HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:23:01 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <LAURAF.92Jul24082753@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.022711.12904@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>
> None of JW want to see Corey make such a stand against Jehovah. However, if
> that is what he wants, what else can we do?

Corey cannot be making a stand against Jehovah, for the simple reason that he
no longer believes that Jehovah exists.


>>> Please do!!!!  I keep an open mind just as long as what is being said
>>> agrees with the bible.

>> Now there's a nice contradiction in terms!

> ...and where is the contradiction?  I accept the bible as Jehovah's word,
> far superior to that of mans. If man disagrees with the bible, he is wrong!

Trouble is that in accepting The Bible as "Jehovah's word", *you* had to
make the judgement that it *is* indeed Jehovah's word. You trusted human
reason (i.e. your own) at that point.

To reject human reason thereafter ("If man disagrees with the bible, he
is wrong!") is inconsistent, since you have based your acceptance of The
Bible on your own human reason.

This applies equally well even if you were to claim direct experience of
God telling you that _The Bible_ is true, such as visions or whatever it
might be: *you* decide that these are genuine and not hallucinations.

There's simply no way around it.


> Laura

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Jul21.192501.17284@rice.edu> <12394@inews.intel.com>
	<MIB.92Jul22102936@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:40:59 GMT

In article <MIB.92Jul22102936@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

   In article <12394@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

      In article <1992Jul21.192501.17284@rice.edu> 
      mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller) writes:

      >The KJV and NKJV are actually very good translations, especially
      >for the time.  The NAB is OK but not real good. (The Catholic
      >Bible) The Oxford Study Bible (Available in NRSV and RSV) is very
      >good and expensive.  In my experience, the NRSV (and the RSV) are
      >the versions most reccommended for their precision. I want to get
      >an NRSV whenever I've got $30 to burn.

      Most of these come very indirectly from the Latin Vulgate which
      comes from the Greek Septuagint which comes from the Hebrew as
      translated during a time when they really didn't know how to
      translate, it's not easy you know.  It's hard enough for someone
      who reads modern Hebrew to figure out what the writers meant in the
      Hebrew they wrote in. With that in mind, the best English
      translation of the "Old Testament" has got to be JPS Tanahk.  As
      for the "New Testament", well you take what you can get.

   This is untrue.  ALL of these, including the KJV, were translated
   directly from the Hebrew.  The NRSV (and, I think, the RSV) included
   Jewish members on the committee for the translation of the Hebrew
   Scriptures.

To make what I wrote more clear, by "ALL of these", I mean not just
the KJV, the NAB, the NRSV, and teh RSV, but also the Latin Vulgate.
The Vulgate was translated by Jerome (except the Psalter)--and he had
the advice of the learned Jews of his time on how to translate it.  

The Septuagint is a purely Jewish translation, as well, directly from
the Hebrew, though of varying quality.


--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Singular Salvation
Keywords: jingle, jingle, jingle, hoe, hoe, hoe
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:17:39 GMT
	<l7bjghINNdd@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>

In article <l7bjghINNdd@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>(Sangyong Jeon) writes:
>>Just curious, folks.
>>Why is it so difficult for the followers of any organized religion
>>to accept that the claim of salvation in any other religion is as
>>valid as their own ?
>
>I don't think that's the case. Judaism doesn't do that insofar
>as I know, and Unitarian-Universalism doesn't either.

Good points, I somewhat slammed Christianity in a prior post, but there are
some enlightened forms that acknowledge the validity of all religions. And as 
you say, Judaism only claims that He who's name is not to be said is the only 
God of the Jewish Tribe. It makes no claims about the validity or evilness of
the religions of other tribes, except that they should not be practiced by
members of the Jewish Tribe. It is Christianity and Islam that try to apply
this idea to all humans, thus the apparant need for conversion of non
believers. And the concept of the Devil is a Christian one, essentially the 
grab bag for all other non-Christian beliefs. Thus the term, "the Christian
Devil".

>>And the logical implication that follows ?
>
>I have learned here on the net not to take anything for
>granted, so I would be interested in the "logical implication
>that follows"

The logical implication is that if all religions were to claim that all
other religions were false, there could only be one likely truth and that would
be that all religions must be false. In other words, if the rule is my beliefs
are true and everyone else's beliefs are false and everyone must adhere to
that rule, then it is most likely that all such beliefs are false. If one
claims that all beliefs foreign to one are false, one puts one's own beliefs
on shaky ground. Any religion that preaches that all other religions are false,
only serves to generate questions about the validity of all religions in the
minds of those who think. So, one would assume that religions that
account for the likelyhood that all religions are actually valid, would be
more likely to be correct. The idea of my religion is the only valid one and
my God is the only God is really just the application of warfare to religion.
I say my God is the only God and if you don't agree with my beliefs, then
we'll fight it out and the most vicious warrior religion will win. Explains
why the Europeans thought it was OK to rape and pillage the New World in the
name of their God. Also explains the emphasis on conversion instead of the
exchange of ideas.

>As you can probably guess, I would not attempt to claim the
>singular salvation of any particular theology and would
>not buy into one that did.

Seems realistic to me. Beats the free gift gimmick.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: why i no longer hate christianity
Keywords: Luke 14:26
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:59:30 GMT
	<sbuckley.712260813@sfu.ca> <1992Jul27.185917.29741@cs.yale.edu> 
	<sbuckley.712266946@sfu.ca> <12519@inews.intel.com> 
	<sbuckley.712394436@sfu.ca>

In article <sbuckley.712394436@sfu.ca> 
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
<  the only "type" of christianity that i consider to be christianity is one
<that is based on the fundamental literal interpretation of the bible.

Ah, and what would that be exactly? Which translation are you refering to? And
who decides what the "fundamental literal interpretation" is? Is it you?

<  why is christianity better than all the others?  well, it was the only
<one that answered all my questions about the nature of reality.  it was the
<only one that asserted itself as absolute truth to respond to my growing
<disbelief in the philosophy of subjective reality.

Ah, absolute truth?

<and it was the only
<one that, on a pragmatic level, actually revived life in me and gave me
<a purpose to live; because every other philosophy i explored left at least
<one crucial question/critique unanswered.

What is so bad about unanswered questions? Did you ever question the answers
you recieved? Why do you expect answers for everything? What is the meaning of
a rock?

<  most of the others in the list: those did not offer or deem necessary the
<presence of a saviour.  and frankly i'm not too proud to admit that everything
<i tried [derived in my own mind or through my study] failed to provide a 
<context of meaning for my life because none brought me to the objective,
<absolute god i believe in.  for a decade i felt converting to christianity
<was the big intellectual wimpout, but upon utter despair in my life, i
<needed something, jesus, to save me.  my life was like digging a hole in
<the ground.  after going down 48 feet i was alone there with a shovel and
<no chance of getting me out of my pit of meaninglessness and despair.
<no other human or man-made philosophy or psychology could save me and i turned
<to jesus and he did--quite handily i might add.  we all need our crutches, 
<though many adamently refuse to admit that.  what are our philosophies and
<therapists for anyway if not to help us cope with an imperfect world.  simply
<this, after a decade of trying crutches that kept snapping, i turned to the
<crutch that was the only one that asserted to work for anyone and everyone.

Are you ready to walk that freedom walk? If you are, why not take your weight
off of that crutch? Why does one need a crutch, if one can walk? What is the
purpose of a crutch? Is a crutch meant to be a permanent fixture in one's
life once one can walk the freedom walk?
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:27:45 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
|All of you who think that homosexuals in the congregation, or in the
|ministry, or anywhere else for that matter are  in need of some serious
|bible time.
|[...] I prefer all flames and comments to
|come to my box so that all do not have to suffer with my arguments. 
|Unless, of course it is one that the group would find beneficial.

We do not need a repeat of this flamewar.
We do not need a repeat of this flamewar.
We do not need a repeat of this flamewar.
The gay Christians will continue to be sincere in their
faith, and the bigots will continue to be bigots.
No minds will be opened or changed.

Followups are set where followups belong.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Oh, you're a bigot all right, you just feel that saying you have the 
right to be one means you're liberal.  If it didn't happen so often, 
it would be funny."  Mark Sobolewski, in talk.religion.misc
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: <None>
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:27:35 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <LAURAF.92Jul30155204@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>, lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
> But Paul, the bible is a book telling us how God intervened directly in Man's
> affairs back then not now!!!  The bible was written aforetime for our
> instruction today.  Why would GOD have any reason to involve himself in our
> affairs today if we already have an instruction book per se?  Tell me, how many
> times have you heard the phrase: "if all else fails read the instructions"?
>

	This sounds familiar.  Isn't this what the Jews said to the early
Christians (more or less - not the exact words but I think you get my meaning)? 
	Isn't God the same yesterday, today and forever?  Why then would He 
involve Himself in people's affairs before our time but not in our time?  What
about Armageddon?  
	I am not aware of any text in the Bible that declares it (the Bible)
a closed set of scripture.  Indeed this would have been quite difficult since
when the individual books were written the Bible as we know did not exist, as
I'm sure you're well aware.  So I guess this goes back to the old Bible
inerrancy question.

-Mark

> Laura
> 
>
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: The LDs and the Space Potato (was: Structure of Time)
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:41:45 GMT

ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM writes:
>Jason says:
>> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM writes:

>> > The 'Space Potato' story is no more or less assaulting to the senses
>> > than, say... Joseph Smith's fable concerning the Garden of Eden
>> > being located in Missouri, or Noah sailing his ark from the
>> > Carolinas.

>> Couldn't you used Aesop's Fables, Norse, Greek, or Mayan mythology
>> instead of trying to indirectly slam the LDS?

>I suppose any myth would have fit the purpose, but I have always
>enjoyed the LDs one.

True. You have to admire Joseph Smith's cheek. I mean, it was his third?
attempt to set up a religion?

"Well, I had this gold book y'see but _I lost it_!"

P
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:00:57 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <92116@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>you shouldn't change "he who sleeps with a man" or aresenokoite to
>>"he who sleeps with a woman" to make it read the opposite of the original.
>
>That's not what has been claimed of the mistranslation. In the context
>of the original Greek, "arsenokoite" can mean male prostitute.
                                      ^^^
These passages in the original Greek do not give much context to suppose
that it is talking about prostitution.  It is listed with other sins, like
adultery in Corinthians.  

It is
>a rather vague term which doesn't speak much of the prostitute's customers.

Sexual immorality is sexual immorality whether or not money changes 
hands.

>Christian doctrine now states that homosexuality as an orientation is not
>sinful. If Christ were homosexually oriented, or bisexually, or heterosexually
>oriented, he was not sinful by orientation alone.

Depends on whose doctine you are stating.  Lust is sin, as Christ noted.
Moral weaknesses often develop through sins.  Saying that Christ was
oriented to homosexual sex is not much different from saying that he was
theft-oriented or murder-oriented.  There is not support for any of it.
It is like asking, "If Christ would have sinned, in what area would He have
fallen?"  Many Christians believe that Christ could not have sinned.
At the very least it can develop into a foolish and unedifying argument,
even worse than the angel on the head of a pin argument.

Link Hudson.





>
>Brian.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
>Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
>oneself.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Did Jesus Claim to be God (Finally?)
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:14:23 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <1992Jul28.031214.19257@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>In article <MIB.92Jul27140205@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>> 
>> A very good example is Philippians 2:6-8:
>
>Phil 2:6 has already been covered twice on this thread Michael, so I
>won't weary eveyone by going over it again. When correctly translated
>it actually shows that jesus was *less* than Yahweh in Paul's opinion.

Tim, I guess you didn't read my posting on this thread concerning
Phil 2:6 a while ago.  In that posting, I quoted from Kittel's
Theological Dictionary of New Testament to show that Phil 2:6
does indeed confirm the deity of Christ.  If you somehow missed
that article, I can repost it.  But if you have read it, I would
appreciate if you can respond to it before you repeat your original claim.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Playing God (WAS Re: The C word)
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:14:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <1992Jul28.030615.24998@portland.mdc.unisys.com> tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.114147.23789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>> 
>>> There is no reference to cheeseburgers in the Bible.
>>
>>Dairy and meat together are not kosher.
>>
>>If you want Leviticus to be your guide, you can't disregard
>>the bits that don't appeal to you when it's 11:30 PM, you've
>>been on the road for hours, and Mickey D's is the only
>>game in town, eh what?
>
>If I want Deuteronomy (not Leviticus) to be my guide I will "not boil a kid
>in its mother's milk."  Again, the Bible passage you (and the original poster)
>are alluding to says absolutely nothing about cheeseburgers.

Hint:
 What is cheese made out of?
 Is it possible that the mother of the calf who was made into the
  hamburger was the cow that provided the cheese?

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: jw's and the 144000
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:41:52 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <1992Jul22.175005@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.132015.17155@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
>Siivonen) writes:
>> napo@cs.hut.fi (Hannu Napari) writes:
>> >You are again claiming to be a biologist? Trying to see as many birds
>> >as possible, ie being an ornithologist doesn't make you a biologist.
>> >Is this pride or lying? But anyway, enjoy your swim. 8) 
>> 
>> 	Besides, I'm far more biologist than mr. C. Darwin. 
>
>  Who merely proposed (and quite hesitantly) the theory in it's original form. 
>Evolution, as it stands now, bears almost no relation to the one proposed by
>Darwin.  When you say you know better than the creator of Evolution, you are
>really saying you know better than thousands of PhD biologists, geneticists, and
>even most ornithologists.

While Darwin may not have filled in all the details he was exactly right
about the general principle of natural selection. The details of how a
particular animal evolved or the means by which mutations happen may be open
to debate, but the concept of natural selection itself is not in dispute. 

Natural selection works regardless of the "implementation" it works in
the physical world with DNA but it can also work in a computer using
virtually any method you choose to represent a creature, infact it
even works in society, ideas, religions, etc. are all subject to natural
selection.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:08:18 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu (Vincent Frisina)
>
>Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
>> If jesus were to love and forgive homosexuals as a group, why not
>> murderers and adulterers?  Why not fornicators, and rapists.  
>     I take offense at this statement. The very foundation of Christianity  
>is that Jesus LOVED everyone....
                     ^^^^^^^^
You are right that Steve's statement is offensively skewed.  Jesus DOES
love and forgive homosexuals as a group.  He loves and forgives all
groups of sinners....but can forgive only those who will and do 
receive this forgiveness.

FYI Jesus HATED every sin not excluding homosexuality.  It was the pain
                ^^^^^^^^^
of sin for which he sufferred on the cross.  Why continue to embrace any
sin, it hurts Him?  Repent!  ...and not in vain.  Is it hypocritical to
accept Him and then wholeheartedly continue to forsake what He did on 
the cross?

The man who says "I know him" but does not follow his commandments
is a liar and the truth is not within him.


Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:13:49 GMT
Summary: housetops, shouting, e-mail


Everything said in private shall be shouted out from the rooftops.
Wonder if Jesus meant e-mail? Could be.
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:00:48 GMT
Organization: SPS


(Simon Clippingdale) writes:
> Corey cannot be making a stand against Jehovah, for the simple reason that he
> no longer believes that Jehovah exists.


How does that follow?  If, in fact, Jehovah does exist, then Corey's disbelief
certainly could be regarded as a stand against Jehovah.

Dave Weaver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc