HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:44:00 GMT
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <18120@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes...

>Kent Sandvik (ksand@apple.com) writes:
>>Thus the virgin births of Mitras and Buddha were also miracles, or what.
>>They can't neither be proven true or false. If my wife tells me that
>>she is expecting a baby, and we have not had sex for 9 months, then 
>>I guess it's also a miracle :-).

>Yes.  It would be a miracle Kent, especially if someone nearly eight
>centuries before you predicts that your wife will be expecting and
>also predicts what you will name that child.  How would we know that
>those predictions (or prophecies) pertained specifically to your child?

	Who predicted that Mary would be expecting Jesus? As has been
	pointed out ad infinitum, the verse only prophecies the 
	supposed 'virgin birth' if the verse is taken out of context,
	and the hebrew word for 'young woman' is mistranslated into
	the Greek for 'virgin'. Otherwise, the verse in question refers
	to the birth of Hezekiah.
	
	Furthermore, since Jesus name was Jesus, or actually, Joshua
	(Yshua, I believe, in the original), and not Immanu-el (or
	any variant form of 'God is with us'), I don't see how
	Jesus H. Christ's name was predicted at all by Isaiah 'lumpy' 
	Goldstien or any other of those hip dudes in the not-quite-
	so-New-and-Improved Testement.


>....maybe if your child does fulfill many many other prophecies down
>to small ones like none of his bones would be broken even though his
>method of death specifies breaking of bones if death does not occur
>by a certain hour.

	Well, the verse you refer to is part of the Mosaic Law 
	specifying the proper method of slaughter of the Passover
	lamb. It takes quite a stretch of the imagination, and not
	a little wishful thinking, along with a bald assertion or to
	of the writer of the Gospel of John to twist this verse into
	a prophecy of any sort.

	A challenge for you. Find the passages in Mtt. dealing with
	Jesus being carried to Egypt and back by his parents. Now,
	Find the verse that Matthew refers to, and look it up in
	context. Finally, post both of them side by side for comparison.


                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: TRADITION IS NOT THE BASIS FOR CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr14.170722.913@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<MIB.92Apr14151531@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr14.232011.20823@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:50:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.232011.20823@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

   In article <MIB.92Apr14151531@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
   >As I become more attuned to the depth of the Christian tradition, and
   >its meaning, I have realized this more and more.  Christianity without
   >the Bible is possible; Christianity without the tradition is not.

   This is getting ridiculous.  A religion based on what man dreams up
   about God (traditions) does not in any way compare to THE religion
   which was communicated to man by God.  Someone back me up here.

Except it was communicated in the flesh to the apostles in the person
of Jesus.  From them to us is a tradition.


--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | The Lord God helps me;
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   therefore I have not been disgraced;
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | therefore I have set my face like flint,
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 |   and I know that I shall not be put to shame;
			  | he who vindicates me is near.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:32:36 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr8.203628.4491@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu
(John Muehlhausen) writes:
> 
> In article <22582@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> >opposite. I think the doctrine of heaven and hell is the
> >torture of a soul; thinking about this is certainly a torture for a 
> >believer always scared to end up in hell.
> 
> No Christian should be scared they will end up in hell, because we have
> assurance otherwise.  I know I'm not.  

You are never sure about this, because you could eventually sin and
not be one of the selected ones. In my case life is easier, I don't 
believe in such concepts and I create heaven and hell based on my
daily life.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774)
Subject: School Prayer ( was Re: Prayer and Religious Activities...)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:26:00 GMT

Perhaps I can make a statement which will shed some light:
  If I were to post the following, what would your reaction have been?
  "I think exposing kids to various faiths is great.  
   Why don't we start Christianity on the first school day of next year and
   spend 10 minutes educating the kids on the basic aspects of the religion.
   The next day we proceed to another religion and spend an equal amount of 
   time on it.  And so on until we repeat religions.  Of course, this would
   probably take several years and expose the children to hundreds of 
   different views on god, gods, goddesses, and the lack of the same.  Just
   to be fair, agnosticism and atheism (which are not technically religions)
   should be presented as well.  Just think, our kids could graduate school 
   with a knowledge of the hundreds of faiths, anti faiths, etc around the
   world."

  My gut reaction is that most parents would have a cow.  They want religion
in school but they want *their* religion or some generic version of it.  It 
amazes me how a religious parent would want to pass the religious training of
their children over to some college graduate who stands a higher likelyhood of 
not believing in religion than they do.

  I hope that this will make the problem with a government religion clear.  We
have many religions in this country.  Probably a dozen or more flavors
of christianity.
---
Stephen McLeod
The Eternal Student
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:10:43 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <adams.702136431@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> 
> >Jesus never personally talked with Paul - still he is the key person
> >in Christianity. That already would make my brain tick.
> 
> According to Acts, He did.  Jesus spoke with Paul on the Road to Damascus.

NOT! Paul had a vision where a voice spoke to him, and he assumed this was
Jesus. That's a big difference compared with personally speaking with a person,
something that the disciples of the original church did.

See my longish article about Paul and the original church, to be published
REAL SOON NOW (within 50 minutes).

Cheers,
Kent
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:12:05 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Mar31.221555.9120@ncsu.edu>
cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:

>YOU PEOPLE ARE FORGETTING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS FORBIDDEN IN THE
>NEW LAW AS WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What new LAW??? I thought we were living in Grace.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: RESULT:  soc.religion.mormon fails 135: 169
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:54:51 GMT

In article <Apr.13.01.39.52.1992.23004@dumas.rutgers.edu> gritton@maine.caedm.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton) writes:
>The vote for soc.religion.mormon ended on 10 Apr 1992.
>There were 135 valid "yes" votes and 169 valid "no" votes recieved.
>
>All votes from the site mordor.dseg.ti.com are considered invalid.
>Most of these votes arrived within minutes of each other, five of
>the seven duplicate votes were from there, and all but one were "no"
>votes. This suggests that someone there sent a vote from every account:
>a clear violation of the guidelines. This does not affect the outcome.
>Were these votes included, the vote would have been 136: 245.

It doesn't matter in this case, but how can one be certain this was indeed an
attempt by one person to stuff the ballot box?  In the case of
misc.activism.progressive, a large number of votes were received from the
same site (actually a gateway), and these votes too were all the same.  Suppose
mordor is a gateway of some type, and the people a mailing list all of whom
voted no?  (This would explain the one yes vote.  Perhaps the votes arrived in
minutes because the gateway only forwards its mail at specific times, and the
forwarding time is the time listed on the message.)  Or suppose the people on
the machine are some sort of class or organization, and their teacher/leader/
whatever suggested they all vote no?
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:31:38 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr7.181932.18054@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER
M GRAWBURG) writes:
> The main difference b/w homosexuality as a sin and me sinning is that 
> I repent of my sins in an attempt to stop doing them.
> 
> Homosexuals are not repentful of their sin.
> They are forgiven for their sins, but unless they repent...

..they end up in hell, with the left-handed people and the
people possessed by daemons (i.e. epileptics). 

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Summary: Yawn.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 04:27:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.145256.2502@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr13.145521.26368@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
>>>>>>I'm not saying that there are no religions that advance the cause of lying,
>>>>>>stealing, etc.  I am saying, you are not answering the question.  ...
>>>>>	The religions of the Great Babylon, The False Religion. 
>>>>But what _are_ they?  Don't they have names?
>>>	Yes they have, in fact there are thousands of them. That is the reason,
>>>	why I don't list them.
>
>>So name some of them.  Name ten or so, if you don't want to bother naming
>>thousands.
>
>	The Lutheran Church, the E. Orthodox Church, the RCC, Jews, Muslims,
>	Hindus, Buddhists, the Anglican Church, Calvinists etc. etc. 

In other words, everything that's *not* part of your little cult.  How
original.

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
                  Support term limitations for politicians:
                 two terms -- one in office and one in jail.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:30:16 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <xqdHjzmm6@cs.psu.edu>, kiledal@lisp.cs.psu.edu (Erik Kiledal)
writes:
> There is no controversy between the creation story and science. The
> virgin birth was a miracle, not an error. [The virgin birth cannot be
> _proven_ to be either true or false.]

Thus the virgin births of Mitras and Buddha were also miracles, or what.
They can't neither be proven true or false. If my wife tells me that
she is expecting a baby, and we have not had sex for 9 months, then 
I guess it's also a miracle :-).

Cheers,
Kent
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Andreas - Siperian Sirri Siberian Stint
Date: 16 Apr 92 08:40:51 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
> This really does take the cake. The JW's have a perverted rendition of
> something that started as scripture. To claim the only a Jehovah Witness's
> religion could possibly be biblical when their own scriptures are not
> accptable as scripture. JW deny the Holy Ghost, they deny the sacrifice
> and resurection of Jesus Christ.

	Excuse me, tomorrow (17th April) we will celebrate the fest of the 
	Christ's sacrifice. It's a basic thing in our beliefs.

	Of course we believe in the holy ghost. Every baptized witness is      
	baptized to the name of holy ghost. 


> I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand I have met balenced members of
> the WTBS and they are not anything like Andreas. However he reneforces
> the sterotype that the world has of JW's. 

