HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:49:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes:

>The question is why dosen't Mark (possibly written before the destruction
>of Jerusalem) have this prophecy while Matthew (written after the
>destruction and clearly based on Mark or an earlier version of Mark)
>does? Just wondering! :)

I wouldn't want to take responsibility for the entire original
posting.  I think the author took a rather optimistic view of the
ability to verify Biblical accounts objectively.  However in this case
there is an answer to your question: Mark 13.  The wording is a bit
different from the Mat/Luk parallel passages, but the same basic
content seems to be present.

As I recall my 1st Cent history, one of the causes of friction between
Jews and Christians was the fact that many Jewish Christians did not
participate in the war against Rome ca. 70 AD, because of Jesus'
instructions.  (See Mark 13:14.)  Many Jews considered the Christians
traitors for this reason.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:40:42 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <WIGGINS.92Oct6141351@lilac.cs.odu.edu>,
wiggins@lilac.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) wrote:
> 
> I think the Romans and Jews didn't write of his miracles, etc. because they
> were predisposed not to believe he did them, weren't they?  For one thing,
> I doubt too many Romans knew Jesus except by hearsay, and probably blew off
> what they heard.  And the Jews, many of whom had the opportunity to see Jesus,
> didn't want this guy upsetting *their* religion and rivaling them.  It's no
> surprise not to see much about him except from those who believed him.  Yet,
> he *is* mentioned by Roman and Jewish historians.  Even the Roman Emperor
> heard about him.  So, I assert that his affect on people was incredible, and
> news about him spread like wildfire.  But why?  Either he actually did do
> miracles or he was an excellent magician/con-man/cult leader.

You know, if there was a white beared man that rose people from the dead,
at least National Inquirer and a couple of TV shows would report it 
immediately. Such events are real news! As there are no such stuff
mentioned in the Roman and Jewish scriptures, it's clear that we didn't
have any such happenings. And that Christians wanted to make the man
bigger than what he really was in order to justify their faith in the
cult leader. This happens daily, remember all the miracles the old
Sci-Fi writer by the name of Ron Hubbard did to his followers. History
repeats itself. As for an excellent and famous cult leader, there were
many other Messiah wannabes that were recorded, Jesus was one of the
many trouble makers Romans had to deal with.

> Like anything, it's easy to blow off what you haven't seen for yourself.

True, it's also easy to blow things out of proportions if you haven't
been on the scene.
 
> BTW, in the gospels, there are different geneologies given.  One comment I
> read says that the one gives the ancestral line through Mary and the other
> through Joseph.  Another I read says that "begot" may not mean "the father
> of" but "an ancestor of" -- big difference, meaning both are right but give
> different ancestors (whoever the writer thought important to mention).

Evidence, man, evidence about this statement that the geneologies are
different due to Mary and Joseph. At least the Gospels won't say that,
or what.

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: gairns@ccrs.emr.ca (Jamie Gairns)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus For President
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:09:27 GMT
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa


	I dunno, I always thought that church and state should be kept
	as separate entities ... just take TURNS cleaning the latrines
	There are enough brushes for everyone.  I know you Mormons
	don't believe in sharing brushes, but no need to get all surly.

	The church should go out into space and do the missionary thing
	out there ... that is ALL OF THEM.  Lots of unicellular life
	forms out there who haven't heard the word of god, y'know!

	'And, yea, god did go unto the Zeta II Reticuli Binary Star
	system and gave unto the Spludge (amoeboids) the stone tables,
	whereupon were written the 10 commandments.  god neglected to
	consider the weight of the tablets in relation to the size of
	the amoeboid lifeforms and snuffed out an entire race when he
	dropped the tablets upon his lost amoeboids'.  Says god in a
	fit of remorse ... fucked again!

	I wonder if jesus can get the vote in Alabama ?

Jamie
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:36:30 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Oct6.114200.13090@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>  If you reject the virgin birth, you are rejecting a SINLESS saviour.
Why?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<Bv3uEs.Cyo@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
	<ksand-270992131705@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:35:35 GMT

In article <ksand-270992131705@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>A myth could be true, or false, or undecided. A myth could actually have 
>a lot of adjectives. Things are not that simple, really.

Spoken like a true poet. May the meaning of your words be forever
transcendent.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17467 alt.atheism:18245
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:39:40 GMT
	<1acbmbINNqlu@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu>
Organization: noitazinagrO

In article <1acbmbINNqlu@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu> 
yohan@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>Wrong Mr. Harvey.  The only reason scientists hold mathematics to be true is 
>that is has been verified by countless observations.

I don't think that's the case. That would be blind faith in the majority. I
don't think blind faith is compatible with Science. Countless observations
do not verify scientific proof. They may indicate something that one can place
one's faith in, but not blind faith. An observation of failure indicates a
problem in a theory, but observation of success is not proof of scientific
truth. Certainly there have been countless observations of the truth of
Christianity and the reincarnation of Elvis, but I don't think there are many
reputable scientists who consider this as proof.

>Christians base their life on
>a few feelings they have that are generally a result of upbringing or from the
>tnedency to attribute everything they can't understand to god.

Hmm, well I'm not a Christian so I can't really comment on that, perhaps it
is true?
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:35:02 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <16771@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <4dsC02zI24Lt01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>In article <16671@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep23.000948.22140@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>>>
>>>>1.  We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the _only infallible_,
>>>>authoritative Word of God.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Would this mean that if someone believed in evolution instead of
>>>the Adam and Eve story or rejected the idea that all life except
>>>two of each type of animal Noah had on the Ark became extinct
>>>at the time of a global flood in 3000BC, they aren't a Christian?
>>
>>Absolutely irrelavent to the current discussions
>
>'Tis not!  In many of these discussions there is the charge that
>since the Mormons don't believe every word of the Bible
>then they aren't Christian.  Are you saying that you now are dropping
>the Bible as an issue?
>
Certianly is.  To answer the above question:  If someone claims to be
Christian and subscribes to the evolution theory, I have to wonder what
else they deny about the Bible?  Why would God lie to us about Creation
if evolution was true?  If you gonna doubt one part, what else do you
doubt?  This brings up many instances.  The reason I stated the above
about being irreleavent, is that I think the original poster dreamed up
a fictious example of a Christian not believing in evolution.  I can't
say that that alone would discredit that person as a Christian, but if he
believed that, then probably he would believe something else more
important that WOULD discredit his being classified as a Christian.  How
does this help our other discussions?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:13:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <BvAwG8.LA7@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com
(Paul Harvey) writes:

>>The truth of "1+1=2" can be derived solely from the definitions of
>>"1", "+", "=", and "2".
>
>Try that on sci.math and see what happens.

I don't have to.  I know what would happen.

>>It's convention.  If you want to be understood, you use the
>>linguistic conventions that your audience understands.
>
>And what would that be?  [List of alleged variants of English.]

Any of these will do.  In all of them, "faith" has, by convention, the
meaning I use, and not the meaning you use.

>If I were to play the part of the teacher, I would say, "tell me where YOU
>are going, and by definition there will of course be freedom there, in time".

Yes, I know how creative and original you are with definitions...

>What would you say if you played the part of teacher?

What part do you THINK I've been playing?
--
Brian Holtz
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Keywords: death to family values
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 16:12:19 GMT

In article <68754@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) writes:

>>In article <1992Sep22.145243.29049@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@clio.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>>>Didn't you watch the Republican convention?  Family values means that
>>>you are supposed to sneer at single parents, hate gays and lesbians,
>>>and show everyone pictures of your grandchildren.

>I watched some of the convention, but I think the point of the rhetoric
>was to say WE PREFER A HAPPY TWO PARENT FAMILY and all of these above
>(single parents and homosexuals) are not the preferred choice - not that
>by any means do I put single parents and homosexuals in the group.

Preferred by whom?  Your arrogance in deciding what should be preferred
by someone else is monumental and is also thoroughly unchristian, given
that Jesus himself did not prefer to have a wife or a family.

In other words, who died and made you Pope, and have you talked to the Pope's
wife lately?

>We have to have a goal.  Just saying hey look at all of these single
>parents - let's keep it going, without striving for something better
>is by no means a better approach.

Preaching hatred is not a way to keep families together.  This *should*
be obvious.



-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17619 alt.atheism:18357
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:13:29 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1al8clINNsre@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
> How could a scientist deny that
>mathematics is correct, when we can obtain power splitting an atom?  If 
>mathematics is incorrect, did man, with his invalid theories, accomplish these
>feats by blind luck?

Mathematics, when applied to physical reality, appears to be good enough for
a lot of purposes.  This is a very different thing from saying it is "correct"
or "true" or any of those other metaphysical concepts.

I saw an interesting program on one of the developers of the atom bomb on PBS
the other day.  They said that the critical configuration was determined by
cross sections (which are determined experimentally) and classical computation
(which is known to be inaccurate but which is good enough).

The whole point of science is that you can figure out some stuff about the 
world.  The whole point of technology is that you can use what you've figured
out to do stuff, even if what you have figured out is not perfect.

-EMP
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: NIV Translation Question
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:44:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.191024.29927@linus.mitre.org> szobell@mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes:
>In II Kings 23:29, the KJV states that Pharoh Neco went against
>the King of Assyria.  I have reason to believe that other foreign
>language Bibles at the time agreed with the KJV on this. The NIV 
>states that Neco went to help the King of Assyria.  A fragment 
>from Mesopotamia translated in 1929 contradicted the KJV stating
>that Neco helped the King of Assyria.

The NIV's rendering of this verse is neither new nor original.
Long long before 1929, Josephus stated in his "Antiquities of
the Jews" (Book 10, Chapter 5, Section 1) that Pharoh Neco went
to help the King of Assyria against The Medes and the Babylonians.
I am not willing to go as far as some Josephus apologists who
claimed that Josephus probabily had access to the official OT text
taken from the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans, by the permission
of the Roman authority, and thus his account should be more
reliable than the Masoretic text, which forms the basis of OT
text in most Bible translations.  No, I am not willing to go that
far.  But the fact that Josephus, a learned man, a well trained
scribe, and a Pharasee (and thus a theological conservative in
Judaism), recorded this event in this way must indicate that
there was ineed some ancient Jewish text tradition, authentic or
not, that rendered this verse in the same way that NIV does.

> ...  My question is whether the 
>writers of the NIV used information outside of Biblical sources 
>to arrive at this translation.  Could someone with an NIV Study 
>Bible look into this?

The translators of NIV stated in the NIV Preface that although
they mainly followed the Masoretic text, they also consulted a
wide range of available ancient text traditions and scribal writings,
and when they are in conflict, the generally accepted principles of
textual criticism were applied in resolving the conflict.


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:13:58 GMT

From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
> In article <1992Oct2.214828.8103@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.
> >From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
> >> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
> >...
> >> >   Jesus Christ: According to Mormonism Jesus Christ was one of the spirit
> >> >   of the God Elohim. Jesus was was Jehovah, the God of the old testament.
> >> >   the Father visited Mary and had marital relations with her so that Jesu
> >> >   could be born with a human body.
> >>
> >> No, there is no explicit Mormon teaching that teaches this.
> >> The only thing that Mormons teach is that God, the Father is the
> >> father of Jesus Chirst, not the Holy Ghost.
> >>
> >> There is no LDS doctrine that explains in unambiguous terms what
> >> the *method* of conception was.
> >
> >        No... but 'widely held official speculation.' The father of
> >the Mormon Jesus is an exalted being of flesh and bones who begat
> >Jesus' physical body in the same physical way our fathers begat ours.
> >The Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:
>
> *     *     *     <material deleted>     *     *      *      *      *
>
> In my opinion, discussions about God's sex life or lack thereof are
> disrespectful to Him.  If He had wanted us to know all about it, I'm sure he
> could have included a lot of information about it in the scriptures.  He
> certainly left a lot of other information out, presumably because he didn't
> consider it important for us to know at the present time.

I thought this is what the living prophets are for?  And they have
provided a lot of information on the subject.  If you find it
disrespectful, you need to complain to the LDS leadership.  I agree
with you that it is a false teaching from false prophets and apostles.
I beleive Jesus was born of a virgin, not a former virgin.  The
whole point of the prophecy was that this would be the sign.  What
sort of sign is the LDS doctrine, that a virgin had sex?

Mark
<standard disclaimer>
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:54:53 GMT

mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) writes:
>Er, what's the difference between "sufficiently evidenced" and "of value /
>useful"?

>Can you give us an example of something which is useful to believe although
>there's no evidence?  Or something for which there is tons of evidence but
>which is entirely useless to believe?


>mathew

Firstly, the second question. I beleive their is more than four moons
orbiting Jupiter. There is an enormous amount of evidence for this but for
my purposes it is entirely useless to beleive it. I also beleive their are
alien beings (i.e. not from Earth) even though their is almost entirely no
evidence of this. I find this beleif to be very useful in judging the
global morality of mankinds actions (i.e. what would I think if aliens did or
thought that?). I would find it distinctly embarrassing for alien beings to
visit us now as we are still arguing over the existence of imaginary beings,
spirits, ghosts, souls etc and also killing each other using weaponry and
also stepping on each other monetarily (and I honestly beleive that if we
got our shit together maybe they might visit us, that is assuming they give
a shit about us at all).  If I were to become responsible for a large number
of people I would use this beleif to judge my actions, are these decisions
morally acceptable as seen by (theoretically) unbiased alien observers (I think
Christianity at it's best may have a similar view - substitute God for alien
beings. The biggest difference being that God actually punishes for naughty
immorality and also has supposedly provided a, what I would consider,
twisted manual for living life). As you can see this beleif is very useful
to me (so long as I keep it as a beleif) but their is no evidence to justify
it.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:30:53 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct5.223139.8444@macc.wisc.edu>,
 bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes...
> 
>>In arguing with me, it does no good to find references
>>from extremely conservative Mormon leaders, some of whom
>>undoubtedly are as rigid and legalistic as yourself.
>>Don't expect me to argue Bruce McConkie's side.  There
>>are others here who will do that, I'm sure.
> 
> Come on now Gordon!  You don't expect ME to do this do you?
> 
> I think we should vote on this and perhaps "sustain" you to be 
> McConkie's Defender.  I think you could do a fine job of it and
> perhaps being forced to read _Mormon Doctrine_ would be a good 
> thing for you.
> 
> :-) 

I second the motion.  
I'm going back to MORMON-L in hopes that I can resurrect my sense
of humor.

:-

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
"I feel about as much like I did yesterday as I do today."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:41:24 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <WIGGINS.92Oct6141351@lilac.cs.odu.edu>,
wiggins@lilac.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) wrote:
> 
> I think the Romans and Jews didn't write of his miracles, etc. because they
> were predisposed not to believe he did them, weren't they?  For one thing,
> I doubt too many Romans knew Jesus except by hearsay, and probably blew off
> what they heard.  And the Jews, many of whom had the opportunity to see Jesus,
> didn't want this guy upsetting *their* religion and rivaling them.  It's no
> surprise not to see much about him except from those who believed him.  Yet,
> he *is* mentioned by Roman and Jewish historians.  Even the Roman Emperor
> heard about him.  So, I assert that his affect on people was incredible, and
> news about him spread like wildfire.  But why?  Either he actually did do
> miracles or he was an excellent magician/con-man/cult leader.

You know, if there was a white bearded man that rose people from the dead,
at least National Inquirer and a couple of TV shows would report it 
immediately. Such events are real news! As there are no such stuff
mentioned in the Roman and Jewish scriptures, it's clear that we didn't
have any such happenings. And that Christians wanted to make the man
bigger than what he really was in order to justify their faith in the
cult leader. This happens daily, remember all the miracles the old
Sci-Fi writer by the name of Ron Hubbard did to his followers. History
repeats itself. As for an excellent and famous cult leader, there were
many other Messiah wannabes that were recorded, Jesus was one of the
many trouble makers Romans had to deal with.

> Like anything, it's easy to blow off what you haven't seen for yourself.

True, it's also easy to blow things out of proportions if you haven't
been on the scene.
 
> BTW, in the gospels, there are different geneologies given.  One comment I
> read says that the one gives the ancestral line through Mary and the other
> through Joseph.  Another I read says that "begot" may not mean "the father
> of" but "an ancestor of" -- big difference, meaning both are right but give
> different ancestors (whoever the writer thought important to mention).

Evidence, man, evidence about this statement that the geneologies are
different due to Mary and Joseph. At least the Gospels won't say that,
or what.

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.