. In fact, the Hebrew
version of Isaiah found at Qumran indicates that corruptions found in
the Masorah are also found in the LXX, though such corruptions are
remarkably few in number given the large time differences between these
texts and the lack of copying machines at that time. Also, there is
ample evidence that the predominant oral language of Hellenistic Jewry
at the time of Jesus was Aramaic and the written language was
Alexandrian Greek, (the language of the Septuagint and NT), and that the
Septuagint was commissioned in Alexandria because the ability to read and 
understand Hebrew was disappearing fast, thus the need for the translation 
to Greek that appears to have been referenced by the writters of the NT. 
Hebrew was kept alive in Babylon, not Hellenistic Palestine. If there was 
another Hebrew scripture, it has not survived and was not found (most likely) 
at Qumran and there appears to be no evidence for such a document, unless you 
have some. Note that most of the Qumran material has still not yet been
released and there remains the possibility of material that would
support the theory of a second Hebrew text or point out major corruption
of the Masorah tradition, but such occurance seems unlikely as the
owners of the Qumran texts were no doubt looking for this type of
revolutionary finding.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_.
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:23:23 GMT

In article <765347d3414811t237@witsend.uucp> "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:
>In <C09w0o.K6p.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)  wrote:
># 
># jimgar@scorch.apana.org.au (Jim Garner) writes:
># 
># >Maccabees. But does anyone really believe that God would want us to
># >allow torture to continue, for want of saying a few words that we
># >don't really mean?
># 
># The pertinent question, though, is what happens if you are tortured and/or
># brainwashed to the point that you really DO mean those "few words?"
>
>  I can't answer from an Xtian perspective, but the Jewish responsa
>  on the subject (and, Oy!, there's been a lot) are very liberal.
>  Basically, anyone under such duress is understood to NOT be
>  responsible IN ANY WAY.  Slaves are largely exempt from religious
>  obligations, etc.  Similarly, a child raised in captivity is not
>  held responsible for transgresions committed in ignorance.


	Um, I don't think this is quite right.  The thing is,
	the people--when they have been converted--are no longer
	under any kind of duress.  There is no need--inside, at any
	level you want to take it to--they truly believe, with fanatic
	devotion, whatever it was thatthe converters were aiming at.



-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fWV72jv@quack.sac.ca.us> <NICHAEL.92Dec22093750@kariba.bbn.com>
Date: 22 Dec 1992 23:37:44 UTC

In article <NICHAEL.92Dec22093750@kariba.bbn.com> ncramer@bbn.com writes:
>In article <fWV72jv@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>   [...] Scriptures that differs from the Masorah has no support from the
>   findings at Qumran, which did include a copy of the Septuagint, aka 
>   LXX [...]
>???
>Can you cite some evidence for this?

Evidence for the find of a copy of LXX at Qumran? No, I can not. Why?
Because I was wrong, I made a gross error. You sunk my battleship, but
better now while I can still bail out then later when I would have to
ride it down. In any case, I still have my carrier fleet intact.

>As far as I am aware the _only_ Greek fragments found at Q'mran were
>the 19 or so tiny fragments found in Cave 7.
>Certainly nothing like "a copy of the Septuagint" was found.
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: 12/20/92   God's Promise in Titus 1:2
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:32:30 GMT

In article <BzJDuI.AEu@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
|> 
|> 	In hope of eternal life,
|> 	which God, that cannot lie,
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 	promised before the world began;
|> 
|> 	Titus 1:2


2 Thess. 2:11 : For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that threy should
believe a lie.

Ezek. 14:9  And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have
deceived that prophet.

Jer. 4:10 Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people..

Jer. 15:18 Wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar....?

1 Kings 22:23  Nowtherefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth
of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee..

..... among many.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.computers,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Kent,hammer, SatanISM
Followup-To: soc.singles,alt.computers.satatinc.rituals
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:08:40 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

] In article <1992Dec28.074524.19057@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com
] (drieux, just drieux) wrote:
] > ] ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
] > ] >As we all know NNTP and SMTP are fully described, and we could send
] > ] >email and newsentries all around the world. 
]  
] > I think that Kent is Onto Something Here....
] 
] > Everytime that a news Article Fails to Post,
] > or a Piece of Email Bounces, or an Email Loop Occurs,
] > We Can CLEARLY see the HAND OF SATAN!!!!!
] 
] Imagine then if the omnipotent God would create the metaphysical
] equivalent protocols of NNTP and SMTP. He can't err, so you should
] not have any problems connecting to him, eh... ACK, ACK???


Be HEALED!

Drive OUT those Demonic Forces!

Yea We Were Here Unto Attacked By the
GreatSatanInPerson When Dark Forces did
move the version of /usr/local/bin/inews
into /usr/lib/news/inews, and thus a 
call to Pnews invoked a version of
Inews that Called Unto Itself Many TIMES!

Grappelling with The Vile WickedNess OF DarkNess
and Plunging us into the bitter Abyss of No
Means to Post!

Yea I say Unto You! Drive OUT those Wicked
things which Precludes Your Ability to Read
and Post!!!!!


ciao
drieux

ps: ok, so like it had to be said....




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Why People Join A Community of Faith
Keywords: Death, Life, Community, Atheists, The Religious Moment
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fWJTPBe@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Dec20.192617.19426@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 1992 23:28:40 UTC

In article <1992Dec20.192617.19426@midway.uchicago.edu> 
dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) queries:
>>Are the only group rituals of significance today religious?
>Any group ritual that has `ultimate' significance will have an
>element of the religious.

Well said. Are you familiar with the term "field of opposites?" It's a
Hindu/Persian concept, the idea being that we do not see the *one*, what
we see is a field of opposites. The *one* has been fractured into the
*two* and so on and this is what we see. So, common opposites are
you/me, man/woman, life/death, light/dark, etc., - and secular/sacred.
If you really think about these opposites you should begin to see that
they are not so opposite after all, that they are in fact dependent on
each other. So, a meditation or "way" would be to think about this field
of opposites and perhaps one can begin to see how they are only
manifestations of the *one*. Your comment above sounds like you have
already done this to some degree. By the way, are we having a sacred or
secular discussion here?

>>Is this something that atheists are missing?
>No, because atheists (like anyone else) can have epiphanies, can
>have religious moments, without a theistic perspective. Religion
>is not required to have a religious experience.

Atheist/Theist, another pair of opposites.

>As you have correctly noted, Death is one journey we all take alone;
>however, Life is a journey we all take alone also. There may be
>other people on the journey with us; and that can help provide
>a `reality check'; but ultimately there are things only an individual
>knows.

This "life is a solitary journey" is what you say. I most probably agree
with what I think you are saying, but I think that you will find that
the majority of people are not on this solitary journey of life. This is
Aldous Huxley's Wasteland, the land of authentic people leading inauthentic
lives. What you have said is, in a sense, a stage of enlightenment, a
stage of "realization." There is a lot here in these seemingly simple
concepts of "journey of life" and "journey of death," in fact they are
yet one more pair of opposites, but - isn't everything?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Reply-To: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:48:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.212413.5974@mercury.unt.edu> gene@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Dr. Gene De Lisa) writes:
> It's time for some facts.
> 
> Pagan is the term that early xians used in a derogatory sense for non-xians.
> You cannot be a xian pagan any more than you can be a non-xian xian!
>

Gene the word 'pagan' was in use long before Christianity and the Roman Empire
squared off.

And the only thing 'derogatory' is your use of the 'x'
as a substitute for the letters 'Christ' 

Christopher

-- 
"Any comments, opinions, and views expressed here (on Usenet) are MINE
and are in no way shared nor endorsed by my employer."
                        christopher raczka
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 1/2/93   God's Promise in John 12:26
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:18:30 GMT

psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>	If any man serve me,
>	let him follow me;
>	and where I am,
>	there shall also my servant be:
>	if any man serve me,
>	him will my Father honour.
>
>	John 12:26


	Your Father honours in strange ways sometimes;
	probably Job would have wished to have been
	honoured differently than he was, with suffering.
	'Tis better to serve none but yourself,
	giving of yourself as you would wish,
	and follow no one, but learn from all,
	for no one has lived the life you lead but you.
	Take the blame for your own failures,
	and bask in the glory of your own triumphs.
	Aspire to be your own master.

	Personal experience.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:46:12 GMT

In article <Bzz496.E9@spss.com> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>gives the grace to beleive to those who accept it.  In order to accept it,
>all you need to is stop saying 'no.'  Once you truly do that in your mind,
>your heart will confess Christ as Lord, if you truly accept that.  There's

*deleted*

>Explained above...you didn't *really* stop saying 'no'...;-)

Anybody else see the humor in this 'argument?'

All you have to do to believe is stop saying no to God.  If you *think*
you stopped saying no to God, but you still don't believe, then the
*only* explanation, obviously, is that you didn't *really* stop saying
no.  (The alternative explanation, that you were too smart to be taken
in by the christian con game, is, of course, a heresy and a lie of
the evil one.)  The only way you know if you *really* stop saying no is
when you believe.  So keep trying to brainwash yourself!  It'll work
eventually!

>This is an interesting mental state...how does one function when one truly
>believes that nothing is certain?  Everything becomes uncertain, every act
>has undefined results, every thought is uncertain...how do you make
>decisions?  (Don't give me that 'process' stuff....give me an answer on how

Probabilities and assumptions.  Am I certain that when I dial this certain
number, I'm going to be connected to the computer at the University?  No.
But a trusted friend tells me so, and when I've done so in the past I've
been connected 100% of the time.  This leads to an overwhelming belief that
if I repeat the actions again, I'll be connected again.  All available
evidence assures me that identical actions result in identical effects.
Am I 'certain' of this?  No.  It has always been the case, and there is
no reason to expect that it will change today.  But it _can_ change, and
is not a logical necessity of which I can be 'certain.'


-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:50:06 GMT

In article <fWT9KJT@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>I think this is a split here. The NT references the Septuagint (LXX), so
>for the founding Christians, it *was* the OT. Jesus himself may have only
>known of the LXX.

This is rather presumptuous.  As I mentioned in another post,
the "authorized" OT text in the first century was the priestly
text tradition, instead of the rabbinical text tradition from
which the Masoretic Text was derived.  This same priestly text
tradition was also the text base of the LXX translation.  Since
the NT and the LXX both used this priestly text tradition as the
OT text base, it is not surprising that they would agree with
each other in some instances.


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:14:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <78531@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> |It's contrary to reason.
> 
> It is contrary to man's pride and self proclaimed and appointed knowledge,
> but it is not contrary to those who believe.  We were told long ago,
> even at the very beginning, that the cross is foolishness to those who have 
> knowledge as their goal.  Even the early sermons had people who sneered at 
> the concept of the resurrection, but some believed and some intellectuals 
> wanted to here more.

So for those who have faith this all makes sense, but 
from a reasonable point of view it does not (as most agnostics 
and atheists are stating). I think this clearly points out something, and
the intelligent reader could figure out what (compare with the world
view of a medieval human, where the Earth was flat and Earth was the
center of the universe, and the faith justified this reasonable 
assumption).


> Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
> Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
...and pro-non-private-responsibility :-).

Cheers, have a nice holiday!
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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24769 alt.pagan:14671