	You mean I'm unbalanced. I'm not. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:33:14 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Apr6.211053.16893@dg-rtp.dg.com> samir@sphinx.rtp.dg.com (M. Yasser Samir) writes:

(1) - (15) deleted.

>    Please check first the full meaning of the statements above, and also the 
>possibilty of not taking them literally as they appear. 

Would you please post you understanding of the meaning (literal or figurative)
of the several items that you thought some "friends" might respond with?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:36:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.211932.9963@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>Homosexual sex is
>a perversion of man, which can only mean fleshly gratification.  

Does that mean birth control is also a perversion of man, since it
removes the procreation intent from intercourse, leaving it a
means of sexual gratification only?

And that "getting fixed" is a perversion?

>>Notice my heterosexual couple did not overindulge in sex.

Not all married couples who engage in oral sex do it to the
point of overindulgence.  It is the frequency you say is
wrong, or just the act itself, and why?

>I do not
>beleive that the spiritual bond which sex helps to reinforce between man and
>wife is possible for gays, simply because it was not intended.

If you could elaborate: what exactly is the spiritual bond which
the physical act of sex helps to reinforce in married couples,
and explain why it cannot have the same effect on either homosexual
(male-male or female-female) couples.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: brown@cs.utk.edu (Lance A. Brown)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:53:49 GMT
	<1992Apr8.190224.17172@ncsu.edu>
Organization: Univ of TN, Knoxville - CS Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
In-reply-to: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu's message of Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:02:24 GMT

> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) wrote:

> So many people  (pro-homosexual or whatever) keep telling me and 
> others that we are judging homosexuals.

> To judge someone means to form an opinion based on my own set
> of beleifs and values--a value system that I have devised.

Or based on a pre-existing belief/value system that you have chosen to take
as your own.

> The Bible is relevant to all. To say that some action is evil
> because the Bible says it is evil is not "passing judgement."

Here is where the judgement comes in.  It is _your_ belief that "The
[Christian] Bible is relevant to all".  Not all people believe that.  That
makes it a judgement.

> I cannot speak for all the people posting--some are not speaking 
> from the Bible. 

> Also, if a Christian makes a comment that is in say all caps. to 
> represent being ticked off. Don't come back with this
> bologna about "Well, what kinda Christian are you getting mad!?"
> There is nothing wrong with getting mad. So don't write me and
> tell me what a bad Christian I am because I get angry!!

> Chris
--
Lance A. Brown  <brown@cs.utk.edu>
  The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data,
     and the Data is Life -- The Player's Litany
                                 from _The Long Run_ by D.K. Moran
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:14:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr14.180352.8110@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>What astounds me is the relative attitude displayed by many Christians on
>this newsgroup.  Lets face it, there are absolutes and they are worth
>proclaiming, one of which is the salvation plan of the Bible. 

Bet you can't provide a proof tor this.

>John M.

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: No such thing as atheism...
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:27:17 GMT


Pete,
	My apologies, sir.  I re-read that post and discover that
you are indeed correct.
	Forgive me.  I am new here, and haven't quite figured out
what punctuation indicates a former article and which indicates
the current article.
	Also, my apologies for the formality.  Pete it is!

				Cheers!
				Kelley Miller
				ae642@yfn.ysu.edu
--
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Too Many Daves (Title of a poem by Dr Suess)
Summary: Met myself coming and going.
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:57:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Imagine my shock when I see a new article written by me (ie: David Butler):

> From: alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler)
> Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
> Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
> Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=
 
But no it's not me after all, nor a forgery; it's from a Dave Butler living
just 200 miles away.  So this is just to straighten out any confusion which
may result (ie: no I haven't quit my job at Tektronix and moved north).  There
are now two David Butlers from the northwest on talk.religion.misc.  If you
decide to reply to one of us, please make sure which David Butler wrote the
article to which you're replying and try not to confuse us and our positions;
it would be a shame to spend a lot of effort chewing out the wrong one.

It will be interesting though, to see how close the philosophy of Dave Butler
is to that of Dave Butler.

				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mathematical Miracle in Quran?
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:43:44 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr10.223758.1@camins.camosun.bc.ca>
comptec91065@camins.camosun.bc.ca writes:

>I wonder what the Christians would do if they could find something even 
>remotely close to this in their book. But then, again the "author" of the 
>Quran says in the Quran that God is the author of the Quran, and none of the
>many authors of the bible say that do they?

Well, in fact some Jewsish mathematicians (including some pretty big
names) have purportedly "found" curious structures within the Torah.
The rumor I heard was that Persi Diaconis Himself couldn't figure out
what was wrong with what they were doing, although he clearly thought
it must be something.  Supposedly a book (in Hebrew) is available (in
Israel) about all this computer-aided geomatra (if that's the word.)
--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc