HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Bible
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:03:41 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <22820@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>Could you explain why I have a great time just now, and no religious
>needs?

Could it be that your have made yourself to be your own god?

"Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks
to him - for God's qualities have been clearly seen in nature and so men
are without excuse.  Although they claimed to be wise, they exchanged the 
glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man.  They
exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created
things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised" Rom 1:18-25.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What is a christian?
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:20:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana


     I think that you have missed the point that I am trying to make. I might
have also not made the point as clear as I should have(the most probable
solution). What I am trying to say is that I don't think that people are
understanding what A christian is. This is not something that can 
have more than one dennotative meaning or be connotative. A christian is
one who follows Christ and is promised the kingdom of heaven. Some say
that they are christians and are not. That was the problem that I was
addressing. What bothers me is that so many people are saying that this
is mistranslated and that this is not God, but only those who follow God
that have written this. These areguments all make me think that these
people have not accepted Jesus as thier Lord, only their savior. When
one askes God to come into thier life they do not say: "Lord I ask you
to come into my life because I need your help in my life".( or with this
in thier heart more importantly.) they say(or speak with their heart)
" Lord I ask you to come into my life because I know that you are the
way to the Father, What ever you ask I will do. Now matter what it is
." That is my point. To many poeple who say that they are christians 
do what they want not what God want's......:) 


-Vette


"He who has the knowledge of God knows it to be truth, there is know believing
 to it! He is also  open to all opposition for how could what is true be false."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  send me some mail! I like mail.....:)
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:32:57 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>>       Go to prison and ask what is their religion.
>> --

>        So if I find a JW in prison should I conclude that the JW religion
>allows "lying, stealing etc"?  That seems to be the conclusion you'd like us to
>draw.  Sorry, but this just doesn't cut it.  The actions of individuals is not
>a direct indicator of what a religion does or does not endorse - if it were
>then ALL religions would have ALOT of explaning to do.

>-Mark
	Jesus explained that a false tree grows false fruits and a right tree
	grows right fruits. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:31:47 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>>	You got it - you said "at least some". I admit that. But are the 
>>	"ordinary" Catholics, Mormons, Southern Baptists etc. true followers
>>	of Christ in their lives ?

>No person on earth can truly live every second of their life as a follower
>of Christ.  It is not possible to go without sinning.  Sin is that which
>sets us apart from God.  I sin.  You sin.  As such, you fail to live the
>ideal just as all of us do.

	Yes, indeed. But, the point is whether you TRY to follow Christ or 
	not. 

>I will grant you that there are some followers who claim the title, but do
>not follow.  I try my best, within my human limits, to live the life that
>Christ commanded.

	It's nice to hear that. 

>You remind me of the Gospel Pharisees, those blind guides who slam the gates
>of heaven in mens' faces and yet fail to enter themselves.

	In what way ? 

	I'm aware that a debate with pharisees usually end to a painful death
	in the torture stake.      
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Bible
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:47:16 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <22343@zephyr.ens.tek.com>, davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David
Hatcher) writes:
> In article <22328@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> >Yes it does, as I said earlier the issue of a possible creator and the
feeling
> >of powerfulness in front of the universe are *two* different issues, they
> >are not the same. I.e. both mystics and humanists share the same optimistic
> >approach to life, but I don't need to believe in the wheel of karma,
> >common sharing of a universal soul or in the life force of the sun. 

>   If you do not need to believe in these things, than don't. But 
> personally, I don't feel that the place of focus should be directed 
> towards the need to believe. I feel that the better place of focus 
> should be placed upon awakening to the experience of what you are 
> calling the optimistic approach to life. 

Yes, but the main point is that there are many humans who have 
a very optimistic world view, but this world view does not include
a creator or the ultimate Divine.

>   That's why I ask if it really matters that things do not imply a 
> God. If you don't need God concepts, than don't use them.

And this is the case, in my personal world view I don't have 
the needs related to any outside forces of God-being or godness.
 
>   The creative force that I experience flowing through the very
> foundation of life is something *I* call the Divine. But I don't 
> feel that arguments over names is the issue. We can both share in
> that experience and share with each other the aweness that awakens
> the inner being of both of us. In this is where *I* feel we can
> find a common understanding. 

I guess everyone is free to label things, some people call positive
experiences a sign of the Divine, I call them 'positive experiences'.
The important note, that I would like to stress again, is that
there's no evicence of a cross-relation between the Divine and
a positive experience.

Cheers,
Kent
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:06:33 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In article <22583@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

   In other words (deleting the twisted meanings in the sentences
   below) he does not throw out the law of the Old Testament as a
   useless doctrine. I.e. this is what we have talked about all the
   time, Paul is the person who created the concept of the new
   Covenant, not Jesus. It would also imply that *real* Christians
   should follow the laws of the Old Testament. And 'real' Christians
   don't do this.

Michael Bushnell responds by pointing to concepts of the new Covenant:
>Except one of the things recorded by all three synoptic Gospels is the
>following:
>...records of Jesus talking about the new covenant here...
>Further, Jesus didn't follow the Sabbath laws himself, and, further,
>the Torah was never intended for any but the Jews.  Whether Jesus
>abrogated the Law for Jews is all but a null issue today; it never
>applied to Gentiles in any fashion, before Jesus or after.

I will point to prophecies of the arrival of the new Covenant in OT
to further negate the validity of Kent's bold conclusions above:

Jeremiah circa 629 B.C.:
Behold the days come, says the Lord that I will make a new 
covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of 
Judah. (Je 31.31)

Hosea circa 785 B.C.:
...and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was
said to them:  You are not my people, there it shall be said
to them:  You are the sons of the living God. (Ho 1:10)

Now, did Paul really make this up?
For the record,
Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<MIB.92Apr14104450@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr15.035456.4767@portland.mdc.unisys.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:46:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.035456.4767@portland.mdc.unisys.com> tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:

   In article <MIB.92Apr14104450@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
   >
   >Nope.  Hebrews is anonymous, certainly not written by Paul, ...

   How can one be so certain?

Perhaps I should say: There is no reason to think Hebrews was written
by Paul, and there are many reasons to think it was not.  It shows a
developed priesthood theology which is utterly absent in the rest of
the Pauline corpus.  It uses a very different Greek from Paul, much
closer to the high literary style of Luke.  

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | The Lord God helps me;
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   therefore I have not been disgraced;
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | therefore I have set my face like flint,
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 |   and I know that I shall not be put to shame;
			  | he who vindicates me is near.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Arians, Donatists, Gnostics, O My!
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<MIB.92Apr3010805@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr6.024911.19261@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:12:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.024911.19261@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

   In article <MIB.92Apr3010805@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
   >In article <1992Apr1.010716.1118@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

   >   Jesus was the Son, and divine--thus God. But he was not preexistent
   >   (before time) like the Father was, though he did preexist the
   >   incarnation by a good bit.
   >
   >Oops.  He was *not* divine in Arian theology.  He was *created*.

   These are not exclusive.

Except, in Arian and in Orthodox theology, they are.  That is
precisely the point.  Everyone had said that God had an unchangeable
nature.  Arius was horrified that people would be asserting
Adoptionist claims, and horrified that people would be asserting Logos
== God claims.

   > The
   >problem that Arius addressed was that most writing had carefully
   >dodged the issue, and was quite ambiguous.  Arius said, basically,
   >"either Christ is divine, and uncreated, and we are polytheists, or
   >Christ is human, created, and we do not worship him."  

   This is quite wrong. Christ is not the issue here. The Son is the issue.
   The Son is emphatically not human, but became Christ in the incarnation.
   Your description of Arius implies that he was not a believer in Logos
   theology, which he was.

Except, that Arius held that the Logos was *not* God; the prologue of
John was to be taken metaphorically, and that Proverbs 8:22 ("The Lord
created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long
ago") should be used to settle the issue.  Ultimately, the orthodox
view was that Proverbs is metaphorical, not John.

I'm well aware that Arius did not say that the Son was created at the
birth of Jesus, or that the Son "adopted" Jesus at his baptism.  Arius
said that the Son was created as the "first of [God's] acts of long
ago".  Arius drew a line between the Logos and God, and placed the
Logos, and the Son, and the Christ, and Jesus, clearly on the side of
"not God", and thus, "not to be worshipped".  

And, one of the crucial points in deciding against Arius was that
Christians had, since the time of the New Testament, been worshipping
Christ.  Lex leiendi, lex credendi.

Have you *read* the writings in question?  

--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | This is a virulent meme.  Whether or not you place
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | this into your signature file is irrelevant.  You
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | have already participated in its further trans-
			  | mission, and will doubtless continue to do so.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs vs. Christians
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:27:00 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr3.104247.6505@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> 
> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> 
> >asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> 
> >>	Of course. But I mean that there can't be such surgeon, who could 
> >>	study so many medical articles than we do about blood transfusions, 
> >>	when they must read everything else that is included in surgery, too.
> 
> >This is all a bit hard to swallow.  If you told us something about the
> >background of this magical committee, we might believe you.  What
> >training do these people have?  Are they MDs?  Have they received any
> >formal medical education?  Are they surgeons?  Have they published
> >their findings?  How are those publications received by other experts
> >in the field?  In short, why should we listen to them?
> 
> 	Yes.

I would just like to point out that the doctors in Finland are
using blood transfusions to save lives (including some of my
relatives), and that it's very uncommon not to do this during
operations. Any comments about Antti stating otherwise should be
taken with a grain of irony.

Cheers,
Kent
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:36:28 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <22582@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <adams.701967705@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> Well, that depends on your concept of Hell.  Actually, rather than a place,
>> hell is probably better likened to a state of being.  It is the complete
>> absence of God, which is the ultimate torture for a soul.  God removes
>> himslef completely from those who are cast away.
>
>Oh, if things where black-and-white. There are many, including me,
>that have not need to believe in such Gods, and we don't have the
>impression that we are tortured or otherwise tormented, quite the

This is because you have not yet been abandoned silly.  I like to think hell
is like the soldier in Metallica's "One".

>opposite. I think the doctrine of heaven and hell is the
>torture of a soul; thinking about this is certainly a torture for a 
>believer always scared to end up in hell.

No Christian should be scared they will end up in hell, because we have
assurance otherwise.  I know I'm not.  

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<GOEHRING.92Apr14151037@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<MIB.92Apr15095538@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr15.160427.24104@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:41:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.160427.24104@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

   In article <MIB.92Apr15095538@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

   >gay people in China face precisely the same problems, from
   >Confucian believers, Taoists, and Buddhists alike.

   ?? I would think they'd catch more hell from the gov't than from any
   of these denominations. Actually, I can imagine persecution from the
   Confucians, who are more concerned with family and social order, but
   from Taoists and Buddhists? I'm not saying it can't happen, but do
   you know of any evidence for this? Sexual orientation is neither
   considered nor relevant in the zen community, for example.

There is a stunning difference between Buddhism as a popular religion
in the Far East and Buddhism as it is viewed in the West, and there is
a similarly stunning difference with Taoism.  The Zen community is
vanishingly small compared with the three much larger varieties of
Buddhism in the world.  I've gotten first hand reports from people of
what their Shinto Buddhist and Mahayana (sp?) Buddhist families
thought about their being gay, and the arguments from religion were
sadly familiar.  I'm less familiar with the moral aspects of Taoism as
practiced in China, but it's spiritual aspects are very different from
what you might expect after reading the Tao Te Ching.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | The Lord God helps me;
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   therefore I have not been disgraced;
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | therefore I have set my face like flint,
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 |   and I know that I shall not be put to shame;
			  | he who vindicates me is near.
From: loose@quake.sylmar.ca.us (loose_connection)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Robert Alton Harris
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:49:49 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

Now Governor Wilson ( of California ) and the families of Robert Alton
Harris's victims will have something in common with Harris:  they too
will be MURDERERS
Have a nice fucking execution you bastards I know you're gonna enjoy it.
Your all a bunch fucking sick assholes, even sicker than Harris because
you didn't suffer from fetal alchohol syndrome and YOU BUILT a gas
chamber...get my fucking drift, Murderer Wilson?
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: 1 Cor 6:9
Summary: THAT word again (arseonkoitai)
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:32:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1339@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox) writes:

>                                                          I am told that
> the argument stated by boswell is that the word translated as homosexuality
> is incorrectly translated. I am wondering if this is something that has
> in recent years been cleared up or if it is just ingnored by those who know

Boswell's argument unleashed a spate of controverting articles.  I have
promised myself to look at the more recent course of the discussion Real
Soon Now -- however for an intermediate assessment I would agree with Bill
Countryman (who has a footnote on the matter) in _Dirt Greed & Sex: Sexual
Ethics in the New Testament and their Implications for Today_ (Fortress
Press, Philadelphia, 1988; ISBN 0-8006-0887-9) that Boswell's claim has
[as far as the reaction to that date shows] held.

To the best of my knowledge:

	- there is NO Greek word legitimately translated as "homosexual"
	  (and "helpful" guesses by modern translators are anything but)

and 	- we DON'T know what Paul was refering to in his offhand reference
	  in the list in Corinthians.


-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:17:57 GMT
	<GOEHRING.92Apr14153119@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Apr15.000627.25549@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>[I wrote]:

>>Why?  What besides the holy text of the Christians justifies this
>>restriction on behavior?  Who is harmed by sex for sex's sake, inside
>>or outside of marriage?

>Abortion, STD's, AIDS, and emotional scarring come to mind.

Abortion occurs inside of marriage.
STDs occur inside of marriage.
Emotional scarring occurs inside of marriage.

Also, I have had sex outside of marriage.  No abortions occurred.  No
STDs were transmitted.  I do not believe any emotional scarring has
occurred as a result.  So why is my having sex outside of marriage
wrong?
--
The real question for 1988 is whether we're going to go forward to tomorrow or
past to the -- to the back!
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:14:32 GMT
	<1992Apr14.234845.4386@cs.yale.edu>
	<GOEHRING.92Apr15140426@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Apr16.195510.18216@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>You need to be reunited with God, which is in a sense being "saved"
>because of the awful reality of where God isn't (hell).

Funny.  I find the concept of a reality with God far more "awful" than
the concept of one without.  I might well say that you are in need of
being saved from the awful reality that believing in the Christian God
leads to, but I'm not one to project my beliefs onto others.

>Of course this will not mean anything to you, nor will anything I
>say, and you know it, so I wonder why you keep asking...

Because I want you to see that your point of view is not universal,
and that arguing from it is irrelevant.  You might try to find a point
of view which *is* relevant, and attempt to justify your positions
from it.

>Could it be that you smell just the slightest bit of truth in all of
>this?

Not hardly.  If anything, it's amusing to watch you flounder.  Also,
it helps me to explore my own point of view.  If anything, this thread
has strengthened my convictions that the Christian God does not exist.

--
"My TA was about as kind and helpful as a pit-bull on speed."
	-- Comment on a course evaluation form, Brown University
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: jesus's name 
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
Distribution: talk.religion.misc 
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:46:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.174904.8382@meaddata.com> jeb3@meaddata.com (Jennifer Bing) writes:

   Can someone help me on the names of Jesus. I know that Jesus is greek for 
   mesiah. Is Emanuel Hebrew? What was Jesus's proper name? Was Jesus a part of his proper name?

Jesus is not Greek for Messiah, it is the Latin translation of the
Greek form of Aramaic "Yeshua", which is the same as Hebrew "Yoshua",
which is the same name as Moses' second in command who led Israel over
the Jordan after the Exodus.  You see, Hebrew "Yoshua" became Aramaic
"Yeshua", which became Greek "Iesous", which became Latin "Jesus",
which became English "Jesus".  

Emanuel is Hebrew, and means either "God is with us" or "God with us".

"Messiah" in Hebrew means "Anointed one"; the Greek translation is
"Christos", from which we get Latin "Christus" and then English
"Christ". 

Jesus' proper name would have been "Yeshua bar Yoseph" (in Aramaic).

	-mib
--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | The Lord God helps me;
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   therefore I have not been disgraced;
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | therefore I have set my face like flint,
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 |   and I know that I shall not be put to shame;
			  | he who vindicates me is near.