HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: nobly said
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:00:04 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <cZk4VB4w165w@brewich.hou.tx.us> 
	sirbyte@brewich.hou.tx.us (William hancock) writes:

>I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!!!! Who gives an ounce of S**T what 'title' you go by 
>if you are so insecure that you have to claim one name so you belong than 
>you reaaly should look else where.  Figure out who and what you are and 
>be that, don't stagger around and try to argue what name fits your 
>perticular belief system, just be quite and be who you truley are inside!
>
>-insist onyour self never immitate-
>            -uhhh.... that transendental guy said this :)

most nobly said fair knight.
i, in my insecurity, prefer not having other people telling what i
may or may not call myself.

now please consider, i am not argueing whether or no i should call myself
anything.  what i am argueing is that pagan is an adequate, but
not necessarily all encompassing label.  when i do choose to label
myself i choose often chooses 'pagan'.  i do not need such high and
noble knights such as yourself to name me.

now also consider, before you lay further aspersions at my feet that
you follow the thread a little more closely, as i have already stated
that my path has no name.

peter li'ir key, just this queer mystic, you know?
key@soda.berkeley.edu

ps if you don't care, why did you respond?
pps it's nice that you've had enough.  it's nice to know knights
	are so gracious in their words
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 03:08:18 GMT

(A) Otherwise God will torture you forever.
(B) Otherwise the absence of God will torture you forever.
(C) none of the above

In article <lif4o7INN7ns@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>I decided long ago that fear is insufficient cause to adopt a particular
>set of beliefs. Given this, it would logically follow that I should select
>option C, and its implication that I should not necessairly become a
>Christian.

Yes.  I think option C is the wise choice as well.  In fact, 
I hate being Christian.  To hell with its beliefs too.
They are not essential and I do not venture to persuade
anyone to become a Christian.  Centering one's life and
following Christ, on the other hand, is *statistically*
a different story.

Let's confuse the consequences with the reasons.

Not by or for being Christian; nor by or for any church,
but foremost, by and for Christ and His Resurrection,

Terence

Have a Christ-centered Christmas or don't have one at all.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: world, public
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:01:49 GMT

ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
: In article <1992Dec9.145259.29567@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
: |> ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
: |> : 
: |> : Not correct.  Foreknowledge and predestination are not
: |> : the same thing.
: |> 
: |> I didn't say they were the same thing, I said that God had 
: |> foreknowledge of our actions and still chose to create us, 
: |> therefore our actions are predestined.  How can you deny
: |> such a common sense idea?  If you want to convince me otherwise,
: |> how about elaborating on your assertion?
: |> 
: 
: Well, by my definitions, predestination means A&E had no
: choice, God decided that they would sin.  Foreknowldge means
: that God new ahead of time that they would choose to sin.
: The difference seems clear to me.

Why do you keep repeating this?  I have already agreed with your
definitions.  Repeating the definitions and pointing out
the difference is beside the point!  I said that predestination
logically *follows* from foreknowledge, *NOT* that they are the same
thing.  What were the odds that A&E would commit Original Sin?
God knew with 100% certainty when he created them that they would
Fall.  God would be pretty suprised if A&E avoided the Fall in 
spite of his 100% foreknowledge that they *would* Fall.  Therefore,
in spite of appearances, A&E had 0% possibility of avoiding it.
How can you avoid the conclusion that it wasn't predestined?  And
_please_ don't simply repeat the defintions again.
-- 
> Jeff Young <
> Personal   <               I'm not lost, I'm exploring.
> opinions   <
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:21:03 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec17.143804.27554@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> 
> If I understand correctly, Mr. Sandvik would like someone to explain
> to him the Lutheran model of the trinity.  Other theologies will not
> do, for he may reject them if they counter his perception of Lutheran
> theology (he has done this once already).  If he had made this clear
> from the start, for he would have saved non-Lutherans the trouble of
> arguing against his unstated assumptions, and he would have saved
> himself the embarrassment of posting a blatantly false dichotomy.

Actually, I don't mind if a non-Lutheran takes the task of explaining
trinity using logical terms. Note however that my Christian background
relies on the Lutheran tradition, that as I know does have a fairly
mainstream Christian view concerning the concept of the trinity.

So my request is still up in the air.
 
> Perhaps a Lutheran will take up the task.  If Mr. Sandvik wishes to
> hear from the rest of us he will have to relax his restrictions.

I never explicitly told anyone to use the Lutheran doctrine? Maybe
I'm wrong, but this was never the intent. My problem is that 
there are so many views concerning the trinity concept so I could 
only judge the outcome based on the Christian tradition I have.

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: arron@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A deep bit of flame bait
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:26:52 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Hi Paul,

> The words "patronising" and "sod" come to mind.*
> 
> P.

I'm sorry you see me in this light. What I was trying to get across was that
there is a reality to Christ, and I think this group often says things like
'patronising sod' to Christians, without realising that although we consider
ourselves destined to a perfect eternity, it is on our hearts to follow Christ's
commission to go out into all the world taking the words of God and Christ to
help you share in the destiny we have.

I do not look down on you as a low-life, unsaved, death-bound heathen, but as a
person I would love to have a chat with in heaven.

*******************************************************************************
from:arron@waikato.ac.nz			Arron Scott
						University of Waikato
*******************************************************************************
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:02:10 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <lis0mrINNm53@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>
>
>Let me repeat once again what I said:
>
>"If they would hand out rewards based on ego you would get the top prize.
>You would go into heaven ahead everyone else."
>
>Thank you for agreeing with my conclusion! However, I did err in scope in my
>mind. I actually way under estimated the size of your ego
>
>>>>....your are right, but we have to be aware that the writer only meant one
>>>>of the meanings.
>
>>Yes, look closely at your words that you have quoted.  You were talking
>>about "beliefs".  I never said that the Trinity concept couldn't be
>>shown from the Bible.  The point is, that you are not open to looking at
>>the proof.  Why is it that you refuse to look at the outline of the 700
>>verses I offered for FREE, if you are open-minded?
>
>This requires no further comments. Your words tell all, we all "get it"  ow.

Posting my words out of context proves nothing.

>I don't know why, but you remind me of Paul, prior to his conversion, before
>he encountered Jesus on the Damascus road.
>
>With brotherly love,
>
>		Frank

Do you really have anything to sy relevant?  I mean, this whole letter is
juts a character assination.  Can we discuss issues?  Like why you and
Brigham Young worship different Gods?  Who was right?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Weiss's "Christlike" example for the Mormons
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:01:54 GMT

In article <BzFFqy.5M@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>> 
>
>	I don't think that anyone was `offended' by your comments on 
>sex and marching band.
>
>	It just shows another facet of your character. In addition to the 
>dishonest editing of replies, the sophistry and the ad hominem 
>abusives, we can now add 'crude' to the qualities that the LDS Jesus 
>has wrought in your life.
>

   Yes we all have character flaws to overcome, we would now like to
   dicuss the flaws that have been wrought by Jesus  in _your_ life?  :-)
							          ( smiley )

   "dishonest editing of replies, the sophistry" of your arguments,
   perhaps. The continued practise of unsubstaited bouts of superiority,
   and non-biblical hyperbole  (ie The Angel of The Lord == God himself,
   that was _you_ wasn't it that posted the long list of verses which
   _didn't_ support your premise)

   As long as we are discussing _your_ (see tony you don't have to use
   just caps to make your point) methods of hit and run, jab and point,
   we could also talk about this habit of yours to attack the minor
   points of a post and then to argue that any response has _changed_
   the subject of a post.  sound familar?




-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:10:55 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17801@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.124154.13062@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:
>>
>>Quite frankly, the only people who seem to consider _Mormon Doctrine_
>>official are Anti-Mormons. It is not to say that many Mormons, like
>>myself, do not consider _Mormon Doctrine_ to be valuable resource.
>
>This shows the wisdom of Pres. McKay in not wanting the book to
>be called Mormon Doctrine.  This use may have harmed the church
>more than the book helped the members.

Nah, I wouldn't say that.  It has helped me lead many Mormons to Christ!

;-)


>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:47:06 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>|But I don't want to be like Christ and I don't want a relationship
>|with his dad.

>What is there about either Jesus the Christ or the Father that you
>don't want to be like or even know?  What does it require of you
>to let go of?

Well, the Father asks something of us.  I prefer striving for ultimate altruism.
The Father refused to be clear about the exitence of Him or his son.  I prefer 
to be honest and frank.  The Father, as far as I have read in the Bible, has
never wept.  I would not want to be like that.

Matt I.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:28:26 GMT



Words change meaning.  "Pagan", "Neo-Pagan", and "Modern Pagan"
have all acquired meanings which relate to a group of religions
based on reconstructions of early pre-christian, non judaic
religions.  This is not mocking Christianity.  In some cases,
it does not even deny all of Christianity or other religions.
If you are unsure what someone means by "pagan" ask them to
define it.  Then work with their definition.



-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Re: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:06:00 GMT

> From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
> Subject: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 12:45:38 GMT
> 
> _GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNT_ from Hugh Ross' "The Fingerprint of God"
> 
> the heavens, looking down on the earth.  Yet, the second verse of
> Genesis 1 places the point of view under the cloud cover, on the
> surface of the waters.  It says, "The Spirit of God was hovering over
> the surface of the waters." 

What cloud cover? We've gotten through Genesis 1:1 to 1:2, and now all of a
sudden there's this cloud cover that I don't recall seeing in Genesis 1:1.
Oh, that's right, the cloud cover needed to support Ross's reading of
Genesis 1.

> We are told, too, that the earth's atmosphere (and/or
> interplanetary debris) blocked out the light that exists throughout
> the universe.  Light could not pass through to the surface.

We are told no such thing. Ross is making the common Fundamentalist mistake
of conflating his reading of the text with the text itself. 

> Order of Creation Events
> ------------------------
> The following table lists the eleven major milestones in order, giving
> suitable English equivalents for those verbs. 

For "major milestones" read "the events whose order happens to work out".
I have, for instance, a list of 41 items (anonymous, but "Based on the
initial work of Richard Nielssen as contained in THE CREATION RESEARCH
SOCIETY QUARTERLY, March 1980, pp. 220-221") which states in its
introduction, "Listed below is a close examination and comparison of the
supposed evolutionary sequence with that of the Biblical record. This
comparison reveals numerous contradictions which such reinterpretation
attempts are unable to harmonize." 

> The odds that Moses could have guessed the correct order even if he
> were given the events are 1 chance in 40 million.

Sorry, but if you have a list of N events, you can't pick a subset of 11
that happen to be in the right order, compute the odds of getting the order
of those 11 right, and ignore the ones that are wrong.

> Deep thought:  the seventh day is not closed out in the Genesis
> account...  Hmmm...  Funny how the extinction of species and the
> "completion" of biblical creation coincide, and the arrival
> of anything _new_ has fallen off sharply.  Maybe in God's rest chaos
> is once again getting its say...

Let's see...70% of all forms of algae go extinct at the end of the
Precambrian, 90%+ of all marine species go extinct at the end of the Permian,
and all the dinosaurs + >50% of all invertebrate marine species go extinct
at the end of the Cretaceous, and you think *we're* in the middle of a big
extinction event?

I suppose you have equally good evidence that the emergence of new species
has fallen off?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Finnish Bible Translation
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:36:06 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


I think I'm having trouble with my news poster, so if you've
seen this request before, sorry in advance.

Would any Finnish speakers help me out with translating a
passage from two Finnish bibles?  The more responses the better.

This is from Jeremiah 29:10, in the Finnish bibles designated
KR33 and KR92.

KR33:
   Silla nain sanoo Herra: Vasta kun ne seitsemankymmenta
   Baabelin vuotta ovat tayttyneet, mina katson teidan puoleenne
   ja panen taytantoon teita kohtaan hyvan lupaukseni ja
   palautan teidat tahan paikkaan.

KR92:
   Nain sanoo Herra: Kun Babylonian seitsemankymmenta vuotta
   ovat kuluneet, mina otan teidat jalleen huomaani.  Mina
   taytan lupaukseni ja tuon teidat takaisin omaan maahanne.

Thanks!

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:45:30 GMT


David Sweeney  x2987 (bigdave@vermont.tdd.sj.nec.com) wrote:
: rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
: cxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Christopher Fenton) writes:
: >|>
: >|> fab doo's...mindless self-inflicted guilt...and all the fab
: >|> glories of polyester...
: >|>
: >
: >When was the last time you read Romans 8 and Galatians 5.
:
: Galatians?  Whoa, if's been a few years at least!  That was one of my
: favorite games back in high school--I used to play it for HOURS down at
: the local 7-11.  Man, I got blisters from that damn joystick, but I could
: play for more than an hour on one quarter.  And the music in the bonus
: stages was HOT!  Damn--they don't make games like that anymore.
:
: As for Romans... I never got into those historical role-playing games.

You were playing GALAXIANS you jerk.  Galatians 5 is a boring game of free
people thinking they are slaves and turning to JEEZUS in order to be free from
their non-existent yokes.
-- 
Mike A. McAngus	(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) 

Like I really need another time-consuming hobby.
This Posting Exploits Illiterates.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Latin verse for the day.
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:41:10 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.055355.25905@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>In article <1gj54dINNlk2@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> Bill writes:
>>>>"Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life."  
>>>>Proverbs 4:23
>>>>In Christs Love,
>>>>Bryan
>>>This is kind of interesting, JPS (ISBN:0-8276-0252-9) has:
>>>More than all that you guard, guard your mind, for it is the source of
>>>life.
>>>Something to think about I guess.
>>>In Vino Veritas,
>>>Paul Harvey, - good day!
>>Well, wine is fine, but I prefer:
>>Amore vincit omnia, et nos cedamus amori
>>Dano
>>(Love conquers all, and let us yield to it - Virgil)

>Of course, if we're talking love, say up at chakra six or so, the
>ultimate quote has got to be:
>
>"Roma backwards is amor."	- unknown 12th century French heretic
>
>Quite a subversive statement if you think about it.

Okay, I know the best have all been humbled and that we are not
the best, but could you explain Roma/amoR ??

Dano

Veritas vos liberabit (The Truth Shall Make You Free)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re:  Anthony Rose
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:32:01 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
      Keywords: The distortinons of a frenzied mind
>>Tell me Kermit, when I "accept Christ" according to your standards,
>>will I then posts sexually nasty jokes on alt.jokes like you do?

>your mean Rec.humor ? is there an alt.jokes on your machine, there isn't
>on mine. I'm subsribed to rec.humor.funny but not rec.humor and
>the only "joke" I've posted recently is about my neighbor who still won't
>sleep in the NORTH bedroom.

Kermit, have you ever posted to alt.tastless.jokes?  (Marching bands
ring a bell with you?)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:20:41 GMT

<78352@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
><1992Dec14.135939.1888@lut.ac.uk> A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk (Alan Robinson) :
>|<1992Dec11.140927.21058@cs.cornell.edu> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>|>Answer:
>|>
>|>To be Christ like and obtain a relationship with the Father.
>|
>|But I don't want to be like Christ and I don't want a relationship
>|with his dad.
>
>What is there about either Jesus the Christ or the Father that you
>don't want to be like or even know?  

Heck, I'd love to decide who lives and who dies, and then change my mind
on a whim.

>                                     What does it require of you
>to let go of?

Intellectual integrity.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Bible verses for two days
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:13:04 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1gnhbjINNi8k@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>,
whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu wrote:
> 
> This is one of my favorites-
> verse 11
> "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you and say all kinds of  
> evil against you falsely for My sake."
> verse 12
> "Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for  
> so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
> Matthew 5:11,12 NKJV

I'm sure the Inquisition crew read these chapters daily :-).

Sorry, it's a sad joke.

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
From: rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:06:10 GMT
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY

In article <lif4o7INN7ns@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
|> I decided long ago that fear is insufficient cause to adopt a particular
|> set of beliefs. Given this, it would logically follow that I should select
|> option C, and its implication that I should not necessairly become a
|> Christian.

Students study all night long because they fear failing an exam.  Because of fear
they adopt the belief that all nighters are necessary for academic success.