HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: The Lost Ark (was Re: The meaning of "pagan")
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:27:46 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <fXGHeGr@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
said:

>Yes, but no body should freak out now, because it's safe and sound in a
>secret location in Ethiopia.

The location of what purports to be the ancient Ark of the Covenant in
Auxum in Ethiopia, despite the dramatic statements of that hugh
pot-boiler which has been in all the bookstores, is not particularly
secret, and there is some earlier published literature on the subject.
The basic Ethiopian text was translated by Budge in the early decades of
this century, under a title something like "The Queen of Sheba and her
Son, Menelik," and probably has been reprinted  -- Robert

(Robert Mathiesen, Brown University, SL500000@BROWNVM)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Date: Wed,  6 Jan 1993 03:07:19 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Distribution: world,public

Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 29-Dec-92 Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE
B.. by 621-9615@lpl.arizona.edu 
>    I'll state my point first then back it up.  The point is this.  
> Ultimately, we as humans have chosen death over life.  We had preferred
> cancer and old age a long time ago.   The four year old girl gets what
> she has inherited from the beginnings of humanity.  Death.  Suffering. 
> It is sad.  Truly a pity.  But guess what?  God didn't create it that way. 
> He originally created us to live forever.  God doesn't dole out cancer
> to 4-year olds.  Such is a sad and major consequence of what we as
> humans chose for ourselves a long long time ago.  

    Since Brian believes in the "original sin" thing, I hope that he
doesn't argue that abortion is wrong because fetuses are the essense of
innocence.

Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:45:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.012936.84390@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF) writes:
>In article <11050@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.071254.4440@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>>
>>>If it is His will to let a young girl die, then it is for the greater good of
>>>all those involved that love Him.  I don't see why you are mad at me - I
>>>didn't make it up, nor can I do a good job defending the One who calls the
>>>shots.  I suggest you seek Him for your answers.  Read James 1.
>>>
>>  
>>  If indeed your god bears any of the blame for *any* of the
>>  suffering in this world, either by action or negligence, then he
>>  is the most obscenely vicious criminal of them all.  Too bad we
>>  can't put him on the stand in Neurenberg.
>
>The argument cited above illustrates the existence of a logical paradox.
>If our world with all the innumerable evils was created by a single
>omnipotent deity, in no way can the said deity be good. Either it is
>beyond good and evil, or, more likely, the Creator is a bad guy (by 
>human standards). Not a nice picture, eh?

The above statement induces no paradox. God created the world and has
given human beings free will. Using their free will, they chose to
create evil. God does not command to kill, human beings choose to 
do so. 
On second thought, it is obvious from Genesis, that there existed evil 
before the world came into existence. (Devil tempted A&E to...) Which would
imply that some angels turned against God and created that evil.

   

>
>A good answer is "God is good, but this is not for you to understand, as
>this is the matter of faith that cannot be treated logically."
>


>Still I think that there is a better way out, defined with beauty a
nd
>precision by the half-forgotten Russian mystic Leonid Andreev. His idea
>was that the Creator is good, but not omnipotent, and that eventually
>God will reach omnipotency, but not before the world is cleansed of
>all evil and all the sins are washed off from all the sinners (The Dark
>Lord included). This is a concept more to my liking.
>
>-- 
>---
>Thus spake Kalmoth the Dreaded, Bane of the Forests of Gnoy.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:19:57 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17980@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <C007np.45B@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>>and so on." Kimball asserts that "we shall go back to our Father and 
>>God who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this 
>>Father is connected with one still farther back, and so on..." 
>>McConkie wrote that "the elements from which the creation took place 
>>are eternal and therefore had no beginning."
>>
>>	The LDS universe is a beginningless universe. Time always 
>>existed, but there was never a beginning. Time, in fact, existed 
>>before "our Father" did.
>
>No, this is not correct.  In Joseph Smith's cosmology, there was
>never a time when "our Father" did not exist.  In fact, there was
>never a time when that intelligence we now know as Robert Weiss 
>did not exist.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Referrences please!
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Keywords: Mormon, Trinity and Subordination, Ex Nihilio
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:46:32 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Dec29.130925.3565@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:

>universe came into existance is not the same thing as ex nihilio
>creation. As you should know, ex nihilio states that there was no
>matter of any type in existance and that God created all matter from
>nothing.
>
>Long ago, when I struggled through two years of Hebrew in my
>undergraduate course of study, My very Jewish instructor pressed the
>point that "bara," the root word translated as create (In the beginning
>God created the Heavens and the Earth) was not ex nihilio but carried
>the notion that God "Organized" the Heavens and the Earth from existing
>material. Indeed you will find that notion expressed even by prominate
>non-Mormons, for example, Young's concordance to the Bible and Young's
>literal translation of the Bible will substitute "organized" for
>"created."
>

One of the reasons Joseph Smith liked the German Bible translated
by Martin Luther was the rendering of the word "create" as shaped
(I've forgotten the German word, perhaps "schafft").  I wonder
if Martin Luther believed in "ex nihilo" creation?















-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:54:26 GMT

In article <C0HCF4.8u8.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>
>>I am not going to repeat myself. Reread what I wrote above. Then go back
>>to the Bible, and read the statement in context. Then try to find a place
>>where the statement is "I am the only way".
>
>It is not recorded that Jesus made such a claim explicitly; however, there
>were some cases where he did so implicitly, such as this one.  The Bible
>does say, in Colossians 1:20, that he is the only way.

Drake,

If you take the NT Bible as the literal and infallible Word of God, whether
as some position of apologetical tutor or in actuality, then there is not
much point in me continuing. If you accept that the farther from the 
Synoptics we travel in time, the farther from the truth about Jesus we go,
then quoting Colossians or (in my mind at least) the writings of Paul is
hardly an attempt at coming to truth regarding the sayings of Jesus. My
biggest contention with the Christian Church is Paul. I contend that if
the Nazorean or Jerusalem Church under James had survived and not the 
Pauline, I might call myself a "Christian".

Debating at a detail level the life of Jesus from the latter parts of the
NT has never seemed to me an attempt at truth, only a confirmation of 
RC dogma.

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Dave Ritchie)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:06:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NARC Atlanta

In <17980@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:

>No, this is not correct.  In Joseph Smith's cosmology, there was
>never a time when "our Father" did not exist.  In fact, there was
>never a time when that intelligence we now know as Robert Weiss 
>did not exist.

Gordon,
  I am curious about this. Are there finite or infinite numbers of
these spirit entities in the preexistance (an answer of 'I don't know'
is also ok)?

1) if infinite, what is the fate of the unborn spirits at the time of
the second coming (and I admit, this may be meaningless under LDS
orthodoxy). Or does LDS theology discount the Revelations prophecy?

2) if finite, then it would seem that either a) birth would stop when the 
supply is exhausted or b) there is a implicit assumption of reincarnation.

Just curious,

-- Dave Ritchie
der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25592 alt.atheism:25424
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:56:54 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.


[added talk.religion.misc to followups, since I don't get alt.atheism]

bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:

>In article <root.726502852@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>You make the assumption that I don't support true equal access.  You are
>>wrong.  I really don't care who or what is on TV, so long as NOONE is
>>restricted.  You want equal access for everyone EXCEPT Christians.  Nice
>>double standard you have there.
>>
>
>  Then you wouldn't mind a television show that broadcast live
>  infant sacrifices in a Satanic ritual, now would you?

I wouldn't mind a television show that brodcast live Satanic rituals.  In
fact, SatanNet could probably co-exist quite nicely with VISN...sort of
"point-counterpoint"...and for the price of basic cable, too.

Infant sacrifice is illegal...it violates the rights of the (born) child to
live, as established in our social compact.

Although I have some fundamentalist Christian views, imposing those views
on others is impermissable...and I hold to that.  Never met an evangelical
Christian libertarian (minarchist persuasion)?  The set of them is not
empty...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:16:43 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

[I don't have access to alt.pagan - forward if you see it as worthwhile.]

In article <1i9bj1INN7rh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen) writes:

Could you define STRIKING and give some examples??

You you the term, but it is a little hard to understand
your understanding of the term without some frame of reference.

|First, their canons of scripture (= the tables of contents of their Bibles)
|differ from one another, even in the New Testament, and do so in very strik-
|ing ways.

Examples?

|Second, the texts of individual books and parts of books may differ from
|one another in striking ways.

Examples?

|Third, their choice of which "version" (that is, in which language) counts
|as authoritative for one or another book differs in striking ways.

Examples?

|All this is almost completely overlooked in run-of-the-mill Protestant and
|Catholic seminary training.  If you take up my challenge, we shall largely
|be working from primary sources: early manuscripts in various languages, and
|the canon law of the various branches of the Christian tradition.
|
|If you refuse my challenge, I shall continue to repeat it EVERY time you

I missed your specific CHALLENGE statement - could you repeat it?

|fail to recognize the great complexity of what is called the "Bible" within
|Christian tradition.  It is a matter of conscience not to let historically
|false statements go unchallenged when I am in a position to refute them.

Understood, but it is not helpful to the spirit of the discussion
to use terms that need a frame of reference in order to understand
them appropriately.

|Robert Mathiesen, Brown University, SL500000@BROWNVM

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
                          --|--   
Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christianity and Logic, take 2
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:30:27 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <root.726246318@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
> >Now, if anyone that is a true Christian objects to this logical
> >measurement,
> >it implies that logic can't be applied to Christianity, looking from
> >my point of view. If you don't agree upon the premises, how could you
> >then draw the final logical conclusion, true or false?
> 
> You picked a set of verses not found in the earliest and most reliable
> manuscripts of Mark...it is beleived to be a later addition, and is so
> marked in all but one of the Bibles I own.  NIV & NRSV both specifically
> say that the questionable authenticity of the bracketed text is such that
> one should not base any dogma or strong belief on it...

But this is still in the Bible -- word of God, so I think the text
is justified as a criterion for measuring how much Christians believe
in logical constructs. 

Note once again, if people question the premises, it evidently shows
that they can't agree upon them, and my point that the missing agreement
make logical conclusions non-verifiable a true one. I might be wrong,
and if someone clearly shows that one could doubt a premise and at the 
same time be clear about the outcome, feel free to correct me. I showed 
a couple of these constructs in an earlier posting.

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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:01:46 GMT

In article <C044qK.JDI.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>
>>>universal church are catholic.  Lutherans are catholic.  So are Orthodox
>>>(both Greek & Russian), Episcopalians, etc.  
>>
>>   Except that all the abovementioned denominations broke off from the
>>"Roman church."
>
>Does a tree "break off" from a branch?  There were several churches in the
>first millenium - Roman, Greek, Syrian, Antiochian, etc.  Then, in the
>11th century, came the schism...after which, we have the Roman church
>on one side and all the rest on the other.  Now, *who* broke off from
>*whom*?

   True, there were several churches in the First Millenium, but at
the time of the Eastern Schism (1054), the territory covered by all
the churches you mention, except the Church of Constantinople, had
been overrun by Islam.  That effectively left Rome and Constantinople,
which later fell to the Turks (the city is now called Istanbul).  Any
other churches in the Eastern Roman Empire were dominated by the See
of Constantinople, whereas, as far as I am aware, only the See of Rome
existed in the Western Roman Empire.

   Now the primacy of the Church of Rome comes by virtue of the
primacy of St. Peter, who was martyred at Rome and whose successor is
the Bishop of Rome.  There is much in not only Scripture, but also
early Christian writings, which supports the concept of the primacy of
Peter and his successors.  This was also accepted by the Eastern
Churches, for example by pronouncement of an eastern synod of bishops.

   In the middle of the First Millenium, as the principal capital of
the Roman Empire shifted from Rome to Constantinople, however, the
Church of Constantinople wanted more eccesial power to go along with
the new status of the city.  A synod of bishops held at Constantinople
now, changing its tune, said that the See of Rome had primacy based on
being the capital of the Empire, and that therefore Constantinople
should also share in this primacy.  This was, of course, rejected by
the current pope (as well as contradicting the earlier Eastern synod).

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25889 alt.atheism:25714
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:02:58 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <C0pvAt.8oz@phage.cshl.org>, pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
|> In article <1istr4INNge2@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan11.214149.22353@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
|> >>
|> >> I'm overreacting, I know, but just seeing Pat Robertson voicing a lot
|> >> of arguments so one-sided I'm surprised they don't fall over is bad
|> >> enough -- seeing him on TV, with the phones around him ringing off the
|> >> hook with people pledging money to support him, really got to me.  How
|> >> _dare_ he try to pass _himself_ off as the oppressed one!
|> >
|> >I don't think it's so much that you are over-reacting, as reacting in
|> >a particular way.
|> 
|> i think that what Pat Robertson is doing is criminal
|> and we shouldnt just ignore him. 

Well, sure, and if you read what I wrote, I explicitly said that
we need to keep these guys in their place.    But if they want to 
pollute the airwaves, that's fine.   As long as everyone has a
right of reply.

|>                           fortunately i am nowhere
|> near the asshole and when his cultural revolution comes
|> i certainly wouldn't want to be near his environs.

I'm not sure where you are, but the world is getting to be a much
smaller place.   We're all "near" people like him in some sense.

jon.
From: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Fetus brandishing
Date: 11 Jan 1993 14:19:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


It's my view that those who resort to such disgusting tactics as waving
fetuses in people's faces do so because of the emotional response they
can evoke. They have to stoop to this level because they can't provide
substantial non-inflammatory support for their views.

Unwanted pregnancies can best be prevented by the use of birth control.
But a surprising number of people still do not take such precautions, and
even when they do, these measures sometimes fail. Then what? Then it
should be a woman's choice.

To all the men who rant and rave on here about the rights of a fetus:
Have you ever been pregnant and abandoned by the man who helped you
become pregnant? Raped, then pregnant? Pregnant with a fetus that is
severely damaged? (And don't give me that "God's will crap, because
my Bible says God is love...be logical for once.) Have you ever
faced any of these decisions? Then shut up!

Linda dons her flame-resistant suit and signs off for now.

Linda Zinn
If you're against abortion, DON'T GET ONE!!!
-- 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Jesus Said He is the Almighty God
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:42:11 GMT


Very interesting opinions. When you want to discuss Scripture, we'll begin.
-- 
Frank
....
"Forever, O LORD, your word is settled in heaven."  PSALM 119:89
"The entirety of Your word is truth."  PSALM 119:160
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: The `ark'
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:43:12 GMT

swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>In article <fXE0AtT@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Except that Christians seem to choose to ignore it, even the ancient
>>Hebrews did with their practice of bringing the ark of the covenant into
>>battle. 
>  And we all know how well that worked, don't we.
>(For those who don't remember, the Phillistines captured it.)

I don't think that is established. Most biblical sources I know indicate
that no one knows what happened to the ark.

Dano

D
DA