HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: BoA Papyrus (SLCM-9/92-intro)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:21:11 GMT


I have been sitting on an electronic copy of The Salt Lake City Messenger
for September of 1992 for a while now.  I wanted to give the last
SLCM post some time to settle in before I posted another.  Then, our
news went down for some time, and then was unstable.  Our news server
is now back in full operation, so here it is.  Sorry if the subject
has become stale, but so it goes.

In this edition of The Salt Lake City Messenger, the Tanners examine
the book "...By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus:  A New Look at the Joseph
Smith Papyri"  By Charles M. Larson.  This is a new book that was
distributed free for some time in Utah before it went on sale.  It includes
the first published color photographs of the Book of Abraham Papyrus.

More accurately, though, this edition examines the F.A.R.M.S. response
to this book.  The scholarship of the F.A.R.M.S. author who has taken
this book to task is examined.  Is this author's work (John Gee) typical
of F.A.R.M.S.?  You'll remember, that in the last post dealing with
_The Gainsayers_ we examined another F.A.R.M.S. contributor.  I think
you'll find that Gee is par for the course, and the trustworthiness
of F.A.R.M.S. is certainly questionable.

This article also refutes many of the arguements we have seen on t.r.m
in support of the Book of Abraham.  It becomes clear that none of the
arguments we have seen for the BoA hold any water.  Whether these arguments
were presented without knowing the facts, or deliberately meant to deceive,
I can not guess.  Nonetheless, it is time to critically examine the BoA
for what it is, and stop ignoring the evidence simply because it is painful
to examine or accept.  To continue to hold on to outlandish conclusions
based on desire or subjective experience in complete denial of the facts
is not healthy.  I would encourage all who read this to pick up a copy
of Mr. Larson's book, and read it, and come to a realization that the BoA
is not what the LDS church would like you to believe, and come to a 
Saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and enjoy a personal relationship with
Him.

Again, this article is in seven parts.  I know all will find it informative
enlightening, and enjoyable.  The newsletter is available from
Utah Lighthouse Ministries.  Their address is at the top of part one.

God Bless,

Glenn

-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.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.                =
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:24:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <74545@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> Before I respond to the original article, let me ask you, Mr. Harvey,
> do you think Paul wrote or directed the writing of all of the NT?
> Do you think he did the same for the OT?

Most likely he didn't even write all the letters he assumely wrote
as part of the NT. We don't have any decent evidence who wrote
really what. 

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20689 alt.atheism:20867 talk.abortion:47235
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.abortion
Subject: SeXularHumanist Doctrines Must Be Stopped!!!!
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:19:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
] 
]    "Much has been written in recent years concerning Thomas
]     Jefferson's reference in 1802 to `a wall of separation
]     between church and State.' . . . Jefferson's figure of
]     speech has received so much attention that one would  
]     almost think at times that it is to be found somewhere
]     in the Constitution."
] 
] 
]     Baer v. Kolmorgen; 181 N.Y.S.2d. 230, 237 (Sup.Ct.N.Y. 1958)


Amendment I:

"congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; ..."

NAAAAAAHHHHHHHH.....

Not a Place to Find this Doctrine....

Just Becasue CERTAIN protestant groups felt compelled
that there Needs to be a separation between 'loyalty'
to GOD and 'loyalty to the State' should NOT be
confused with the fact that we NEED to have the

OneTrueReligion to guide our EVERY STEP!!!!

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 03:53:10 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

> So where do you get the answers from?
> --

Bhagavad-gita, Bhagavat Purana, Chaitanya Charitamrita, and other
standard works of the Vedic scriptures.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:52:17 GMT

In article <7g3sTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>1) What is the soul?
>2) What is the purpose of human life?
>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

1) There is no such thing as a soul (why do you think there is?).  But if
you are asking what makes us who we are as individuals, then the answer is
the combination of the matter of which we are made and the form/order/
arrangement of this matter. Don't confuse the form with your concept of
the soul -- form is a property of matter and does not exist independently
of matter.

2) Purpose implies design, which is not evident.  So then we are left to 
our own devices to give meaning and purpose to our lives.

Jim Copeland
-- 
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head
But it's not me            -- Pink Floyd
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: comments on Neopaganism FAQ
Date: 11 Nov 92 05:28:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

bonney@esds.mdc.com (Greg Bonney) writes:

>I believe that Jesus' original intent was probably for us to think of his
>sacrifice every time we sat down to eat (not just when we were at church).
>The emphasis here is on communal rememberance.

>In fact, most protestants don't even believe in "sacraments".  That's a
>catholic idea.  Rather, we practice the communion simply as a reminder.

You may well be right that Jesus intended every meal (at least every
meal among believers) to be a communion.  However the second paragraph
may be slightly misleading.  Because of the preponderance of Baptist
and other low church Protestants, it's probably true from a
statistical point of view.  But certainly there are a number of
important Protestant traditions that take sacraments seriously.  There
were four major Protestant traditions coming out of the 16th Cent:
Baptist (or anabaptist), Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican (if you
count the Anglican as Protestant).  Of these, the Lutherans and
Anglicans have always believed in sacraments, and have a very high
view of communion.  The predominant Reformed position is Calvin's.  He
also had a concept of sacraments, and accepted some variety of the
real presence of Christ in communion.  This position is held by
the Presbyterians, and I believe other churches in the Reformed
tradition.
From: RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Arabic/muslim religious language
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:41:45 GMT
 <8XcuTB1w165w@kalki33><92314.114245RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com><1992Nov9.220342.8810@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

This is in response to Paul Hudson:
Yes, I did use the Hebrew form for the plural of Prophets. However,
Arabic like Hebrew is part of the Semitic language family (which also
includes Aramaic or old Syriac). As such, there are lot of similarities
between these two sister languages; most of the consonants are similar.
The singular Nabi for a Prophet and Kitab for a Book, e.g., are same
in the both languages.(Hebrew words in general end with "im" for plurals
or majestic singulars, e.g., Eloh*im*.)

-
Siddiqui.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:33:43 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Bx9B84.Dvw@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
|In article <ksand-041192202656@wintermute.apple.com> 
|ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
|>In article <73143@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|>Pitts) wrote:
|>> It is legal, but the desire is for an organized voluntary period of
|                    ^^^^^^^^^^           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>> prayer.  The idea is that we believe that prayer is important and should
|                             ^^^^^^^^^^
|>> be a recognized part of national life.  You will have the opportunity
|>> to not pray, just as you don't pray now.  I don't know if this is part of 
|                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>> it, but maybe there should be a place to assemble for those who want to 
|>> pray, as opposed to a set period of time IN a classroom.  
|>Nothing stops people from praying during breaks, or even during 
|>classes if you really want to. I think we all would abhor a situation
|>where even this would be prohibited. In other words why all the fuss
|>for something that is available already?
|>However, if a public school pushes innocent children to pray in 
|>the name of XXX 1), that's something that clearly goes overboard
|>concerning the state dictating what the child should believe in.
|>1) Substitute XXX with Allah, God, Jahveh...
|
|You see, Richard doesn't actually think about these "things". He is just
|blindly following his leader. Pat Robertson has an agenda of "PUT prayer
|back in school" and "PUT prayer back into national life" so therefore it must
|be a good idea and Richard thinks so too even though he has no idea of what
|Pat Robertson actually intends. Pat Robertson and his gang claim to be
|True Christians and claim to be advancing a True Christian Agenda and that's
|good enough for Richard.

My friend, Mr. Paul Harvey, you are wrong.  Your arrogance and 
presumption go before you.  Judge what I say and not what you 
want me to say.  

Have you ever noticed I don't invoke PR's name, but I do invoke that of 
the Lord Jesus the Christ, the God man - Jesus of Nazareth, who I preach 
as Lord and I His servant.  Note I am replying to your (Mr. Harvey's) 
comment on my lack of thinking and so my lack of testing what I hear - I 
haven't commented on PR's views nor is this a commentary on them or him.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: True Gay Christians
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:42:21 GMT

>In article <1992Nov4.152158.13899@cs.ucla.edu> robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
>...
>For a rather passionate love affair between two men, David (of Goliath
>fame, I think) and Jonathan, please read 1 Samuel 18:1-4, 20:3-4, 20:41,
>and 2 Samuel 1:25-26.

Let's take a closer look.   I Sam 18. David and Jonathan
exchange garmets and weopons.  There is no homosexual connotation here.
There are making a covenant.  These passages also tell of how David
and Jonathan love one another.  One of the problems with the homosexual
rights movement is that it has helped to so pervert people's understanding
of love.  Men can hardly say that they love one another without there 
being accused of being a homosexual.  It is truely sad.  David and
Jonathan loved one another, but that does not mean that they sodomized
one another.  Notice in the last passage you mention, David calls 
Jonathan his brother.  Sodomy is not a brotherly activity.  Haven't 
you ever had a best friend of the same sex, who you loved, with whom you did
not have homsexual relations? 

>These passages have been sanitized by your local Christian bowdlerizers,
>to remove any blatant references to homosexual love, but I'm told that
>the passage 1 Samuel 20:41 which currently reads (in my NIV version):
>
>	"... Then they kissed each other and wept together --
>	     but David wept the most."
>
>was originally written as:
>
>	"... Then they kissed each other and wept together --
>	     but David grew large [or larger]."

I have been told that if you let a mosquito bite you in exactly the same
place a second time, it will take away the sore.

People in the Ancient
Near East kissed one another all of the time.  Go watch Bedoines greet
one another today.  It was the way they greeted.  We shake hands, they
kissed cheeks.  It was expected when you went into someone's house
for them to kiss you and wash your feet.  

As far as the translation goes, I haven't looked it up yet, but it looks
like youv'e been told wrong.  One of the keys to translating is looking
at the context so the translation makes sense in context.  There are
plenty of Bible translators who would not want to "sanitize" this
kind of stuff out if it were in.  There are even some who would want to
put it in if were feasible, I would imagine.  The reason no one has ever
translated it that way may be because no translator wants to destroy his 
credibility by putting something in that really doesn't make sense.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 19:38:10 GMT

In article <92311.091906RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>In response to Sam Wiggins's assertion that Jesus claimed to be God:
>
>The most serious problem as to what Jesus really said or did not say arises
>from the very fact that the New Testament books are nothing more than
>pseudopigraphical books.
You are not familiar with the didache are you?  Anyone familiar with it
would understand why none of the rest of RBNXHS' (sorry--deleted your
real name before it was no longer traceable.) harangue isn't fit to
stay intact in this thread.  Find someone from the Syrian Orthodox,
Coptic Orthodox, Indian Orthodox or Armenian Orthodox; and you should
be able to learn quite a bit about the didache.

>What survived was the
>teachings of Paul, a self-appointed disciple who wanted to spread his version
>of christianity among the goyims.
Is that right?  I guess we overlook the writings of the apostle John
and the guy who calls himself Simon Peter.  John Mark, the author of
the third Gospel (possibly the oldest of the four) was discipled by
Simon Peter I think--NOT Paul.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: RBNXHS%ROHVM1.BITNET@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu
Subject: BITNET mail follows
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:30:00 GMT

Subject:      Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God

In reference to spence@cmptrc.lonestar.org's quesion on the pseudo-
pigraphic origin of NT books and the associated history:

    Please, read S.G.F. Brandon's Jesus and the Zealots, The Trial of
    Jesus of Nazareth, and the references therein; Ataur Rahim's
    Jesus, a Prophet of Islam; A. Yusseff's The Dead Sea Scrolls,
    the Gospel of Barnabas and the New Testament; J.Robinson's The
    Second Treatise of the Great Seth; A. Azizola's The Myth of the
    Cross; J. Allegro's The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth;
    R. Helms's The Gospel Fictions; J.M. Robertson's A short history
    of Christianity. Should you require further references, I shall
    be glad to provide. Thanks.
- Siddiqui.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Public Schools
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:16:20 GMT

In article <74181@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <BxCytz.HGq@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:

[...]

>|is about *governmentally organized* public prayer, so why waste
>|bandwidth by including passages that aren't about governmentally
>|organized prayer?  And the question is about Jesus' support of
>
>I am not for mandated public prayer, but government allowed public
>prayer in schools - it shows we as a nation recognized the need to 
>pray.  

This is ridiculous.  Why should "we as a nation" recognize any such
thing?

Just because you and your little group would like that?

>For Christ and His Kingdom,
>Richard Pitts


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:43:58 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


===========================================================================
/  You said (in not quite so many words) that I can't use the Bible to prove
/the Bible.  I could use that same reasoning to say don't use science to
/prove science, but I'll just say this - in a trial, a man is allowed to
/testify on his own behalf.  

Yes, but his own testimony is never considered conclusive unless it can
be corroborated by other witnesses or by physical evidence.  Giving someone
a chance to speak is not the same thing as admitting his testimony into
evidence.



/  Comparison to other documents:
[omitted for brevity]

This is nothing more than a reprint from Josh McDowell's book Evidence
That Demands a Verdict.  It is quite flawed.  Check out the FAQ for a
description of the errors.



/  You asserted God is inconsistent because he had an old law and a new one. 
/In actuality, there were three periods of time (dispensations), each with
/its own law: the patriarchical dispensation (from Creation to the giving of
/the law on Mt. Sinai), the Mosaic dispensation (from Mt. Sinai to the
/crucifixion of Christ), and the Christian dispensation (from the cross to
/the end of time).  The laws of each led into the other.  

Actually, no.  The laws contradict each other.  Example:  ther are multiple
places in Deuteronomy where God says that he will visit the iniquities of 
the sinner on his children and his children's children, even to the seventh 
generation.  The fathers commit the sins, and the children, grandchildren,
etc. will continue to pay the price.

Then in Ezekiel, God says "It has been said in the land of Israel, 'The
fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge.'
As I live, saith the LORD, this proverb shall no more be heard in the
mouths of the children of Israel.  A man shall die for his sins, and a
son for his sins.  The children shall no more die for the sins of the
fathers."  Contradiction.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.all-worlds
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:53:08 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <BxD6H6.Mx@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>P(M)P(Q given M) = P(M and Q) = P(Q)P(M given Q)
>p(Q) = P(Q given M)P(M)/P(M given Q)
>
>We know that P(Q given M) is very small, something like 3%.  I don't
>think anyone's going to say that more than 10% of the population are
>child molesters.  If a disproportionate number, say 20%, of queer
>people are child molesters then you have to assert that only 1.5% are
>queer.  These are the most generous figures possible for Clayton's
>argument; if you say that fewer people in general are child molesters
>or that the probability of a given queer person being a child molester
>is higher, you end up with a ridiculously small number; eg P(M) = 1%,
>P(M given Q) = 100% ("all them queers are child molesters"), accept the
>original 3% for P(Q given M), conclude that %0.03 percent of the
>population are queer and all the people who go to the meetings of the
>University's Bisexual, Lesbian or Gay society are ghosts.  I can assert
>categorically that this isn't so since I have touched several of
>them...

So why didn't you say that in the first place?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with MISinformation)
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:42:13 GMT
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

A brief comment about 5000+ manuscripts for NT :
No two of these manuscripts are the same. Something to ponder about|
--
Siddiqui.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:26:55 GMT
	<1992Nov10.223637.1724@athena.cs.uga.edu> 
	<1992Nov11.215353.21361@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: and never even seen the 'shaw!

In article <1992Nov11.215353.21361@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> 
lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>In article <BxKKFB.Lv6@inews.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.180835.7560@cerritos.edu> radams@cerritos.edu writes:
>>>Jesus clearly states "I and my Father are one".
>>I don't think that's quite how the line goes.
>I think NIV English has "I and the Father are one."  Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>But, if Jesus was the son of
>>God, why didn't he say "My Father"? How do we even know what Jesus said
>>since he spoke in Aramaic and we have no Aramaic record of what he said?
>No record?  One of the Gospels reports of Jesus addressing God in Aramaic
>kind of as "Daddy" not just "Father" in that spot where he says "Father,
>why have you forsaken me?"

And this Gospel you mention, what language is that written in?