HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:12:12 GMT
Summary: taking on the body

In article <1992Dec18.213523.28596@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <1992Dec18.030601.18124@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> >He experienced the totality of sin on the cross by taking it all
> >to himself, so he likely felt and had original sin on him too
> >(as the metaphorical scapegoat)during and after the final sacrifice.
> >I hope you don't think I'm cheesing out on this, but it goes back
> >to the original point someone made that the sacrifice was nothing,
> >as well as covering your point.
> 
> In _that_ case a _different_ question arises: Why did Jesus have to bother
> with being a human being at all?  If he got a body so he could experience
> humanity, and he could experience humanity _anyway_ by taking it into himself,
> why did he even bother with the body?

Well, why did Israel need a lamb?
I don't know and even if I did know for sure, how would you
know it was the truth?
Maybe the adversary had a deal with God and that was the only
thing that would be acceptable.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 29 Dec 92 02:01:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


/In article <1992Dec24.050037.8184@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com 
/(Bob Sarver) writes:

/  >/(skinner)
/  >/If I apply Mr. Sandvik's test for logic, I must declare Euclidean geometry 
/  >/illogical.)
/  >Don't be deliberately stupid.  



/ (torkel)
/  There was nothing stupid about Greg Skinner's comment. 


Oh, really?  

Skinner would reject Euclidean geometry on the premise that he has never
seen a line; so because he can't see it, he doubts its very existence.
He is trying to draw a parallel with Sandvik's statement.

However:
Sandvik NEVER stated that being able to see a phenomenon is his standard of 
proof for proving the phenomenon happened/exists.

So:
Skinner is trying to make Sandvik obey a standard of evidence which Sandvik
has never professed to hold.

I'd call that stupid.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:44:35 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17892@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <b8vv02MI2efK01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>
>>If it is a problem determining when the person is speaking as a prophet,
>>then you have a much more serious problem.  How then are you going to
>>know when he's speaking for God or of himself in telling you what is
>>correct?  
>
>That is why every person has the responsibility of receiving confirmation
>directly from God about these things.  This not only applies to utterances
>of the Mormon prophet, but the Bible.

If this is true, then the person receiving the "confirmation" has a more
direct connection to God than the person giving the revelation.  Right?
Therefore, the need for a living prophet ceases.  I mean, when a prophet
says something that is suppose to be from God, either it IS from God, or
ether it ISN't from God.  It shouldn't have to be left up to each
individual to decide or get "confirmed" of it.  Either it IS or either
ISN'T from God.  What happens if the LDS prophet gives a "revelation" and
two different LDS members get different "confirmations"?  Who then is
right?  They both cannot be, because either what the prophet said is from
from God or it isn't.  Are you telling me that ALL LDS members get the
same "confirmation" when the prophet speakes?If the prophet IS a true
prophet, then why cannot he determine before he gives a revelation if it
is true or not?  And the next logical question is, if he cannot, then
how can you?  I mean, he is the prophet, right?

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: bast@wam.umd.edu (Jaguar)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:14:22 GMT


She considers herself a christian as well.
Granted, the fundamentalists may not view her as such.
There are sects of christianity, and one misnister in particular I know
of that have no problem with this dual faith type thing.
Granted her version of christianity sounds much like the ealry christian
gnostic sects. (which were severly persecuted by the church as dangerous
heretics)
I think she fits the definition ofa pagan/christian or christian/pagan
She certainly thinks so.
The two religions are not incompatible, not if you take the bible
metaphorically. 
It is only when you take it leter oopss. literally, word for word, that you
would have difficulty.
Fundamentalists are hardly representative of all christians. (they just seem
to think that they are)
I would point out some of the christian/newabge/metaphysical churches that
have srung u ...
sprung up...
Jaguar
stalking tammys tail and hope she does not notice!
(bad kitten)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: God saw that it was good
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 18:50:55 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1ha204INNfbj@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:
|>        Genesis 1:31 says "And God saw everything that he had made, 
|>        and behold, it was very good".  Some questions about this: 
|>          1. Does it imply that God didn't know it would be good until 
|>             he saw it? 
|>          2. Can God make anything that isn't good?
|>          3. In this context, what does "good" mean, anyhow?
|> 
|> 
|> .
I can't answer 1 and 2, but the way I always teach
the story, what's significant is the
sequence "good", "good", ... "*very* good",
where "very good" is used to describe the creation of man,
in contrast to everything else, which is simply
described as "good".

I view this as a poetic way of celebrating
the human race.

This is a Jewish perspective.  Christians, who
believe in original sin, probably have a very
different take on this story.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Those wacky cults
Organization: University of Central Florida
Distribution: talk
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:32:53 GMT

The paper today reported that some wacky religious cult in the Philipines
converged on rush hour traffic and let the air out of everyone's tires,
causing major traffic snarls.  Motives were unclear, but they claimed to
be doing "God's Will".  The attack appeared to be well coordinated.

mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: A little Courtesy
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:18:10 GMT
Keywords: Topics on LDS and the rest of the net

I realize that most people on the net who read talk.religion.misc
do not care for the Mormon/Anti-Mormon dialogue and that they want
to avoid it. I have recieved an email message from one individual
who has expressed concern because certain individuals keep trying
to alter the subject line so that they will slip through KILL file
filters. Frankly, I don't really care whether the whole world reads
what I have to post or not. I am only writing to those who are
interested in the subject (Of course, you know what a fanatic is:
Someone who is wildly interested in a subject presses his views on
others who don't care least thing about it :-).

I very much doubt that Mormons will ever get a moderated News Group of
their own.  As a courtesy to those who are not interested, I suggest the
following behavior:

   Add LDS or Mormon to the Keywords line.
   
It should save lots of people on the net the grief of having to wade
through our diatribes by enabling them to KILL the article.
I promise to add one of those strings to any Keyword line of any
discussion that I respond to. I encourage all Mormons on the net to do
the same.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: On Neurosis ( was 'Re: God etc' )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:58:43 GMT

In article <C0393q.n0@ecf.toronto.edu> vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec22.215451.2019@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM 
>>>(John Emery) writes:
>>>
>>>> The observed fact that humankind has always searched for something 
>>>> outside of himself points to the conclusion that we are incomplete in
>>>> ourselves.  

Perhaps I'm just irritated with John Emery, but half of humankind does
not search for something outside himself.  I know some people tyhink
it's nitpicking, but I don't care.  

ALL of humankind picks their nose as well, and farts -- even if we won't
admit to it.  Does this mean that we as a species are psychologically
prone to nosepicking, or does it just mean that our noses get dry and
stuffed up once in a while?  People also have this nasty tendency to be
racist, as well.  I'm not going to defend racism as a necessary of human
existence on that basis, though.  Doing so is like saying that because
syphilis exists, we should all go out and catch it.

Picking a human habit of any kind, and trying to make it more profound
than it is is dumb.  People do all sorts of things including fighting
wars and beating on their kids.  While Skinnerian behaviorism can be
used to explain many things, we must take care not to overextend it. 
 
>Really?  Or maybe it just says we grow up in a chaotic world and in general
>we turn out somewhat neurotic in general. How many people do you know who
>are comfortable talking in front of people? How many people do you know who
>have a high level of self confidence such that it impresses you? How many 
>people are always worried about their looks, their weight? Or look at it this
>way- some 10% of children are estimated to be physically abused.  Considering
>this the number that must be emotionally abused, or at least stunted must be
>50% plus.  Consider all the priests that are now getting busted for molesting
>children in the 60's and 70's ( several large cases in Canada ).  The world
>is mostly neurotic but people try their best to look mostly normal.  Everbody
>has all kinds of little and large neurosises and most have low self-esteem
>and confidence.  Is it any wonder that people feel incomplete?  Many people 
>feel more then incomplete- they feel violent ( eg. spouse battery ), etc.
>And why is this?  The environment that people grow up in- and not just their
>families but this whole fucked up planet!  The above statement by Emery is 
>idiotic as an argument supporting a deity.  Of course humankind feels 
>'incomplete'!  What do expect considering the world in which we live?
>Its a side effect of neurosis! And its no wonder people come up with and 
>follow so many lame and moronic religions/ philosophies/ etc.

Normally, I'd delete this to save bandwidth, but it says what it says
far too well.

Blessings,
Janis
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:27:55 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

>>universal church are catholic.  Lutherans are catholic.  So are Orthodox
>>(both Greek & Russian), Episcopalians, etc.  
>
>   Except that all the abovementioned denominations broke off from the
>"Roman church."

Does a tree "break off" from a branch?  There were several churches in the
first millenium - Roman, Greek, Syrian, Antiochian, etc.  Then, in the
11th century, came the schism...after which, we have the Roman church
on one side and all the rest on the other.  Now, *who* broke off from
*whom*?

>   How catholic, how universal is it, really, to break off into schism
>from the main body of the Church into a separate group?  That sounds
>the opposite of catholic to me.

So you're admitting that the Roman Catholic Church shouldn't claim the
title 'catholic' now?

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:35:05 GMT

lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:

>That's perfectly fine and I see nothing wrong in it.  If she wants to call
>herself a pagan/christian thats fine.  However, don't you see that what she
>is doing is far more pagan than christian?  A pagan can accept this, but a
>christian never could...not by the definitions of the religion.

Hm, the Senior member of my Community has been ordained as a deacon within
the Lutheran Communion.  He has functioned as an amateur Lutheran theologian
for decades.  He also, when I asked him whether he felt that Wicca was healthy
for me, encouraged me to pursue Wicca.  He also considers me a Christian as
well as Witch.  He disproves your statement.

I will admit that the *majority* of Christians would fit your statements, but
your statements are not applicable to all Christians, and do not represent
absolute truth for Christianity.

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
"We are secretly replacing the fine quartz crystals this medicine pouch maker
usually uses with Folgers crystals.  Let's see what happens...."
                                      --DACCrowell
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Good "Quotes"
Date: 23 Dec 1992 03:53:37 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

    There's this church in Lake Wobegon where they are always praying for 
sinners.  Never for themselves, just for sinners.  Maybe that's why us sinners 
are doing so well.

      An approximate quote from Garrison Keillor
Date: Sunday, 3 January 1993 09:03:08 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <1993Jan2.233547.9837@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca wrote:
# 
# In article <1993Jan3.015948.18450@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
# > 	Picard confesses to Troi at the end of the episode after
# > 	being returned to the enterprise.
# 
# The fact that he never confessed to the Kardassians is what is signif-
# icant from the _1984_ perspective.  My point was that STTNG affirms
# a kind of Romanticism by having Picard remain defiant towards the
# Kardassians _even though_ they have messed with his mind to the point
# that he sees five lights.  Orwell's book is partly a refutation
# of the perspective endorsed by STTNG.   

  A theatrical nit: my interpretation of the final interrogation
  scene, where Picard just doesn't answer, is that he had been
  pushed so far that he literally couldn't answer to save his
  life.  Not defiance, just exhaustion.  Don't forget that one
  of the human animal's more sucessful torture-avoidance
  mechanisms is complete withdrawal.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Date: 31 Dec 1992 18:10:40 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <adams.725661951@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>In article <adams.725585678@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>Relative few christians question the historical accuracy
>>of the resurrection, but I have known some who do.
>True enough, but one has to reject certain parts of Scripture, most notably
>Paul, to do this...

I have never known any believer who did not "reject" some
parts of the bible; eg, some of the more brutal punishments
in Deut.  In the NT, there are many parts that are routinely
rejected (or given a convoluted interpretation to make a passage
say something it does not), such as that bit about cutting off
you hand if it offends you.

>>>There is no con game here.  It is your choice to make.  Your decision on
>>>whether or not you think Scripture is the word of God.  No force, no
>>>intimidation. 
>>
>>No intimidation?  What happens to people who make the
>>wrong choice?
>
>I have no idea...that's up to God.  Iraneaus and others seem to think that
>the choice didn't matter...and Iraneaus was canonized by the Roman church.

Sounds like you "rejected" those scriptures which say exactly
what happens to people who make the wrong choice.

And, the RC church normally canonizes people more for their
character than their writings.  As a balance to Iraneaus,
consider what Thomas Aquinas (saint, and doctor of the church)
said about the fate awaiting people who make the wrong choice,
and how to remove them speedily from this world and propel
them into the next world.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi!  I'm .Siggy, the National .Sig Foundation poster child.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:45:10 GMT

In article <NICHAEL.92Dec22093750@kariba.bbn.com> ncramer@bbn.com writes:
|In article <fWV72jv@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
|   [...] Scriptures that differs from the Masorah has no support from the
|   findings at Qumran, which did include a copy of the Septuagint, aka 
|   LXX [...]
|
|???
|Can you cite some evidence for this?
|As far as I am aware the _only_ Greek fragments found at Q'mran were
|the 19 or so tiny fragments found in Cave 7.
|Certainly nothing like "a copy of the Septuagint" was found.

It is my understanding that most individuals believe that the DDS Isaiah
Scroll descends from the Septuagint tradition. Apart from this, I have
NEVER heard that a copy of the Septuagint was found at Q'mran.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Subject: Re: Daily verse BG 1.15
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 16:54:30 GMT

In article <58TqwB1w165w@kalki33.uucp>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
> senses of Arjuna, and thus His particular name of Hrsikesa. The Lord
> has different names according to His different activities.

Indeed. Krishna is the only one with a zillion names. And what do 
the Vedas say, "There is only one God; Sages call him by different
names".

> Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
> Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
> 
> 
>        -------------------------------------------------------
>       |  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)            |
>        -------------------------------------------------------

RKP
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:52:37 GMT

lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:

>I am not talking about approval or disapproval.  I am talking about
>philosophies.  The philosophy of the Christian religion does not allow
>for any other god than that of God the father, son, and holy spirit.
>If you are a Christian this is the philosophy you follow....you cannot fast
>on Tuesday and eat on Tuesday...it is physically impossible.

>>I would argue that
>>the same is true for Christianity...  

>That is because it is a blanket term as well.

If Christianity is a blanket term, then how can you possibly refer to "the
philosphy of the Christian religion"?  I was brought up Roman Catholic Christian
and within that one church, there are multiple Christian philosophies.  There
are even more Christian philosphies outside of the Roman church.

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
"We are secretly replacing the fine quartz crystals this medicine pouch maker
usually uses with Folgers crystals.  Let's see what happens...."
                                      --DACCrowell
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: God saw that it was good
Date: 23 Dec 1992 15:52:36 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

       Genesis 1:31 says "And God saw everything that he had made, 
       and behold, it was very good".  Some questions about this: 
         1. Does it imply that God didn't know it would be good until 
            he saw it? 
         2. Can God make anything that isn't good?
         3. In this context, what does "good" mean, anyhow?


.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:05:46 GMT
Summary: Willard's World

In article <1992Dec18.194502.12746@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
> 
> >barry, I know that you love the last word, so I will make my comment and
> >let you slash away.
> 
> Willard, I was wondering when I would see that comment again. :)
Should I make a list of lds shorts?

1) we have frothing at the mouth- Kermit
2) dribble from the chin        - John from the Yukon
3) you always have the last word so slash away- Willard

That's it! I'll keep this list and make additions
as we go along.

barry--
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24579 alt.pagan:14536