HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MANEJWZA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ()
Subject: Islam
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:31:32 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

I bear witness that there is no diety except Allah, who has no partners
and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.


Allah (God) is the creator of all things.
He has sent man on the earth as a vicegerent.
Adam was the first man on Earth.
Iblis (Satan) is to tempt man away from the worship of Allah.

Allah has sent down prophets to guide man.
Whosoever follows them, let then know of a Great Reward.

But whosoever follows the Evil One, let that person know that Allah has
prepared a Fire for them.

Allah has sent down Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Jacob, Lot, Jethro, Zakariyya,
John the Baptist, Ismail, Isaac, Job, Moses, Jesus Christ, and Muhammad (SAW)
the Seal of the Prophets.

Allah has given among guidance, a sign of miracles to his prophets.

The miracle of Muhammad(peace be upon him) is the Holy Quran.

Read it!  Hear its words and its meanings.  If you learn the arabic, then
you will be astounded.

Every man will have to face Allah on the Day of Judgment.  Where his good
deeds will be weighed with his bad.

But those who believe in the Oneness of God, and do not reject their
prophet, he will eventually be admitted into paradise.

Paradise, of Gardens beneath which rivers flow wherein they will abide
forever.  They will have no problems nor will they hear no noise(irritation).
They will have companions of chastity to live with for eternity.

This is the life, not this crude matter here in the world. 

The material rewards of this life are degenerating in the sight of the
Hereafter.

So beleive in Allah, the One.  And embrace His religion, Islam.
Be those who call themselves (Muslims=>Those who prostrate or submit)

We pray five times a day prostrating our heads towards Allah.

He is Allah, Whom there is no god besides Him, He is the King, the Peace,
the Creator, the Merciful, the Compassionate. 
He is Allah, the Creator, the Fabricator, the Shaper, who has the Most
Beautiful Names.

Many need metaphysical interpretations of Allah.

Humankind really only needs this and the Quran.



Question:  Can anything understand its creator fully?  
Answer: No.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:21:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Summary: maybe

In article <1acbmbINNqlu@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
> 
> Wrong Mr. Harvey.  The only reason scientists hold mathematics to be true
> is that is has been verified by countless observations.

If so, they are are probably on very shaky ground (cf. Hume.)
Most mathematicians do NOT hold mathematics to be true on any
such questionable basis.

> Christians base their life on
> a few feelings they have that are generally a result of upbringing
> or from the tendency to attribute everything they can't understand
> to god.

That's an amazing congeries of unsupported generalizations, there.
I'd be the last to deny the relevance of upbringing in the ongoing
transmission of religion -- but in that case we are talking about
one whole hell of a lot more than "a few feelings."  And I doubt
that any but those overwhelmed by experience of "mystic" "feelings"
base their lives on these, or at least no more than mathematicians
base *their* lives on "feelings" of compelling logical or mathematical
validity.

The final bit is more interesting.  I suppose I could be described as
attributing <something> I can't understand to god -- but not, I think,
in the way you intend that.  I don't believe in a "god of the gaps" or
go around saying, "aha! I don't understand that, therefore God."  No,
I have instead a certain number of experiences, "interior" to myself
or in my relations with other people or the world which ARE adequately
described by traditional religious language [and obviously my upbring-
ing both familiarized me with that language and may "shape" the very
possibility of my having the experiences, or being predisposed to a
religious interpretation of them] and which, even when accessible to
non-religious investigation (religion is a rich area for sociological
and psychological study) are simply not dealt with in themselves by
these disciplines, however interesting and applicable that research
may be.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:02:04 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Sep27.062813.28395@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
}In article <69009@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}> The Bible has many predictive prophecies and they have are are coming
}> true.  Other religous writings do not make such predictive prophecies.
}
}Incorrect. Hindu writings say that Lord Vishnu will appear again
}(Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 4, Verses 7-8) in human form. 

Come on, Ravi.  Surely you don't expect Richard to know what he is talking
about, do you!?!?!?!

}That the Lord came/will come and other (predictive) prophecies
}can be found in almost every religion (if you care to look).

Ssssshhhhhhhh.  Don't disturb him with facts.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:09:41 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <cb4m02gc24pD01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>To answer the above question: If someone claims to be Christian and
>subscribes to the evolution theory, I have to wonder what else they
>deny about the Bible?  Why would God lie to us about Creation if
>evolution was true?  If you gonna doubt one part, what else do you
>doubt?
>
>[...]

When did God say that evolution was not used to create the
Earth?  The writer of Genesis claims that God created the Earth and
everything on it, but makes no claims about how it was done.

Mark
-- 
   Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator
but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates
are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within
the existing scientific tradition. -- Thomas S. Kuhn
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Subject: NIV Translation Question
Reply-To: szobell@mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:10:24 GMT

In II Kings 23:29, the KJV states that Pharoh Neco went against
the King of Assyria.  I have reason to believe that other foreign
language Bibles at the time agreed with the KJV on this. The NIV 
states that Neco went to help the King of Assyria.  A fragment 
from Mesopotamia translated in 1929 contradicted the KJV stating
that Neco helped the King of Assyria.  My question is whether the 
writers of the NIV used information outside of Biblical sources 
to arrive at this translation.  Could someone with an NIV Study 
Bible look into this?  Also, how do other translations deal with 
this passage?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct2.181031.29005@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:21:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.181031.29005@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>"The above metaphors are not true or false" and
>"There is no such thing as a metaphor which is true or false"
>are _not_ the same thing.  You claim the latter, and have attempted to support
>it with the former--and that doesn't support it.  The first one refers to
>particular metaphors, and the second to all metaphors. Just because particular
>metaphors aren't true or false does not mean that the same is true of all
>of them.

Do you have any examples of metaphors that are true or false?
Screw it, here is my proof, are you ready?

Statement:
A statement that is true is factual.
A statement that is false is fictional.
A statement that is metaphorical is neither true nor false, it is of
course metaphorical.

Proof:
If a metaphor existed that was true, it would no longer be a metaphor,
it would be a fact.
If a metaphor existed that was false, it would no longer be a metaphor,
it would be a fiction.
METAphors are by definition, transcendent of true/false reductionism.

Now, is your head out of the true/false gutter yet or what? ::::B^}
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct1.223406.5220@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:58:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.223406.5220@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <BvGpp7.79G@inews.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>she had a snake for a pet, and an amulet
>>she was raising a dwarf, but it wasn't done yet
>>Now, tell me, are these metaphors true or false? Or are they foo or bar?
>>Does she or doesn't she have a dwarf? Does it really make a difference?
>>Oh, by the way, here is an interpretation you may or may not like:
>>The she is Eve, the dwarf is Adam, the snake, well you know who that is,
>>right?

>Metaphors are metaphors FOR something, Mr. Harvey. This would be a lousy
>metaphor for the interaction of a photon with a molecule of Rhodamine 6G.

Lousy? Is that the word you prefer for bar? What would be your word for
foo? Or are you saying that the metaphors above are all false? And I
still wanna know if she has a dwarf or not? And this dwarf, is he a
regular shrimp or a jumbo shrimp? BIG or SMALL? TRUE or FALSE?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Mormonism & Evangelical Christianity
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:51:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.012757.1037@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>Is there a test to ensure that this spirit is the Holy Spirit and
>not just "a" spirit that would influence you and make you "think"
>it was the Holy Spirit?  Naturally, this counterfeit would "seem"
>to be the H.S. in every way, except that it leads you to thining
>that you have "it" when in fact you do not, so you no longer seek.

Congratulations for proving too much.

Obviously, there is no way to tell.  A spirit can mess with your mind to do
anything it pleases.

Of course, the same applies to Jesus.  Perhaps Jesus was really an agent of
Satan.  Satan could easily "cast out" demons, pretend to be speaking for
God, "rise" from the "dead", etc.  How could you tell between this and a real
Jesus?
--
"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)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:41:59 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <cfhR02OR24a101@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
|> In article <16773@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct1.121630.13063@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
|> >
|> >>1. Before examining LDS theology, I feel that it is important to define 
|> >>orthodox Christian beliefs that would be considered the "Fundamentals" of the
|> >>faith, and not those doctrines unnecesary to salvation. The list that follows
|> >>is terse and is not supposed to be a theological treatise.
|> >>
|> >>        a) There is only one God, who created the heavens and the earth.  
|> >>        b) Jesus is God incarnate, born of the virgin Mary. In saying that Mary
|> >>           was a virgin, I mean that she had never had sexual relations with a 
|> >>           man or (as LDS theology says) with God. Jesus being God incarnate 
|> >>           means that Jesus is God.
|> >>        c) God exists as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Separate but indiv-
|> >>           sible, otherwise known as the Trinity. This is important in recog-
|> >>           nising who Jesus is. To reject Jesus as God is to reject God.
|> >
|> >So you are saying that anyone who rejects the virgin birth, for example,
|> >rejects God and therefore, despite any other profession of
|> >faith in Jesus (even as God) and throwing one's self on His mercy,
|> >is invalid, and that person is not a Christian?
|> >
|> 
|> If you get on the wrong plane you will arrive in the wrong city!  If you
|> sincerely believe in the wrong Christ, you will end up in the wrong
|> eternity.

Wow...a Christian who believes Paul is going to hell. Now I've seen everything!

|> 
|> >>        d) A Christian is somebody who: 
|> >>           - accepts that they are in a sinful state and are separated from
|> >>             God because of sin.
|> >>           - believes that Jesus was crucified, buried and raised from the
|> >>             dead thus breaking the law of sin and death.
|> >>           - believes that the only forgiveness for sin is through the blood
|> >>             shed upon the cross. That forgiveness is complete for those who 
|> >>             have accepted the free gift of grace from God.
|> >>           - believes we are save by grace through faith, and not by works. No 
|> >>             person can do anything in their own right to rid themselves of  
|> >>             the burden of sin. Being baptised, joining a group or following
|> >>             certain laws cannot save a person.
|> >>           - believes that when a person accepts Jesus as Lord, the Holy
|> >>             Spirit (who is God) dwells within them.
|> >
|> >I think that Jesus would be a bit upset with so many Christians
|> 
|> God was upset with everyone, that is why he calls us sinners!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Subject: Re: LDS - The First Vision.
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date: 26 SEP 92 11:23:05    

In article <abvE02Mm23D501@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes...
>In article <1992Sep25.162508.59183@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:

>>I beg to differ.  I don't think that the first vision plays that
>>big a part in Mormonism.  It is truely a remarkable event.
>>But I think that Mormonism hangs more (or is founded more) on the
>>Book of Mormon.  Else why go to all the touble of preserving
>>plates, translating them, getting the testimony of 11 witnesses
>>about them.

>I agree with you Jason that the validity of Mormonism can be measured by
>the accuracy of the BoM.  However, you have to agree with me about the
>vision as well.  I mean, if Joseph (I said IF now), lied about it all,
>then the preservation of the plates is a myth and thus makes it all
>false as well.  You can't say that if Joseph lied about the vision then
>there is any truth in Mormonism.  Then whole structure of Mormonism
>rest on that vision!
>Do you agree?

Technically I don't think your scenario is the only one possible.  First I
would submit that the current accepted account of Joseph Smith's First 
Vision could be inaccurate and still not be a "lie" (of course if 
inaccurate then it could be a lie).  This account was penned in 1838 and 
proports to be an accurate recollection of the events of 1820.  As JS was
just 14 at the time of the First Vision, and the account is written 18
years later, there indeed could be room for not remembering it correctly.
A lot of things happened during those 18 years and I shudder myself in 
thinking how I might relate an event which took place when I was 14 and
then be given a chance today to go back and observe what took place.
So if JS did indeed get some details wrong, perhaps even major details,
it does not unequivically prove he is "lying".  

Next, the existence or not of the Golden Plates and the second vision of
JS is not directly dependent upon the First Vision.  If indeed the First
Vision is a product of JS's active imagination of the late 1830's, this
would not preclude the possibility of his receiving and translating the
plates in 1827-1829.  I grant you that it would cast considerable doubt
upon his creditability, but it does not prove that the "whole structure of
Mormonism rest on that vision."

Now if JS was deliberately lying about the First Vison in order to build
creditabilty for his claims on the BoM, then you have a stronger case.
Even then it is not airtight but admittedly it begins to stretch the realm
of plausibility a bit.  (I say this like none of the above does.)

Does this eventually lead into a discussion on the evidence for or
against the canonized version of the First Vision?

Dana Bunner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:35:07 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct6.161635.14116@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.114200.13090@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>>
>>
>> If you reject the virgin birth, you are rejecting a SINLESS saviour. To reject
>>Jesus as sinless, you are rejecting His ability to be a perfect sacrifice
>>without blemish.
>> 
>
>As I understand this common fallicy, all who are born via the mechnism of
>sex are born guilty and thus seperated from God at Birth. This fallicy
>requires that Jesus to be born with out Sin so that He could be a Perfect
>Sacrifice?. The Catholic Doctrine of Immaculate Conception takes this
>idea one step further, Mary was not born in the normal way and that she
>was without sin, so that her Son could not be _contaminated by sin by
>being born by her.
>
>Mormons have a simpler solution to the overall problem: Children are
>born without sin. Children who die with out baptism before they are
>accountable are believe to return to the presence of God.

Can you back this up with Scripture?  What age is acountable?  Eight
years old?  Is this in the Bible?
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:00:56 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <70148@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <ksand-051092193254@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>The intriguing fact is that Jesus is far more written about 300+ years
>>later than during his lifetime. In other words we are dealing with a
>>myth, something that has gone out of proportions. Same with Elvis
>>sightings and flying saucers and elves on pictures.
>
>Why do you so much want this Jesus to be a myth.
Psychoanalyzing people on the net is considered quite rude, Richard.
I don't see any reason to think that Kent particularly wants Jesus
to be a myth more than he wants Allah to be a myth. Maybe he just
thinks it's inane.

>so you claim he is a myth.  For if he was a myth, then he would
>have no power over you, would he?  You admit he is someone to be
>reckoned with by your own actions.
And how should Kent act if Jesus really IS a myth?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:57:24 GMT

holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) writes:
: In article <1992Sep24.132612.25018@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
: 
: >: Faith is holding a proposition to be beyond doubt because it
: >: issues from some authority.
: >
: >[...] I suspect that Christians would disagree with your definition
: >as well.
: 
: Why should they?  Do they not hold the Gospels' propositions to be
: beyond doubt because they are contained in the Gospels?

First, many Christians I have talked to admit the possibliity
that they may be wrong.  Second, authority isn't the sole basis
for their beliefs.  From what I've seen here, they seem to think
there is evidence to support their belief too.  They don't seem
to be willing to discuss what that evidence is, but they keep
repeating that it exists.

: 
: >As for science requiring an absense of faith, what is your basis
: >for trusting science?
: 
: I don't.  Next question.  ;-)
: 
: In other words, science says "no non-tautological proposition is
: beyond doubt, including this one".

Is this all there is to science? 
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:55:11 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-270992133237@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|In article <69011@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|Pitts) wrote:
|> The sign Jesus offered, when asked another time:
|> 
|>    John 2:18   Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you
|>       show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
|>    John 2:19   Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it
|>       again in three days."
|>    John 2:20   The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this
|>       temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"
|>    John 2:21   But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
|> 
|> NOTE: The sign was performed - Jesus body (temple) was killed and raised,
|>       but people still didn't believe.
|
|Here's a good example of the messy interpretations I don't like. Jesus
|spoke about the temple, the temple, the temple. And what do Christians
|transpose it to, including John? Yes, the body of Jesus. You know, if I was
|Jesus, I would have said this, just to make things clear:

[Kent's version deleted.]

It is hard to see why you (Kent) seem to take the words Jesus said as
something by which to live or at least something with which to pressure 
others.  Yet, you discount the other words as being wrong.  The same
person wrote or assembled it all and for the sake of the argument, if the 
same person didn't - why use one part and not the other, for you don't
know what is what?  Remember after Jesus rose from the dead he explained 
to his disciples how all the scriputre (Law, Prophets, and Psalms) 
pertained to himself.

The fact that the disciple didn't understand some of what Jesus taught
is throughout the gospels - a later enlightenment gave them the understanding.
Jesus opened the disciples eyes.  He taught them.  You don't really see
the disciples teaching from the OT until after the Holy Spirit came, which
Jesus told them would lead them into all truth.  The eyes were opened.

|Another point, if this was a true story, we would not have traditional Jews
|in Israel today, instead Messianic Jews.

I don't quite follow this one - could you elaborate.

|Kent

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc