HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 11 Dec 92 11:48:07 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <40Tv02i02e6A01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:

[...]

>> Isn't the important thing that one is trying to live ones life
>> and do what they think God wants them to? (ie: have faith,
>> believe in God, repent from sin, seek the guidance of the Holy
>> Spirit, help others, etc.)
>>
>> Why must there be so much nit-picking about tenets instead of
>> directing those energies to helping those around us and trying to
>> improve their condition?
>
> Jason, the issue is not over the Trinity, and I agree with that point.
> The issue is over which God you worship.  If you have the wrong God,
> you are wrong enough to lose your soul forever.  The point is that, the
> LDS church worships a God who was not always God, but once a mortal man
> who progressed through laws to become God, and is now a mortal man
> having eternal sex with his polygamous wives.
> 
> The Christian God is an infinate spirit being that was always God,and
> created the heavens and earth, and came here a a humble man and died
> on a cross so that those who believed could have eternal life.

I don't beleive this is necessary for one to help others.

I think that the Christian God is the one that has all power and
all knowledege; has told us to do unto others as we would have
them do unto us, to visit the sick, the widows and the
fatherless, to go the extra mile, to turn the other cheek, to
love one's enemies, to try to be virtuous, avoid contention, to
love one another.

I see nothing about these things that requires believe in a
spirit of physical being that may or may not be like us, may or
may not have a a spouse, may or may not be the only one of its
kind, may or may not procreate, or that may or may not have
always existed.

I think that that message is more important than the messenger.

If I loose my eternal salvation/soul/whatever because I beleived
that the messeger was like me when in reality he turns out to be
a nebulous, formless, inteligent power, then so be it.

[...]

> READ YOUR BIBLE!

I have, many times.  I am doing my best to live its counsel, as I
have breifly touched upon above.  If I end up in hell, then I
will enjoy the company of the other good-hearted mormons, JWs,
protestants, muslims, catholics, jews, buddists, angnostics,
atheists, etc. while those of you that got the nuances of
theological nit-piks right can gloat over your
self-righteousness.

For now, I'll just stick to trying to help those around me that
are in need in any way that I can.

After all, 'Tis the season ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23587 alt.atheism:23356 alt.slack:3406
From: rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:53:26 GMT
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY

In article <1g4pcbINN7ur@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 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.
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Calvin
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:49:16 GMT
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

hedrick@klinzhai.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:

>Just for the record, Calvin was involved in only that one execution
>for heresy, as a theological expert for the prosecution.  He opposed

Hmmm. Something tells me this is doubtful, but you seem to know
more about it than I. 

>...Servetus was regarded as a political danger
>as well as a heretic, and would have been killed in most places in
>Europe.  I believe he was given the option of being extradited to his
>homeland, and refused.  His treatment there would have been even
>worse.

Yes, he fled Spain (I think) because of persecution. Calvin, et al
had been after him for some time, much like Colonel Strasser was after
Victor Laslo. . .Calvin went to extra trouble to make sure Servetus
was `dealt' with and `terminated with extreme predjudice'.

In fact it was public and theological outcry over Servetus' burning
which curtailed further burnings (as I remember).

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<adams.724125297@spssig>
Date: 12 Dec 1992 09:28:08 UTC

In article <adams.724125297@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <adams.723754865@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>> [Luke 14:26 - the verse that wouldn't die!]
>>>It is most likely
>>>that Christ spoke the Luke text...why would Luke use those words otherwise?
>>I agree. The Luke version is definitely more potentially confusing. Just
>>for comparsion, here's the Gospel of Thomas version:
>> Jesus said, Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot
>> become a disciple to me. And whoever does not love his father and mother
>> as I do cannot become a disciple to me.  For my mother gave me falsehood,
>> but my true mother gave me life.
>>Odd!
>Yeah.  I'll say.  Ya know, everytime I look at that text I have to wonder
>just what was going on back around 28CE.  If Thomas is accurate, then that
>sure throws a lot of cold water on Mr. Saul of Tarsus, now doesn't it?
>>> Perhaps Matthew rewrote Yeshua's comments so that they conveyed the
>>> message directly, instead of hiding them in hyperbolae, as the harmony
>>> reading of Luke 14:26 requires.
>>Hmm...or maybe it wasn't hyperbole, and Matthew changed it to fit what he
>>thought it likely meant. The disciples weren't reknowned for understanding
>>Jesus' teachings, I gather. Maybe Jesus said two similar (but different)
>>things on two separate occasions. 
>'Not reknowned' is an understatment.  The Gospels record him rebuking them
>for not getting the picture.  See Mark 7:18 for an example.  Yeshua
>basically asked the diciples how they could be as stupid as they were!
>Sort of a early version of "You dolts!  Can't you even understand a simple
>parable?"

By the way, if you assume that Jesus spoke Aramaic and the authors of
the NT later recorded these words in Greek, aren't these the kinds of
"screw-ups" you'd expect? The Greek translation of the Hebrew
scriptures has what could be called "screw-ups" and certainly the team
of 72, presumably the best of Alexandria must have been light years
ahead of the people that wrote the NT. Wouldn't you expect to find these
types of discrepancies in a Greek record of Aramaic speaches?

And the more I think about:
"For my mother gave me falsehood, but my true mother gave me life,"
the more I like it. It's got that nice pagan Goddess feel to it. I
wonder why Thomas was tossed into the Apocrypha bin? What is there to
hide?
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 17 Dec 92 07:27:34 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec16.213650.12067@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>>|Ah, but one needn't have the Father in order to come to the Son, right?

>>If you don't have the Father AND the Son, then you've missed it.
>
>This may be, but it ignores my question.  What I wanted was verification
>of the following sequence:
>
>    (neither) -> Son -> Father+Son
>
>Now, your statement, that if one doesn't have the Son, then one doesn't
>have the Father, implies that the following sequence doesn't happen:

1 John 5:11,12 says this is the way it is.  Good 'nuff 4 me.

>>The people that know the message of Jesus and the cross before they
>>die condemn themselves.  
>
>At least, until they accept the message.  What isn't clear is when one
>can accept the message.

Hebrews 9:27 makes it pretty clear!

>>|>You have to come to THE Jesus and not a Jesus.
>>|
>>|So tell us: how do you tell the difference between "a" Jesus and THE
>>|Jesus?
>>
>>Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh - he is God - he walked the
>>earth as Jesus of Nazareth, born of the Virgin Mary, he died on
>>the cross and was raised bodily/physically from the grave on the
>>third day according to prophecy.
>
>This is what is believed by the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the
>Catholics, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, etc., etc.  Yet there are 
>many disagreements between these various factions (if not the individuals
>within them as well!) over things like the consequences of non-belief,
>the actual content of the message(s) of Jesus, the sinfulness (or lack
>thereof) of such things as homosexuality, the personality of God, etc.,
>etc.

The Mormons nor the JW believe that Jesus came "in the flesh" AS GOD.
The Mormons believe that Jesus' Father is God of this earth, and his
father is God of his earth, and his father is God of that earth ....
The JW believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel.  Not GOD IN THE
FLESH.  There is a big difference.

>So once again I ask: how do you tell the difference between "a" Jesus
>(e.g., a Jesus associated with one of the above factions) and THE
>Jesus?

Just told you!
From: jws5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JUSTIN WINSLOW SOLONYNKA)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:51:17 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec15.200523.1605@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (S
imon Clippingdale) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.001729.26444@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilme
JEN writes:
 You're right, Stephen. Separation, pain, and, let us not forget, finality.
>> The choice we all make every day about whether to remain apart from God is
>> rather important in that light, is it not?   As (I think) CS Lewis wrote
>> once, "Could there not be a state of _having_been_ a human soul? And would
>> this not incorporate separation, suffering, and finality?"

SIMON responds:
Wow. Action-packed stuff. Assumption of implied claim (existence of God),
>*grrrrrrross* condescension toward atheists supposedly choosing daily to
>"remain apart from God" despite there being no such choice to make from
>the atheist standpoint, and argument from the `authority' of the dismal
>CS Lewis all in one brief paragraph.

Simon - completely correct concepts, but you missed the actual fault in CS
Lewis' words, which are self destructive.
    "Could there not be a state of HAVING BEEN a human soul?"  If so, CS, that
state certainly would not incorporate ANY feelings of separation, suffering,
or anything else.  If the human soul is what gives us "being", what makes us
sacred, then the loss of that soul would be the loss of all existence -- thus
no separation, etc. could be felt.  Perhaps this is a reasonable line of
thinking for Atheists and Theists alike.

sol  |  see the cat?  see the cradle?
--
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:33:01 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <c3YW02L42dpu01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>So, if according to the "Prophet" of the church, "how well we stand with
>the Lord can be told to us by asking ourselves how close we are to the
>words of the Prophets", we should look at the words of the Prophet
>concerning Bruce R. McConkie.  Right?
>

I would say "words of the prophet" leaves much room for interpretation.
If the prophet says "pass the bread, please" that is hardly a prophetic
utterance.  Your interpretation of it is absurd and I could never
accept it.

>
>     "Often when a doctrinal question came before the First
>      Presidency and the Twelve, Elder McConkie was asked to
>      quote the scripture or to comment on the matter.  He
>      could quote scripture verbatim and at great length.  He
>      provided the entire Church with an example of gospel
>      scholarship.  He could teach the gospel with ease because
>      he first understood the gospel."
>

What was this, a blurb for the dust jacket of BRM's book?  Hardly
qualifies as a prophetic utterance.  It is an observation that he
was a scholar.  I don't disagree with it entirely, McConkie was
a very intelligent man and had an excellent knowledge of scripture.
He was also profoundly conservative and I disagree with him on many
matters, as the *prophet* David O. McKay.  So there!

>Besides, most of _Mormon Doctrine_ is based upon quotations of Joseph
>Smith, citations of LDS Scripture, and quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith
>and other LDS leaders.  It is highly inaccurate to characterize his
>works as *merely* "his opinion."

Did I so characterize it?  Then I should have said "partly his opinion."

>>to remember to look for a passage of his that explains it, but he
>>*doesn't* speak for me or all Mormons.  No one does.  I think you'd
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>But the Prophet does, well, at least for those who "stand well with the
>Lord".

Nonsense.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Why People Join A Community of Faith
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 20:01:33 GMT

(Paul Harvey) writes to gmiller.worldbank.org:

>Yes, but part of what is going on is a group ritual that says we all
>believe that we have the same fate at death, we all know the same "truth"
>of the afterlife, therefore it is more likely to be true, the "truth" is
>more powerful when it comes from a group than just one individual or
>even oneself. I think this is the "larger than oneself" that Dano is talking
>about. Of course, I would think the wise would know that there is great
>danger here. Greater power does not equal greater truth, at least by my
>reconing.

Not really. When I refer to a community as being `larger than oneself'
one analogy would be  along the lines of a barn raising. A community can 
come together and help an individual build a barn. This does not mean
that everyone's barn will look the same or serve the same purposes
or even be built for the same reasons.

It just necessarily implies that people help each other out (particularly
when they need help), and that there is a certain satisfaction in the
whole process that is impossible without group participation.

But, everyone's barn is by necessity, different.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 18 Dec 1992 16:47:12 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <BzGp8w.J74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 
	ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:

>The whole point is the term 'pagan' is, I believe how Christians caharcterized
>non-believers.  For a person to call themselves pagan is to, at best, engage in
>mocking Christians (not that I have any problem with that, mind you.)  I just
>think it is better to use, oh, I dunno, the actual NAME of your faith system, if
>it has one, and if it doesn't, then why throw a silly Christianity-derived term
>on there?  I find the word is used largely for attention-getting and pretense.
>
>Matt I.

not every pagan fits nicely into a cubbyhole.  there are many pagans that
follow new age, neo-paganism, druidism, wicca, astaru, or any other named 
path.  but there are also pagans who follow path that are eclectic and
draw from many different paths.  these pagans, like myself, follow paths 
with no names.  i feel pagan is sufficient.

and as for mocking christianity, how so?  christians don't have sole
claim to the use of words.

peter li'ir key, just this queer mystic, you know?
key@soda.berkeley.edu
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An Unprovoked Act of Aggression. (wuz: Re: Luke, Derrida, etc.)
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:46:20 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <fWBPSQK@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> In article <1992Dec14.110033.9552@ac.dal.ca> 
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>>Hmm...what I meant was, what makes you call some people "better" than 
>>others?  
> 
> I'm clinging to the differences.

Ok, let me rephrase that: whom specifically do you think is "better" than you? 
What is the nature of this difference? See what I mean? What is it
that makes one person better than another, in your view?
 
> If I wasn't do you think I'd be typing
> letters on a keyboard right now? Or perhaps all I say is merely to lead
> you astray. Are these bad things, or good? Don't become insulted by
> thinking I'm playing words with you. What else can I do? 

I'm not insulted, don't worry. But one can try to be precise and
clear. It seems to be the case that human beings _can_ communicate,
within certain limits. One can try to do as much as possible with
the materials at hand.

> The
> transcendent is transcendent, that certainly includes letters and words.
> Beyond the literal meaning, that is where insite is to be found. But
> don't think I see any better than you, or worse.

Then why post on Usenet, if your vision is no better or worse than mine?
I don't mean to say you shouldn't, I'm just wondering why one would
post if one felt that one didn't have anything to tell anyone. 

Here's what I'm curious about: you post a lot of interesting
material, but a lot of it also looks (to me) like quasi-mystical
gobbledegook. I'm willing to admit that the deficiency might be mine, 
which is why I launched my "unprovoked act of aggression." I'm just 
curious as to what the heck you're going on about. 

> You say nothing, I say everything, what makes you think there is a
> contradiction? If you had said everything, I would have said nothing.
> Yet I would do this without bad intent, nor good.

What IS your intent, then? 

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

* I am a viral sig.! I bear a subliminal message coded in my textual content.
Copy me into your sig. or it will trigger when you least expect it, and you
will be transformed into a Usenet News addict, pathetically wasting your free
time arguing vague points of philosophy and religion instead of enjoying your
all-too-brief existence on this beautiful earth. You have been warned! *v1.0*

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wiggins@lightning.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Is Jesus a prophet?
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<rana.724406667@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> <78397@hydra.gatech.EDU>
	<1992Dec16.143546.250@bnr.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:17:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.143546.250@bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:

   Is this an exact quote, Richard? Wasn't "I AM" the name of God in the OT? Sounds like
   Jusus was saying "before Abraham was God"...and again making no claim either way
   about himself. The tense would seem to confirm this reading - if he were talking about
   himself "before Abraham was, I was" would be more what would be expected.
-------
Perhaps, I have been and still am is an even better one.  The tenses don't
carry over exactly to English.
------
   |> to be older than Abraham.
   |>  Also, Jesus also said that He was the 
   |> Son of God and the Jews were going to stone him for blasphemy, for they
      ^^^^^^^^^^  
     a common phrase at the time that did *not* indicate diety.
-------
Which Jews didn't use in the same way Jesus did.  Remember Jesus saying
to them "how come you're so amazed that I call myself the Son of God when
it's written in the Law" (major paraphrase, but meaning intact)?  Indicating
they knew He meant more and were growing more suspicious of Him.  He didn't
calm this with a firm negative, you know.
-------
   |> recognized that he was claiming to be equal to God with his statment.
   Any evidence for the statement in the line above?
-------
Well, in a couple of places the Gospel writers record that the Jews got
angry with Jesus for calling Himself the Son of God.  And, in a few places
it is expressly stated they were angry that He equated Himself to God.
(John 5:18)
-------
   |> Jesus said he was the King of the Jesus.  Jesus our our Savior and God
   |> is our Savior.  God created the world and yet it says Jesus created it,
   |> too, for without Jesus nothing was created and it was created for him.
   |> 
   |> Doesn't it seem odd to you that the attributes give to Jesus are SO
   |> much like those associated with God? 

   Yes, but much less odd than the idea of God killing himself as a sacrifice
   to himself to atone for sins that he himself guaranteed would occur. 
   A Christian, who by definition believes in some extremely odd and improbable things, 
   can not reasonably argue based on oddity or probability.
-------
True.  God's wisdom <> man's wisdom.  Understanding by us is pretty 
irrelevant, in fact.  But He does in spite of our limited mental capacity
offer to explain Himself to us (Isaiah 1:18-20).
-------
   |> 
   |> If we are to worship God alone, why do you think Jesus was worshipped 
   |> without rebuke?
   Maybe it served his purposes...then again he did rebuke them once for
   worshipping him, claiming that only "God is good"
-------
It wasn't a rebuke.  It was a play on words.  Meaning He was/is God,
if indeed He was/is good.





Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Zarathustra speaks! was Luke, Derrida, Papists, etc.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec17.124522.9664@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 18 Dec 1992 02:05:25 UTC

In article <1992Dec17.124522.9664@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>Err.. I made a mistake with the subject line of this followup, so
>here it is again. As much as I'd like to take credit for the Zen-like
>"<None>" it appeared under the first time, I'm afraid it was an act of the
>hand of God, or whoever it is that handles (seemingly?) inconsequential events.

Ah, but who is the one with the hands?
Who is the one always leaving that outline of the hand art on rocks, for
the future to see?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc