HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:53:47 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <11643@tamsun.tamu.edu>, hayek@eemips.tamu.edu (Khalil Hayek) writes:
> Arguing only from a human-natural point of view, how can one believe that
> only Christians will be saved while you have good people from all kinds
> of religions out there? I had a Muslim roommate for 4 years and I find it
> difficult to even think that he won't be saved just because he's not 
> Christian.

As I stated earlier, every religion has a carrot, usually it's either
eternal life, or a lot of money, or zapping your existence. Marketing
and religion has a lot in common, watch for instance TV-evangelism
programs for the ultimate combination of the worst of the both worlds.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:14:22 GMT


In article #10081, John Meuhlhausen states:

	"You need to be reunited with god, which is in a sense
	 being `saved' because of the awful reality of where god
	 is not (hell).  Of course this will not mean anything to
	 you nor will anything I say, and you know it, so I wonder
	 why you keep asking...Could it be that you smell just the s
	 slightest bit of truth in all this?"

	Not at all, John.
	We keep asking because you and the other believers still
haven't answered the question we have asked, namely,

	"can you prove to us non-believers that god exists?"

	And when I say prove, I don't mean to quote scripture at
us which is not proof, because it is _slightly_ subjective.  I don't
mean to let us know that since you believe it, since god said it, it 
must be true, as if it weren't, god wouldn't have said it, and you
would not believe it.
	I mean hard, objective evidence that will stand up to the
rigors of scientific method.  Evidence so overwhelming that there
could be no other interpretation of it except to prove the exist-
ance of god, once and for all.
	And, please, don't respond with "why don't you disprove
it".  I give you credit for enough intelligence to realize that
it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of anything.
	That's all we ask.
	Until you can supply it, please don't throw stones at my way 
of life, and my preference of lifemates.  We are tired of your
condemnation in the name of your personal mythology.

Gay, Atheist, and happy,
Kelley L. Miller
ae642@yfn.ysu.edu
--
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:06:11 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Apr7.141548.16022@news.iastate.edu> tnap1@isuevax.iastate.edu writes:
>	Answer... The answer is the Heaven is the reward God will give to the
>people who believe in Him and Worship Him alone without adding other Gods with
>Him. He will reward them for there faith and good deeds. Hell is the punishment
>that God gives to those who refused to believe in Him and to worship Him as He
>has commanded them to. Some people have invented lies against God and have
>included them in thier religion thus there is a lot of cofusion and
>misunderstanding. God is Not our Father, we are Not his Children. God Is our
>Lord and we are his Servants.

    I believe you will find in Psalm 100, that we are his children the
sheep of his pasture, in the NIV, which I don't have one with me, nor do I have
a good concordance handy.

    Jesus accepted the titles of Lord and Master and The Christ, the Son
of the Living God (Matt. 16:15-17).  In John 13:13, Jesus said that
he is rightly called Teacher and Lord, for that is what he is.

    In John chapter 1, Jesus is given the attributes of being the Word
(v1), being with God (v1), being God (v1), being with God in the 
beginning (v2), being reponsible for the creation of all things (v3),
being in the world (v10), made flesh (v14), and dwelt among us (v14).
John says they have seen his glory, of the One and Only, who came 
from the Father (v14).

>	The Truth that hasn't been changed is with Islam only,
>	Abdur Rahman

The Bible attributes the titles of Lord and God to Jesus, who Islam 
claims was a prophet like many others, correct?

How does Islam reconcile a prophet being attributed as such and more
so being given the title Son of God?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:41:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <adams.703450942@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>>Look around.  Look at society today.  Look at marriage today.  Before the
>>sexual revolution, sex outside of marriage was looked down upon.  
>Bwaaahaaahaaahaa!  Go read some American History...there was plenty of sex
>to be had...much of it outside of marriage.  And before the sexual
>revolution made it OK to talk about it in public...Go read about Benjamen
>Franklin....he enjoyed the 'company' of 'ladies' very much....

Maybe I should have been more specific.  Of course there have been cycles
in American history, and things were not the same in every place.  There
was a sexual revolution in the 20's to some extent.  But look at the
decades just before the sexual revolution.  A girl who  slept around
was looked down on.  (I am from the South.  Of course this is a generality.)
Young men wanted to date the young women with reputations,
but they wanted to marry a virgin.  Sure there was sex outside of marriage
back then, but there was probably a higher proportion of virgins getting
married at that time.  Look at the divorce rates for this period of time.
Look at the crime rates.  

BTW I have heard that Franklin died of syphilis.  Does anyone know if this is
true.

>>Look at how many children are born without having a father present to 
>>raise them.  Has this strengthened society.
>This happened in the past, too.  Bastardy is not a new invention.
>(Please pardon the technical term, no offence intended to kids of single
>moms)

Of course it has happened for ages, but consider the ratio of children
who don't have the benefit of having a father in the home today as compared
to 40 years ago.

>Yes, but God does not require all of us to be martyrs.  And Peter certainly
>denied Christ.  Is he roasting in hell because of this?

We are to live our lives as "living martyrs."  We are to present our
bodies as living sacrifices.
Peter found forgiveness (also Peter denied Jesus before he was "converted"
as the KJV puts it.)  But we do not know that Peter would have been 
crucified if he would have simply said, "I know Him."  I think he
probably would have made it out alive.  The leaders wanted to kill Jesus.
they thought if they killed Him, everything would calm down.  

But Peter had told Jesus that he was willing to die with him before he
denied him.  Peter was forgiven, but look at what came of his denying the
Lord.  Peter had to look Jesus in the eye after denying Him, and
He carried this memory with him for the rest of his life, which ended
in crucifiction.
Also, forever in history probably his most embarrasing and painful moment 
is recorded for everyone to read. 

>Is it OK to violate a 'law of God' to save another persons life?  Is it OK
>to violate a 'law of God' to save your own life?

We are required to be obedient.  For example, we are not to deny the
Lord even if our lives are at stake.

Link Hudson.
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:38:46 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In article <51@devl3.UUCP>, root@devl3.UUCP (Super user) writes:
> A true Christian (follower of Christ) does not believe that only people
> who have publicly accepted Christ as their saviour will be saved.  Christ
> Himself stated, "other sheep have I that are not of this fold".  The clear
> implication is that He will base eligibility for salvation on standards
> that His human followers do not neccessarily know about or understand.
> That's the good thing about Christianity.  I don't have to judge you.  I
> can leave that up to God and trust Him to do what is right for everybody.

Kent Sandvik (ksand@apple.com) writes:
>And this would imply that there are other ways to salvation than
>the ones Christian churches teach? Maybe gnostics were right after all?

What other ways do you know of that assure you of salvation?
Are you sure?
Do the gnostics know or did they make something up?

Terence
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Ending of Mark (was: Myths Concerning Christianity #3)
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:45:53 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <l+qjmq#.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>  Well, if *I* lost the last page of something I wrote, I'd replace
>  it immediately. If it was lost *that* early, then I wonder why it
>  is that we still have texts of Mark from the fourth century or
>  later that are without it, since you seem to be implying that it 
>  was likewise restored rather soon.

Perhaps the whole manuscript was copied, and a copy was sent to a distant
city, where the last page was destroyed, and two lines of manuscripts
developed.  Or maybe Mark wrote the espistle, and added the ending
later after it had already been copied by someone else.

>  My guess is that the Longer Ending was written by
>  the author of Luke. Note also that there is a "handling snakes safely"
>  passage in the Longer Ending, as well as in chapter 20-something
>  of Acts (Paul does it), suggesting (but not proving) a common author.

Or perhaps, just maybe, this is a fulfillment of prophecy!  Is there 
textual evidence to support this theory?  Does the later part of Mark
reflect the eloquent style of Luke in Greek?  In English translation it
has the "and's" and an "afterward" like the rest of Mark.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:19:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.003144.2006@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind) writes:
>Secondly, while I find a literal reading of this pretty gross, it's pretty
>clearly metaphorical (it's been some time since Christians killed anybody for
>heresy, and even longer since the Jews invaded Caanan).  As a metaphor, the
>quoted section works well to illustrate Mr Carroll's perspective.

Precisely.  It's known as rhetoric, and the purpose of that rhetoric
is to communicate the overwhelming anger which is the result of such
mistreatment.  The language is designed to be shocking; it's a punch
to your gut so that you're inclined to listen up.

Arromdee seems to be a "literalist/fundamentalist" when it comes
to understanding USENET articles.  He also seems to favor selective
quoting and misreadings to prove his point, such as it is, much
like our favorite biblical fundamentalists.

He's just another engineer blowing off steam.  Go back to your
logic diagrams, Ken.  This stuff is out of your league.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:54:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr8.195454.27979
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr8.020203.12162@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.001434.25229@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>I hope I made my point...  I realize that sex can be a very fulfilling
>>experience for two people, but homosexual activity was obviously NOT intended
>>for anyone ...
>
>It is amazing the things people find "obvious" which are not.

So God intended for some males to stick their !@#$!@ up another males
#$@#$234.... To what end?  I think it is _very_ clear that this was not
intended behavior.  As always I refer only to the sex act.  Sorry to be
graphic about it.

John M.
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Even more Mormonism!!!!!!!!
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:07:23 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr12.163436.1957@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

>One joins a particular denomination for a
>reason, presumably because one thinks the truth is to be had there,
>rather than elsewhere.

You presume wrong.  That is one of the last reasons that a person
joins a particular denomination.  But once a person joins, he must 
defend the truth of his denomination at all costs.  That is why
"religious toleration" is an oxymoron.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7193 alt.conspiracy:6372
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 13:46:35 EDT
From: The Xanadian <IO10081@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: ELECTRONIC IMPLANTS MADE BY HUMANS
 <92106.134022IO10081@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>

Okay, I bite.  I figured that I *will* X-post my article.  I feel that my
epiphany should be shared... especially since I don't get them too often.
*grin*

---------------------------------

In article <92106.134022IO10081@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, The Xanadian
<IO10081@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <that's me> says:
>
><A guy talks about these implants>
>
>Now something has just occurred to me... and it may belong in talk.religion.
>misc, but here goes:
>
>I read in a book about the Antichrist a looong time ago <I think the title
>was 'The Late Great Planet Earth'> about how the Antichrist would have each
>human being tagged with this '666' number.
>
>Could it *be*, that this microelectronic tracking device is the predecessor
>to the 'number'?  The way 'Samurai_Writer' put it, it would seem, to me,
>that it, in fact, *is*.
>
>OK, enough palaver for now.  *grin*

I hope I got my point across.  When you *really* think about it... it's kinda
scary, ain't it...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Mormon FAQ (part 1 of 2)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:20:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.191210.24051@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>Just as Antii Silvonnen does not speak the official position of the
>Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (thank God), and just as Michael
>Bushnell does not speak the official position of the Roman Catholic
>Church

I hope not.  He's a Presbyterian.  Or he was until a few months ago
at which time he mentioned he was attending Episcopalian services.
(You could have knocked _me_ down with a feather: he might as well
have announced he was turning straight.)

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:00:41 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

someone wrote:
>>   So here we have a case where perhaps God is limited!?! But it's a
>> limitation such that makes God unlimited into where He shines forth
>> with His grace, glory and presence. It also makes Him omnipotent as
>> the power of where His grace, glory and presence will shine. It's
>> everywhere and in everything. Nothing is free from it!
>
and Kent Sandvik (ksand@apple.com) responded:
>Intriguing, we still have wars, famine, mass murderers and other nasty
>things in the presense of his glory...
>
>Also, a lot of people could live a happy life with no need
>of a omnipresent father figure, late Isaak Asimov was a good example
>of a great secular humanist that didn't have any need for a God.

Humanists, heh?
Well, the late Albert Einstein was a good example of a great
secular physicist/mathemetician/etc... that did have a need for a God.
Without a Supreme Being in existence, he would not have had anywhere
near as much satisfaction as he did with his accomplishments.
I recall that Isaak Asimov wrote stories.  I think Einstein
did a tad more.

What is your secular authority on the existence of a God with respect
to Albert Einstein's?

I could quote Einstein, but it is well known and should be available
for looking up.

I could quote Isaac Newton as well, but you might dismiss him because
he was Christian.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)
Subject: Re: Radical departure
Keywords: angry young man
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:07:19 GMT

In article <adams.702931279@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>
>>How about a new newsgroup for those of us (cheers, Kent!!!) who are thinking  
>>clearly? It could be called "talk.life." 
>So any of us who truly believe in God are not thinking clearly?  I don't

Correct!

>understand how you can claim this to be the universal case.  I for one like
>science, and respect scientists.  Science doesn't get in the way of God any

It's got nothing to do with whether you "respect" science or not.  I don't
consider science an alternative to religion, just as a don't consider an
apple an alternative to a skateboard. They are two different things.

>more than God gets in the way of science.  I like the physical sciences and
>accept most of the theories promulgated.  
>
>Religion and science can coexist nicely.  They do not need to be at odds
>with each other.

Exactly, so why bother posting?  I merely maintain that knowledge taken out of
a book as old as the one you read (presumably the Koran, Bible or Talmud) is
shaky at best, and certainly not any more valid than anything on television.

>
> -Steve
>--
> The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                        -------------------
>     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
>     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558


thankslaterbirdman
-- 
#include std.disclaimer======Christopher S. Kush=====God is dead. I killed him.
"Ruby, this is the last time I'm gonna say this."/"Say what?"/"AAAAAAGGGHHH!!!"
(define (+ x y) (- x y))    (define (and p q) (or p q))    (define #love #hate)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Bible
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:05:11 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr13.141226.7171@serval.net.wsu.edu>,
wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:
> In article <22820@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

> >Could you explain why I have a great time just now, and no religious
> >needs?
> But, Biblically, we are to worship God because it is right.  Not for any
> other reason.
 
> I'm a Christian because I believe it to be right.  Regardless of whether
> Christianity is or isn't true.  I'm a Christian because I believe it is.
> Not for any other reason.

I think we then agree that there's no need to do any missionary work
amongst people, because they should *personally* think that Christianity
is right or not. Isn't that the case, or didn't Jesus himself state
that his disciples need to evangelize and convert people (i.e. they
have to be *converted*).

Cheers,
Kent
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:13:46 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <22966@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <54098@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
>writes:
>> Oh, you might note that the Son, Jesus, is called God here in Hebrews 1.
>
>.. by Paul.
 
I have a feeling that if I or another had said that 
the book of Hebrews was written by Paul, people would
be up in arms says that Paul did not write it, huh?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs vs. Christians
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:50:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr8.145025.8081
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	On the other hand I don't want to keep the person asking questions
>	waiting. In my News-system it's difficult to find the original text
>	unless you answer while reading for the 1st time. 

I'm not one to criticize another person for the inadequacies of his
software.  I'm only saying this because for whatever reason you care
to name you're only making yourself look sillier by the minute when
you respond as you have recently.

>	Aha, that is the point. You see, there's no doctors (as far as I know)
>	specialized in this subject. The members of the committee are. 

"Hematology" is the name of the specialization in medicine that deals
with the subject of blood.  This covers hematological transmission of
disease, chemical compatibilities between blood types, disorders of
the blood -- in short, most if not all of the topics necessary to be
and expert on blood transfusion.

There are many, many hematologists in the world.  If you say that one
committee is better than them all, then I'd like to see some evidence.

>	No, you didn't. But anyway the best way to see how the Committee works
>	is to study the results.                                

I have studied what is apparently the opinion of this committee, and
I'm not impressed.

But I understood this committee only to be a clearinghouse of
previously published information on blood transfusion, and not a body
involved in original research.  To claim they are experts under this
assumption is ludicrous.

>>the various Witness committees who study the medical viability of
>>blood transfusions are more competent to judge in that question that
>>any medical expert or profession I might name?
>
>	Yes. 
>
>>If so, why should I believe that?
>
>	Because they're expertized only to this subject. 

This was your explanation before, and I said I didn't believe that.  I
don't think it follows that a group who does a lot of reading is
automatically the better judge, especially if you consider that the
group may not have training or recognition in the field.  THAT's what
I want to know.

There are non-Witnesses "expertized" in hematology, and I want to know
why those people aren't as "expert" as Witnesses.

I don't have much of a problem with the Witness position per se,
because it's essentially based on faith, and you can't really argue
that logically.  But YOU made a very silly proposition with only
minimal circumstantial support.  I'm not questioning the validity of
your faith, I'm questioning the validity of your logic.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc