HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Idaho
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:16:32 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct12.214218.5920@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu
(Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> I see.  If one is not a believer then one cannot examine the testimony
> in the Bible.  It's just lines in a book.  Or, if I may apply this to
> another historical figure, to one who has not learned that "Columbus
> sailed the ocean blue...", any writing about his "voyage" is just
> lines in a book.

Concerning Columbus, we have objective evidence showing that
he actually landed in America. Even tribes that belonged to the Carribean
islands recorded this event, as well as historians in Europe. We have
enough evidence telling us about his trip. Nobody actually questions
his historical trip (the questioning is more on the political level). 
While in the case of Christianity we don't have such
self-evident material to work with, and the question of Jesus' miracles
is *not at all* evident.

> (Even better: apply this idea to the Holocaust, and the result is an
> excellent statement of Holocaust Revisionism, the original target of
> the Idaho parody.)

Which is a separate issue because as all sane people do know we have
plenty of objective evidence that the Holocaust actually happened,
including *eye witnesses* and official Nazi documents. As for Christianity
we do have documents that we can't even trace who wrote them, quite
a different situation.

I'm just trying to point out that the Idaho parody was perfect for the
Holocaust believers that falsify objective evidence, while it was not at
all perfect for the "Jesus, the historical miracle man" case -- mostly
because the evidence is even missing! How could you create a parody
based on something that can't be even showed true or false?

Regards,
Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: SINEAD O'CONNOR
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 16:58:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.150655.1466@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>, mix@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
|> 	I really would like someone to explain exactly what Sinead 
|> O'Connor had in mind when she called the Pope the "real enemy" and 
|> ripped up his picture.  I'm quite confused.  I realize she calls 
|> herself a "recovering Catholic," but this is ridiculous.

I don't speak for Sinead, but a DJ here in the Bay Area made the 
following observations as a counter to NBC executives' claim that
they had "no idea" why Sinead did it.

- The Pope goes to underdeveloped and overpopulated third world 
  countries and tells the people that they will go to hell if they
  use birth control.

- The Pope (symbolically) eats the flesh and drinks the blood of
  his god and then criticizes other religious groups for their 
  "barbaric" practices.

- The Pope has called for increased hatred of homosexual acts,
  and, hence, homosexuals.

So, depending on your perspective, the Pope is 
 the divine representative of God on earth,
 a hate-mongering, anti-humanist hypocrite,
or
 somewhere in between.

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:40:20 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct13.174715.9143@digi.lonestar.org>,
gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) wrote:
> I emphasize, the first person to point out that there were two Jesus children
> was Rudolf Steiner.  His observations were not speculative in nature but the
> results of other research.  Comparing those results with the actual gospel
> stories reveals that they are indeed true and consistent in a most unexpected
> way. What I say here is (a) both the skeptical and orthodox interpretations
> contain irreconcilable contradictions and (b) the two children scenario is at 
> least consistent with the texts, as far as the nativity stories are concerned.

That's fine, you use Occam's razor to cut out the fact that there were
two Jesus persons. I use the razor to cut out the fact that there
was a problem when the Gospel writers put together the ancestory lines
due to no coordination between the efforts.

As we don't have much evidence of two Jesus persons in the Gospel
itself, I'm quite skeptical myself concerning this theory. However
I have a much stronger feeling my theory that the Gospel writers
screwed up. This based on similar examples where historians have
caused havoc with known facts.

Cheers,
Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:54:45 GMT
 <1992Oct6.114200.13090@phillip.edu.au> <1992Oct6.161635.14116@infonode.ingr.com>
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <1992Oct6.161635.14116@infonode.ingr.com>, tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.114200.13090@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>>
>>
>> If you reject the virgin birth, you are rejecting a SINLESS saviour. To reject
>>Jesus as sinless, you are rejecting His ability to be a perfect sacrifice
>>without blemish.
>> 
> 
> As I understand this common fallicy, all who are born via the mechnism of
> sex are born guilty and thus seperated from God at Birth. This fallicy
> requires that Jesus to be born with out Sin so that He could be a Perfect
> Sacrifice?. The Catholic Doctrine of Immaculate Conception takes this
> idea one step further, Mary was not born in the normal way and that she
> was without sin, so that her Son could not be _contaminated by sin by
> being born by her.
 
  It is only a falicy if you are a non-Christian. Of course, the Catholic idea
of immaculate conception is un-Biblical (although they will show you verses
that you need to read between the lines at least another paragraph to follow
their logic) and not really relevant to the virgin birth of Christ. Any
orthodox Christian teaching says that Jesus needed to be born of a virgin to
remain sinless (i.e. free from original sin). You may argue all you like about
the validity of this, but the whole point of this (original) post is to show
that Mormons are not Christian and do not follow the basic tenets of
Christianity. This is just another example 



> 
> Mormons have a simpler solution to the overall problem: Children are
> born without sin. Children who die with out baptism before they are
> accountable are believe to return to the presence of God.
> 
 
  Christians too, believe that children are not accountable until "a certain
age" - whatever that may be, we don't however, say they are born sinless! And
we don't believe that you need baptism to be saved as it is just as much a
"work" as any other act. Baptism is of course very important and every believer
should be baptised.


> -- 
>          Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
> Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
>    klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 



-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:16:11 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <70562@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> In article <13715@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
> >solely on the basis of sexual orientation.  So, to put the question more
> >clearly Richard, if you were a voter in Oregon, would you vote for this
> >initiative?
 
> Yes.  

Sorry to hear this, Richard. My respect for you just plummeted.

Eric
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Research by Encyclopedia and Christian Propaganda was (I'm God)
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:34:56 GMT
	<70546@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Organization: you want rent money, i got pimp money, one things for sure i won't give it to a ...

In article <70546@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>The encyclopedia I looked at this afternoon had 10 pages on Jesus Christ,
>but it only had about 2 pages on Julius Caesar and associated Juliuses.

ENCYCLOPEDIA! Please! Ask a reference librarian for some basic history books.
Check out the library, if you want to learn the TRUTH!

>Generally you don't controvert any of the following, for Dr.  Kennedy 
 ^^^^^^^^^
>said that these men gave cursory evidence that was generally in line 
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>with the Bible's account.  If you'd like, I'll send you the 
>mailing address for Dr. Kennedy's ministry.  I quoted Dr. Kenndy's
>list and I, myself, cannot readily comment on these men.

A Historian with a ministry, well I must say, that is unusual!

>|If any of these cities had never been destroyed, you could just
>|say "hasn't happened yet, but it will".  This prophecy stuff is
>|fun, let's all join in!  I predict a new and equally absurd religion
>|will arise and gain thousands of former Christian converts!

>Oh.

The old religion is Roman Catholicism, the new religion was Protestantism but
now it's TV/fundy/EVILgelicalism. Of course they all claim to be the only
TRUE Christians. It's PT Barnum's prediction come true, for there is a sucker
born every minute. And there is a small fortune to be gained by preying on
these people. If they fall for the free gift grift, they'll fall for anything!

>I looked in the encyclopedia today.  It confirmed all of the 
>prophesy, except the fact that it would not be rebuilt.  Again,
>I ask is town with the same name the same as the original town?

Again the ENCYCLOPEDIA!

>|I advise you to throw his book in the trash!  I would have advised you
>|to go to a used book store and see if you can use his book as a down
>|payment on a real history book, but I would not want anyone else to buy
>|Dr. Kennedy's book and read his false witness!

>Researchers testify to the fact that the Tyre of today is not the same
>as the Tyre of old.  Why is your historian more infallible than these?

Do you really want to know the TRUTH? Ask a reference librarian. The TRUTH
is not to be found in Christian propaganda.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jhays@boi.hp.com (John_D. Hays)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:07:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division
Keywords: LDS, Mormon, Joseph Smith

In article <Bw1873.26A@mail.boi.hp.com> jhays@boi.hp.com (John_D. Hays) writes:

>shall be overshadowed and conceive by the poser of the Holy Ghost, and
>bring forth a son, even the Son of God." 
>
---------------------------------------------^
should read "power of the Holy Ghost" ...


John
-- 
John D. Hays [KD7UW]           |Email: [UUCP]          ...!hplabs!hpdmd48!jhays
Firmware Engineer              |       [INTERNET]              jhays@boi.hp.com
Boise Printer Division         |       [GEnie]                             HAYS
Boise, Idaho                   |       [Compu$erve]                   72725,424
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: davidson@ccrs.emr.ca (David Davidson)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 10:06:14 GMT

James ... Love 15 ...
	Let me tell you about faith man.  Faith is a pathetic atempt
	to grasp at reality with an unreasonable perception of the
	world ... GROW UP!

Your serve David!
	
Faith, my ideaa of faith is looking doen the top of our barmaid. I saw her
plump breasts and I    saw the face of god. Listen, youn have this 
weak faith, you desperatly cling to this bog, sorry god, and hope that
it will give meaning to your pathetic little lives. If you find
the real world so scary vote fucking differently you right-wing
idealogoues. You are banal in my sight. I give you a -3. 
Back to you Dieter...

	I say you all smell funny and that is the reason for the downfall of 
	the modern church.  I mean, look at good OLD John Paul ... Stench!
	Perhaps Sinnead was RIGHT in burning his effigy on SATURDAY NIGHT
	LIVE!!!  THINK ABOUT IT!!

30-15 .. back to you david

Are youn talkimg abpout thhat Baastard from Poland???? Did you know that
they had to scrub the tarmac in NewZealaand becausee race-horces unloaded
there and they were afraid he would kiss it. 

Once last point before that pillock wants to talk to you once agin, 
you are reading this and thinking that theawsee drunken sods are 
brainlss. Well, myth-worshipers, the scary thing is that between the two of us
we have more degrees than Celcius. We are rocket-scientists babey, and all
I haave to say to sheep, is not LOOK UP, but, that you are the first up
agginst the wall when the revolution comes. Auf Wiedersehen babeis.

	Point taken, Herr davidson.  After chastising me, he just fell over
	me .. fucking Irish!

Happy Thoughts!!!a
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:26:46 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> In article <4fEy02sb26d=01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Ant
> >These are being quoted from the original Hebrew text manuscripts!  Not
> >from a JW bible.  Do you even have a New Worlk Translation that the JWs
> >use?  I don't think so.  This is accurate of the original Hebrew text
> >manuscripts.  This is what the writer wrote!
>
>  Slow down, you are frothing again. SpinMeister..

In ancient Kermitic, this means 'hello'.

>  I asked Mark,  (and I guess you two are such tight buddies, I guess
>  you can answer for him)

Actually you accused my qoute of coming from the JW NWT.
Since the LDS believe the Bible is true only 'when
translated correctly', I gave you the task of translating the
2 verses in question and telling me what you had a problem with.
Considering the 'disclaimer' in the LDS articles of faith,
I was certain you could translate correctly.  After reading further
in this note:

>  I guess, there could be another translation which would match
>  this version of the quote. remember that the quote idenfies
>   "Lord" as ("Eliohim").

I think I see what got you excited.  You are getting confused
over how I treated 'LORD' and 'God', as they appear in the KJV.
Let me correct something you said, I did not identify 'Lord'
as 'Elohim'.  I identified 'God' with the Hebrew word 'Elohim'.
there is no 'Lord' in this verse, although there is 'LORD'.
This english word represents the Hebrew 'YHWH' (Jehovah).
The word 'Lord' as you use it, would probably be 'Adonai', but
that word does not appear in these verses.

If I remember correctly, the verses which put you in JW-Kermititis
were:

  'I am Jehovah, and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim] beside
   me.' Isa. 45:5.
  'before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.'
   Isa 43:10.

These verses are translated from the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia.
This is a standard Hebrew text.  I would prefer you obtain an
Interlinear Bible, like J. Green's, but I can post the transliterated
Hebrew if you still need to see it.

>  Most of the translation sorta of ignore that clairification.

I agree, and I think that is a mistake since it leads to false
teaching, such as when LDS Apostle McConkie refered to PS 110:1,
playing major word games with 'Jehovah' and 'Adonia', making it
look like it was 'Elohim' said to 'Jehovah', when in fact it
was 'Jehovah' said to 'Elohim'.

>  Which translations make that explict?

Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia, J Greens Interlinear, Youngs Literal,
Darby's Literal, Rotherham's Emphasized, etc.

>  (That _was_ the point of the quote wasn't it?)

No, the point of the qoute was to show that there is but
one God -- Jehovah, who told the prophet there were no
god's formed before Him, and none will be.  I apologize
if you did not understand 'LORD' is the english rendering
of YHWH in the Hebrew, or the anglicized Jehovah.

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:49:28 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <70560@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> I looked up these two groups today.  The Mitras movement was said to
> never have a historical founder.  The Osiris movement centered around
> Osiris (who was said to be the god of the dead).  It seemed Osiris
> was tricked into getting into a coffin and I guess died. (?)   A
> lady went and found him and collected his obviously scattered body
> parts and conceived his son, who avenged his fathers death.  It didn't
> have anything about Osiris rising from the dead.


He actually rose from the dead, and it was part of the ancient Egyptian
worshipping of the yearly spring. Actually, worshipping gods that 
died, and appeared again is nothing under the sun. Eating and drinking
the God is neither anything special. Actually when you start to look
at the doctrines of Christianity you will find that most of the
special ideas were used in many other religions and mystery cults
during this lifetime. Read Larson's "Origins of Christianity" for
more interesting comparisons.

Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not JW's
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:10:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.042012.17844@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
>> In article <1992Oct14.174340.15126@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT
>>  Now you'all notice this, these two verses don't come from s KJ version,
>>  or RvS, or even a Jerusalem Bible
>
>>  but this is the exact phrasing from a JW old testament.
>
>Ah....  The real reason, the 'Kermit-JW-psychosis'.
>
>Once again, I am not JW.  Although, I know when they get to that
>'burning bosom' stage there is no dealing with facts.
>


  You are not a Witness, fine.

  You Quote from JW material, you use JW-like scriptures.

  The only "other" group that get hung up about the name of God
  being Jehovah and the Christ isn't Jehovah is 
  the "Watchtower Bible Study"

  You have shown _us_ your faith by _your_ works; 

   <<  Yea, right this is a _grace_ issue  >>   :-)



   By the way what "translation" of the OT did you use? ....




-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:53:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.172616.20228@macc.wisc.edu> bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.103514.59693@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>
>>Barry, Tony, Mark,
>> 
>>If you ever succeed if persuading me to leave the LDS Church, I
>>would become an atheist before affiliating myself with
>>"Christians" like you.
>> 
>>You might win the battle and still lose the war.
>
>Jason,
>
>You would be following a well-worn path if you do so.  A few unscientific
>studies have indicated that the most common path followed by LDS who
>left the faith is to atheism.  I believe Walter Martin lamented this fact
>shortly before he died.
>

This is indeed tragic.  The eternal consequences are the same as if they
had stayed LDS, but at least there is a sense of belonging for those
who are active, but for the inactive, it is often still too hard to leave
even though there isn't the sense of "fraternity."  The reason so many
leave the LDS faith and end up with no belief system, or atheism, is that
they are so indoctrinated into the sense of "One True Church" that when
they discover that the "One True Church" is false, they are resigned to
the idea that if the "One True Church" is false, then ALL belief systems
are false.  Ferguson was a good example of this, and I, myself also
threw out all belief systems when I lost faith in Mormonism.  What Martin
did not realize, is that often people who leave Mormnism will begin
to discover that they are still no better off than before, and will begin
seeking.  Often, this leads them to new-age, or other false or mystic
theologies.  Others, through the evangelistic efforts of others and through
their own desire for Truth will discover Christianity.


-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Subject: Roman Catholic titles
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:42:51 GMT

Hi,

I know the Pope still carries the title "Pontifex Maximus" and I know
that the Church carries on many other titles from the Roman Republic
and Empire. Do any of you know the other titles they carry on?
Consular, Praetor, Tribune, etc? I find that aspect of the Church
fascinating. I also thought it was cute that a church in Carmel,
Indiana was done in a "Roman" motif and had curile benches behind the
altar for the priest and others to sit on. I wonder if the original
Catholic priests also did this to give themselves an air of consular
authority?

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  is weak enough to be restrained..." -- Blake
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is
 writing a book." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero