HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Michigan
	<1992Jul27.174944.3084@sdf.lonestar.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:20:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.174944.3084@sdf.lonestar.org> corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:

   GOddamnit Laura!  What the fuck is wrong with yoU?  What makes you think
   the Bible is the word of Jehovah?!?!  What makes you think he EXISTS?!?!?
   What makes you think he's PERFECT?!?!  Maybe the universe was created
   by a giant sloth who didn't care what happened after the big bang...
   What basis do you have to support this reasoning?  Show me, WITHOUT REFERRING
   TO THE BIBLE, how the Bible is true, inerrant, and inspired.  I bet
   you can't do it.

My, my aren't we testy!  I will ask you the same question: what is wrong with
you?  What makes you think the Bible is **not** the word of Jehovah?  Let's see,
what makes me think he EXISTS???  Well, the earth and the universe for two
reasons.  Man cannot create life therefore I see no evidence of evolution.  The
fact the babies form out of 1 cell into a human being: arms, legs, etc.  Our
brains our only 3 lbs yet are capable of doing what a computer does and better.
I could go on but I will spare you.

My proof is the bible.  If you don't believe the bible then Jehovah's
creation can prove this.  However, many do not want to credit such to God; it
might be too beyond what their minds can accept.  After all, we 
are only using a very small portion of our brains.  Don't you think there is a
reason for that?

   So?  I know all the teachings yes.  I heard them so many times I wanted to
   puke.  I couldn't think of living forever and having to go to 5 meetings
   a week for eternity...AARGh

Oh well.  I happen to like going to the meetings (5 hours per week).  I suppose
you hated attending your college classes as much then too, huh?  Let's see that is
about 17 hours per week.

Living forever sounds too good to pass up; especially on a paradise earth where
one does not have to deal with Satan's system!!  I love life, don't you?

   What makes you think God is perfect?  Maybe he's imperfect.  Take a course
   in Logic, laura.

If one has never had a beginning or an end, then one can logically conclude that
this one is perfect or of a nature that man cannot comprehend.

You say to take a course in Logic.  You mean a course created by imperfect man?
Now tell me (for arguments sake), how can you be sure that this course created
by man is one of true logic?  Or is it logic only in mans eyes?  You are
comparing apples to oranges.  What might be logically to man might be illogical
to Jehovah!

Regards,
Laura

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: Laura's attitude; Dan's attitude
Organization: University of Michigan
	<1992Jul27.174944.3084@sdf.lonestar.org>
	<LAURAF.92Jul28112038@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<l7bokbINNjf@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:18:52 GMT

In article <l7bokbINNjf@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

   Of course this is appealing. You don't have to think for yourself,
   you don't have to make any value judgements at all, it is all done
   for you, why, you don't have to do much but simply and obediently
   follow the orders of others, preferably older and wiser men. That's
   a good girl. We don't want you to have to "think" or anything. . .
   Now, rest easy, all is taken care of.

How do you think anyone cames to such a decision if one doesn't have to "think"?

      Living forever sounds too good to pass up; especially on a paradise
      earth where one does not have to deal with Satan's system!!  I love life,
      don't you?

   Oh yes! I love life too! What a wonderful club to belong to!!

Do we know this is true because of your cute little exclamation marks?

   Especially when one is drugged by ideology all the time. It's nice
   not to have to think for oneself, it is oh-so-much-better to have
   other wiser people do our thinking for us, isn't it? And we can
   always read our little book for ANY question we might have, you see:
   it has aaalllll the answers. Nap time now. . . . .Yes, little Corey
   has woken up and don't worry, that's it, you just go back to sleep.

This does seem to be your opinion.  Tell me, how do you know your opinion is correct?

      If one has never had a beginning or an end, then one can logically
      conclude that this one is perfect or of a nature that man cannot
      comprehend.

   Interesting how that rhymes: "end and comprehend". Wait!
   AHHHHH! I can't get it out of my head! Help! Help! HELP!
   ARRGGHHH!

My favorite cliche is: "he who laughs last laughs best", and you're laugh isn't
the last laugh.  You will only find that out when the "cry of peace and
security" comes, the fall of babylon the great (false religion), and finally the
war of Armageddon.  Enough said.

   Dano

Laura
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:16:24 GMT

In article <64598@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.134833.28005@brtph560.bnr.ca> n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
>>
>>[Examples of laws Christians conveniently ignore deleted]
>>And let's not forget Numbers 5:12-31, where god not only approves of but
>>COMMANDS that abortions be performed on women suspected of adultery. This
>>is the ONLY place the Bible directly addresses the subject of abortion...
>>have you ever heard a fundie anti-choice preacher address it?
>
>COULD YOU QUOTE some of these specific verses, for I read them and
>do not see at all what you are talking about.
>
>The offerings mentioned are for the jealousy (founded or unfounded) that
>the husband had about his wife, who may or may not have committed adultery.
>
>The concluding verse Numbers 5:31 says that "Then shall the man be free
>from iniquity and the woman shall bear her guilt."   The point is that
>the offerings were made for the man's actions/thoughts of jealousy and
>the curse was for the woman's act of adultery, but if she had not
>committed adultery, then she would not have to bear any guilt and if
>she had no guilt, then she bore none.
>
>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts
>-- 
>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
>Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
>                        -|-  |  -|-
>                         |   |   |

Amen.  (...and I don't care for your (Charlie Board)  choice of wording
for pro-life, fundamental, pastors.  It's obvious where you stand
Charlie, and that isn't on the word of God)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:22:39 GMT

akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>More than "most likely."  There's no reasonable doubt that the harlot
>is the city of Rome.  Revelation 17:3 says she was sitting on a beast
>with "seven heads and ten horns."  17:9 says "the seven heads are
>seven mountains."  Rome was famous for having been built on seven
>hills, and any person at that time hearing of a city with seven hills
>(or mountains) would immediately think of Rome.  The woman also has

	So was Lutetia, too (Paris). 

	Mountains refer in Bible to powers, because important places like 
	Jerusalem and Megiddo were on mountains. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:16:11 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <sbuckley.712269685@sfu.ca>
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>David Hatcher writes:

>>And I always thought all a person needed to do to be a Christian 
>>was that they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour.

>exactly.  that is the message of the new testament--that jesus will 
>reconcile us to god.  this covenant replaces the one of laws in the old
>testament.  the new covenant is accepting jesus as our saviour.

Which is why when people claim that practicing homosexuals can't
possibly be "really" saved, they are ignoring the proclaimed nature
of salvation, that it is "personal".

One finds the spirit of Christ through self-acceptance.

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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Predestination To Mr. Butler
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:26:00 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:

More theology!!!  Allllriiiigghhhttt!!

>God is not at fault for Adam's sin, because God made Adam able to choose
>to obey or not to obey.  God did, however, see this before it happened,
>and prepared a plan for it.  Nothing wrong with being prepared.
Ok.  Let's start at the beginning.  Do you believe the following
statements:

  1. God is perfectly Good
  2. God is all powerful
  3. God is all knowing
  4. God created the universe 'ex nihilo'

If so, then how do you explain this satement:

  A. Evil truly exists

Look at it this way.  God creates the universe 'ex nihilo'.  God, being all 
powerful, can create things exactly as He so desires.  God being all good,
wishes to create man in His image, and does so.  How possibly could that
man sin, even given a free will?  Where did the concept of evil come from?

We'll start here, with basic theodicy, and see where we go.

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Get a Clue (was: Get a Life)
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 06:39:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.192608.7655@dg-rtp.dg.com> grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross) writes:
>>of farts.  Face it yourself, Mr. Gross, your Jesus can be tricked out
>>to be whatever one chooses to make him, a god for all churches.
>
>Jack, would you care to point out His grave to us!?

Would you care to point out His empty grave to us!?

>Your opinion is that He is dead.  However, there is consistent
>evidence that not only is He not dead, but that He arose and walked
 ^^^^^^^^ Just as valid as the evidence that sherlock holmes gathered,
          after all if its written down it must be true...
>with His disciples and that some 500 disciples saw Him ascend into the
>heaven whereupon He was swallowed up by clouds.
>
>The concept of sin is clearly defined in the Bible (a book of 66 books
>covering a period of over 4,000 years).  Check it out sometime.

Revelations is book 66 and contains 66,6xx characters :-)

>The Bible is our sole source of faith and teaching.  The Bible is both
>infallible and inerrent.  When there is a dispute, we must turn to the
>Bible for final arbitration.

Many christian denominations do not take the bible as infallible, infact
I don't know how any sane person could take information passed down for
hundreds of years orally and then transcribed through several langauges
as being infallible. 

What evidence do you have to assign infallibility to the bible? Did someone
tell you it was infallible? If so how do you know that person is infallible?

-- 
>>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.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Michigan
	s.edu.au><LAURAF.92Jul24082753@wolf.eecs.umich.edu><1992Jul24.192301.21979@d
	cs
	.warwick.ac.uk><LAURAF.92Jul28113337@wolf.eecs.umich.edu><1992Jul29.100505
	.15139@maths.tcd.ie> <LAURAF.92Jul30155204@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<adams.712528909@spssig>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:18:12 GMT

In article <adams.712528909@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) 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"?

   Why would God have any reason to send Jesus to redeem mankind and involve
   himself in the affairs of the day, if they already had an instruction book
   per se?   Tell me, isn't the Torah an instruction manual?    Didn't it
   exist at the time of Christ?  Wasn't it considered Scripture?  (The Law and
   The Prophets)?  Remember, the Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers
   and Deuteronomy.

Did God not send his son to redeem us right around 33 CE?  Does that date come
anywhere near 1992?  Do you see anyone being resurrected today as happened in
Jesus's day?  Do you see any miracles in the magnitude as was in Jesus day?

Some books of the bible were available then but not bound and as widely
available as it is today.  Don't you agree?  How could God hold them to
something that not everyone had?

   Seems there's a problem with your arguement.  Try again.

Why do you believe my argument be faulty?

Laura
From: cpyy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Just Curious
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:04:11 EDT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Cornell University

In article <1992Jul28.093940.6320@u.washington.edu>,
jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (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 ?
> And the logical implication that follows ?
> 
> No quoting any texts, please. The same question above can be asked
> about the text.

I suppose, some would say it's due to effects like

1.  Brain-washing
2.  Hypnotism
3.  Fanaticism/Patriotism/General Enthusiasm
4.  Hope/wanting to live forever or go to Heaven
5.  Peer pressure

It really is difficult though.  Try growing up in a BAC or
any other devout family.

Every one you ever meet, every movie you ever see, all ideas
you are ever exposed to say the same thing... this, at least
until age 13.  You are told that, when you go out into the
world, you will be persecuted for your beliefs.  As a result,
any proposals contrary to your own will be taken as confirmation
of your understanding.

-- 

Jon C. Russo
internet : cpyy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
phone    : 607.277.3295
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:14:06 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

I tried to send this as email, but my parser didn't work very well.

In article <1992Jul30.210113.19084@brtph560.bnr.ca> n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
>I don't want to get involved in the type of flame wars that constitute 
>talk.abortion, so I'm going to limit my replis in this thread to comments 
>on the Bible passage in question from here on out.
>
>Have A Nice Day (and keep your filthy hands of my [wife,sister,mother]'s womb),
>Charlie Board
 
I forgot about this above paragraph, when I posted the question about
Jeremiah.  Since, I believe, the Numbers 5 passage is a little vague
(i.e., none of the study aids I had said ABORTION or MISCARRYING,
but inplied swelling or lack of conceiving), I would be interested
on your reply to my post - check the board.  The NASB did not use the
word MISCARRYING and the NASB is considered the best word-for-word
modern english translation out - the NIV is considered to be a great
phrase-for-phrase translation - I use the NIV, but I also have the 
NASB handy, at home.

I noted your apology in this or another post - no problem for if
one takes offense it is hard for them to be on this board.  Actually,
I didn't notice your harsh reply to me - maybe it seemed soft in 
comparison to others.  I did notice your bold statements on your
understanding of the Bible.

I appreciate you comment that you wish not to get into the flame wars,
which make up a lot of t.a

Thanks,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 30 Jul 92 11:12:48 PDT

In article <1992Jul29.233427.8926@athena.cs.uga.edu>, on 29 Jul 92 23:34:27 GMT,
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>
>In article <19920729124523ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>>So, do you know God better than the apostle Paul?
>>
>>Since Paul states that it is preferable  to remain celibate than to
>>get married, he would seem to be a rather poor judge of that which
>>is natural.
>
>But a rather good judge on how to live a holy life.
>
That's a rather questionable premise. After all, he was an avowed
dissembler. Didn't he say something to the effect that when he was
with Jews, he pretended to be observent and behaved as a Jew? He also
falsely claimed to have been a Pharisee and a student of Rabbi Gamaliel
in order to cloak himself with a modicum of respectibilty when
talking to Jews.

Also, for someone who led such a "holy" life, he seems to have spent
more time in prison than on the loose.

>>>Should we ignore the other apostles who affi                           rmed
>>>Paul's teaching, and ignore all of the believers through the centuries who
>>
>>In fact, the Pauline teachings were at odds with what the disciples
>>and followers who actually knew Jesus were teaching in Jerusalem. Paul
>>himself admits this in his letters, when he whines bitterly about those
>>who were teaching a gospel different from what Paul was teaching.
>
>Who knew Jesus best?  All of the Gospels repeatedly mention Peter.
>Peter affirmed Paul's teachings and called his writings Scripture.
>
I'd be interested in your source for this information. All indications
are that the disciples and the Jerusalem Church initially reprimanded
Paul and forced him to undergo a humiliating rite of purification, and
later broke with him and sent out apostles of their own to counter what
they considered to be heretical teachings of Paul.

>Link Hudson.
>
    ====Jack====
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:37:13 GMT

George La Belle writes:

>	Wrong! I am as much an atheist as anyone, however I am willing to admit
>	that there may be a "creator". What shape or form it/he may be, I
>	wouldn't have the slightest. I simply say "I see no evidence for the
>	'Christian' or any other personified god from any other religion".
>	There is no evidence to support the existance of a "god", but that
>	doesn't mean that it/he/she doesn't exist! Maybe "god" just hasn't made
>	an appearance yet - but may in the future (I seriously doubt it, but
>	you must allow for the chance, even though slim)

  you see no evidence that jesus made an appearance yet you allow for the
possibility for god to make an appearance--perhaps in the future.  you must
have quite a large, cumbersome set of reasons to disbelieve in jesus' presence
despite all the work done on it.  i am in awe of the amount of faith you
must have in your reasons to believe there is no evidence to convince you
of jesus' presence.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:12997 sci.skeptic:13367
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:00:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <25032@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <11455@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes...
>>Which prepackaged religions predicate "the Universe being roughly
>>6000 years old"?  I seem to have missed that one.

>Come on, now.  Ask the pope how old the Earth is.  What do you think he will
>say?

I'm no fan of JP2, but I suspect he'd first plead incompetence to answer
and direct the question to a scientist. If pressed, he'd probably say, 
"About 4 billion years."

He may be a conservative on some issues in the RC church, but he
is no biblical literalist. Look to some of the more fundamentalist
evangelical sects for that sort of belief.



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: napo@cs.hut.fi (Hannu Napari)
Subject: Re: jw's and the 144000
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
	<ncgi5ik@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1992Jul17.153455.14183@cs.joensuu.fi>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:13:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.153455.14183@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	No, we don't lie, instead YOU lie. Don't forget that liars are thrown to
>	the lake of fire.

Look who's talking...

>	If you want to discuss about evolution, talk with me. I'm an experienced
>	field-biologist, I can talk about evolution, but don't accuse our 
>	literature if you can't point anything. 

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) 

--
Napo    $ Hey Nath, hama para kripa kijiye. Door kara andhakar, gyan
(leon)  $ ka aloka dijiye, binsa dwesh lobha bamese chhin lijiye,
        $ manamey prem shanti bhar dijiye...
        $ 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:04:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.215656.20946@macc.wisc.edu> stmarys@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ted Babcock) writes:
>But, while a homosexual orientation by itself is not a sin (to the 
>extent that it is not under one's control), it _is_ considered a 
>physical defect, and so we may conclude that Jesus was not a 
>homosexual, either in practice or "merely" in orientation.

QED.  Duh.

Only troglodytes with axes to grind (on the necks of gay people)
would choose to describe being gay as a ~physical defect".
Perhaps Jesus was left handed, too?  Naaah!

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc