HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cd079@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Frank A. Decenso, Jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JESUS DIED AND IS RISEN (Re: Jesus Has Died)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 11:58:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Two scholarly works..._A Harmony Of The Gospels_ by Robert Thomas and Stanley
Gundry; _Baker's Harmony of the Gospels_  edited by Benjamin Davies. I will
post some of their work in the future if you cannot find the books in a 
library.
Also, _When Critics Ask - A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties_ by Norman
Geisler does a good job in putting the appearances of Jesus in chrono order - 
including 1 Cor. 15.
You also may want to check out _Did Jesus Rise From The Dead - The Resurrection
Debate_ edited by Terry Meithe. Gary Habermas from Liberty University and 
Antony Flew, a leading philosophical atheist debate. I enjoyed it. Habermas
and Flew discuss 1 Cor. 15 at length.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven."  PSALM 119:89
"The entirety of Your word is truth."  PSALM 119:160
..................
From: bmb1021@ultb.isc.rit.edu (B.M. Buck)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:00:58 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

In article <1993Jan27.044311.14040@nezsdc.icl.co.nz> derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Derek Tearne) writes:
>In article <C1GMq4.CA7@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> u0d05@keele.ac.uk (PG Herzberg) writes:
>>
>>P.S. This is my first post to AFU and I've read the FAQ and have been
>>reading  AFU for months. Is this unique?
>
>Yes, in all probability you are.  Amazingly there are approximately 40,000
>more lurkers out there.  Some of them _must_ have read the FAQ.  Some of them
>may eventually get round to posting.  
>
>The really unique event would be a first post where the poster doesn't mention
>the fact that it is a first post, has read the newsgroup for more than one 
>month, read the FAQ and ....     
>

I've been reading this news group for many months, semiregularly read
the FAQ, and only first posted a couple of weeks ago.  I didn't mention
these facts then, so I guess that qualifies as this supposed uniqu
event.

Or do I lose credit for mentioning them now?

>Derek "We liek it thsi way" Tearne
>
>
>-- 
>Derek Tearne.   --   derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz   --    Fujitsu New Zealand   -- 
> _______
> _______} This is a Usenet Condom<tm>.  Roll the condom over the .signature 
>	  file before posting to protect yourself from .sig retro-virii


-- 
-----
Buddha Buck            bmb1021@ultb.isc.rit.edu
(insert-file ".disclaimer")
"I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."
From: martin@praxis.co.uk (Martin Croxford)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Personal Behaviour (repost)
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:10:52 GMT
Organization: Praxis, Bath, U.K.

I can lurk no more. 

In alt.atheism and talk.religion.misc recently
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: 

>              Humans prefer to blame God for all the wrongs of this
> world.  Kind of hypocritical when most people don't believe in God in the
> first place .   

Non-believers tend to blame *belief* in God for various "wrongs of this
world", rather than God per se. I'm not just thinking of the "religious
wars" or "Jehovahs witnesses" type of argument here but of every day
situations where people justify their behaviour by referring to their God
I have no problem with the concept of God as a philosophical device, but
I have no time for the use of God (or any other agent) as an excuse for
behaviour (good or bad).  

The behaviour of a "morally mature" person is guided by
judgement/feelings based on experience; this experience may be first-hand
("I'll not be unfaithful to my girlfriend because when I was unfaithful
to my last girlfriend it destroyed our relationship" or "I'll not be
unfaithful because it doesn't feel right") or this experience may be
second hand ("I saw the result of my friend being unfaithful..."). 

The behaviour of a "morally immature" person is *defined* by external agents
("I'll not be unfaithful to my girlfriend because my mum told me not to"
or "I'll not be unfaithful because the Koran tells me not to").

Human beings are born "morally immature" (babies and very young children
act on the rules provided by their parents) and then grow towards a state
of "moral maturity" throughout their lives. But many don't. I'm
fascinated by people I've met who refuse to be guided by their experience
and biological/emotional feelings, preferring to rely on rules imposed
externally ("I can't come to the party; I'm a Muslim...because that's how
I was brought up", "I didn't speak with that girl because I'm attracted
to her but mustn't be because she isn't an orthodox Jew"). Fascinated and
saddened and angry. 

By all means use Wuthering Heights or A Clockwork Orange or The Bible or
Madonna or Jim-down-the-pub or your Mum as *guides* to behaviour. But
don't rely on them. Use your judgement too.

> Thank you for your response.
>
> God loves, Man kills.

(snort)...and "Arsenal Rule OK", "Speed Kills" and "Use a Condom".

I don't see how slogans add to the debate.

--
Martin Croxford 
martin@praxis.co.uk
These are my personal views.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: hem@col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Subject: Re: technical question here
Originator: news@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
Reply-To: H_Markowitz@att.com
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:42:07 GMT

On Sunday, 24 January 1993 21:16:38 MST, "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> said:

> Note to scj readers: this is crossposted to talk.religion.misc,
> where the question originated.  Crosspost to scj is courtesy
> of drieux, and rather thoughtful (IMHO).

> In <1993Jan21.070242.25164@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)  wrote:
> # "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:

>   OF COURSE they could dramatically reduce their shoeleather
>   ingestions if they did a little ignorance amelioration
>   first.  But then they wouldn't be the flaming wackos that
>   we all know and love [*1], would they?

> [*1] "love to send up," would you believe?  How about "love to
>      do without?"  "love to hear the last of?"  HELP!

Love because they make it so much easier to see why the sophisticated
missionaries are wrong.  After all, their obvious mistakes point to the
same mistakes hidden more carefully by the others.


--
____________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| H_Markowitz@att.com | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_____________________|____________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Buddhism and the Absolute God
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:17:58 GMT

In article <lmg7t2INN4ps@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>This looks like fun...
>OK, I'll play.
>In article <C1JC5F.4qB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>Can you make liquid water that is not wet?
>I can paint a picture of the ocean.

That is not liquid water.  That is a picture of liquid water.  A picture of a
thing is not the same as the thing.

>>Can you exist and not exist at the same time?
>If I were to become unconscious, "I" would not exist, yet my
>body would exists.

This is an example of the fallacy of "equivocation".  You are using the same
word to mean two different things.

>>Can you make a square circle?
>Move the circle from 2-D space to 3-D space, and extend it into
>the z axis the same amount as its diameter. It is now both a square
>and a circle.

No, it is neither a square nor a circle, since the definition of a square
implies that it only exists along two axes.  Of course, you could redefine a
square and circle to mean something other than what the original poster meant,
but we're then back to equivocation.

>>Can you make 2+2=5
>Sure - "2+2=5"

More equivocation, this time between the original meaning and your meaning
for the word "make".

>>Can you make it rain and not rain in the same place at the same time?
>Yes. Enclose the Earth in a big box. It is now raining and not raining
>in the same place (the box) at the same time.

More equivocation (again?  But that trick never works!)  What he meant by
"not raining" was "in no part of the area is rain falling".  With this
definition, your example is not an example of the thing requested.

>>Aren't these logical impossibilities, and therefor not a limitation of power?
>Are they impossibilities?
>How many did I get right?

What I'm really wondering is this: Why, in almost all of your responses, did
you "prove" the impossible thing was possible by using equivocation?  Can't
you even think of some other fallacies to use?

Is there something special about your religion that commands that you use the
fallacy of equivocation whenever confronted with something claimed to be
impossible?

It is scarcely news that if you redefine a word to mean what you want, you
can prove lots of things about it.  I can prove murder is good; all I have to
do is to redefine "rape" as something you already believe to be good.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan)
Subject: Simple Question
Organization: Institute Of Systems Science, NUS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:20:36 GMT

Can someone enlighten me on this question:

If God exists and God is All Powerful and All Loving, why does
He allow sufferings to exist.  Why did He create humankind with
the propensity for Greed, Hatred and Delusions and allow us to
murder and harm each other?

Thanks

C. M. Tan
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JESUS IS GOD
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:52:25 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

In article <1993Jan21.191354.18812@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.181245.26932@ucl.ac.uk> ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes:
>>
>>Actually, the last two decades have seen a massive increase in the 
>>number of 'Messianics' (Jewish Christians).  Most of them ARE grateful
>>for Gentile witnessing.
>
>And the Gentile Christians should be grateful to the Messianics for
>restoring the Jewish root of Christianity, which, for centuries,
>has been neglected or ignored.   
>
>
>Regards,
>-- 
>For Christ and His Kingdom
>-- Publius
>Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.

I completely agree. Too many Gentiles get the impression that Jews
'convert' to Christianity whereas belief in Christ for a Gentile
is really a conversion to true Judaism (i.e. Messianic Judaism).

Paul makes this clear (Romans 9-11)

Vijay
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:20:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.201857.10192@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>Both groups accepted the Torah.  As you pointed out, Jesus was quick to
>>point out when the Jewish leadership, both Pharisee and Saducee were leading
>>the sheep away from God.  If homosexual sex were acceptable, then why didn't
>>Jesus correct their teaching, or say, "Ye have heard that it hath been
>>said, thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, but I
>>say unto you....."  He did not.  And His apostles also agreed with the Torah
>>that such acts were sinful.  
>What a completely bogus argument: "But there are also many other things
>that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose
>that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

This is certainly no more bogus than.  "Jesus never homosexuality."
If the sayings of Christ are so plentiful that John described them as he 
does above, then it is very possible that Jesus addressed the issue.  

And it is not a bogus argument.  Jesus said, "Think not that I am come
to destroy the law...."   The law specifically condemned male homosexual acts.
Also, the word porneia had a wide range of meaning by that time.  The
gospels may not record Jesus specifically discussing homosexuality, but
he did speak of sexual immorality in more general terms.


>What his apostles believed is most certainly in doubt. We know what
>Paul seemed to have believed, but Paul wasn't there to hear Jesus
>speak. 

Not before the resurrection.  But he did hear Jesus speak, as many others have
since the resurrection.
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose ANWERING --------> Gordon
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:26:23 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science


In article <767Y02rN32Q701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE) writes:
>Thanks for the reference. You are right, Joseph did say what
>you quoted above. You can find it on page 352 of
>_Teachings_Of_The_Prophet_Joseph_Smith_.
>
>You know what I find _real_ interesting. In this quote on
>page 352, Joseph says that it is a correct doctrine, that God
>is self-existent, and that he has existed forever. Just as
>you have stated above.  But if you will turn with me back to
>page 345 in the same book, where he makes this claim:
>
>     "We have imagined and supposed that God
>      was God from all eternity. I will
>      refute that idea and take away the veil,
>      so that you may see." p.345
>
>He makes both of these claims IN THE SAME SPEACH! How can he
>endorse two conflicting statements of doctrine in the same
>speach? Look it up and check it out for yourself! Page 345 vs

You still don't understand what Mormons believe?  I can't understand
it!  This is one of the true heresies.  Mormons believe that man
and God are of the same species, and that the personage that
we call God once was a man, lived on an earth, just as we do.
They also believe than men were never created in essence but are
eternal beings, with no beginning or end.  Once thing that confuses
people is separating the office of God from the personage occupying
that office for any one given earth.


Oh, and the word is "speech".






-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: More GOOD NEWS from Pat Robertson
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:27:22 GMT

The liberal press are Nazis and Fascists and Christians are their target. 

This is an accurate summary of a fierce 10 minute harangue
i just sat through. Can someone defend this?
This stretches credibility into new dimensions?
-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:02:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.150545.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>Wrong! All we can be sure is that, of the fossils we've found, according to
>present theories about dating methods, the earlier fossils are different from
>the later ones (most of the time anyway).  So how are we "sure" that the origin
>of species was accomplished through evolution?
>--Ray Cote

So what are you suggesting? Zillions upon zillions of special creations?
Taken literally (as you seem to want to do), I don't think Genesis is
compatible with this either.

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:18:57 GMT

In article <C17yJL.3AL@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <C16pC4.J4x@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>>You are quite correct that Jesus NEVER addresses the issue.  He does
>>mention Sodom -- coming down on the side of interpretation that sees
>>the sin thereof as being the rejection and ill-treatment of the angels,
>>the messengers, of God (i.e., not a sexual sin, but one of hospitality.)
>
>Jude also describes that they were sinful in that they desired "strange
>flesh."  
Last time I checked Jude!=Jesus.

>>As to what the "Jewish leadership knew" -- are you using "know" in the
>>"Biblical sense?"  Yes, that's a joke - but why, exactly, am I to take
>>as determinative any opinions of the "Jewish leadership" (do you mean
>>the Pharisees? the Sadducees? who?), despite Jesus' frequent controvery
>>with same?
>Both groups accepted the Torah.  As you pointed out, Jesus was quick to
>point out when the Jewish leadership, both Pharisee and Saducee were leading
>the sheep away from God.  If homosexual sex were acceptable, then why didn't
>Jesus correct their teaching, or say, "Ye have heard that it hath been
>said, thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, but I
>say unto you....."  He did not.  And His apostles also agreed with the Torah
>that such acts were sinful.  
What a completely bogus argument: "But there are also many other things
that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose
that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

What his apostles believed is most certainly in doubt. We know what
Paul seemed to have believed, but Paul wasn't there to hear Jesus
speak. 
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:15:15 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan22.221007.21290@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|.....
|Mankind has a nasty propensity towards violence and mayhem; this is a 
|consequence of our sinful nature.  God did not originally design us to
|commit sin but we chose to disobey God in the Garden of Eden.  Since
|that time, all men are tainted with sin and the carnal desire to keep on
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|sinning.  We kill and harm each other because we choose to.  But keep
|in mind that we are also capable of much good.  The only way to overcome
|our sinful nature is salvation through Jesus Christ.

Please tell me precisely how sin came to be inherently a part of
mankind.  I see no other way except that God himself changed mankind
genetically.  If so, then God made mankind inherently sinful.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27157 alt.atheism:26733
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel BORED by Christianity...
Date: 21 Jan 1993 19:41:46 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <llrf27INNg5s@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <root.727550301@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>
>>>	I found that when I was a ch(r)uch going theist and a chri$tian that
>>>chruch was a BIG bore. I know people who prefered ch(r)uch over sex. I never
>>>understood why.
>
>>I'll take both...but not at the same time..;-)
>
>I'll take both...at the same time. Who says sex can't be spiritual?
>

Ah, the temple prostitutes, ...

Give me that ol' time religion!


-- 
---  As Seen In soc.religion.islam:  You can dance the whole day
alone in your room, or with your wife and family at home, but you cannot
do that in a disco.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:01:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.154032.25642@gboro.rowan.edu> 
kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:

>The Spanish monarchs had declared being a practicing Jew "the greatest, most
>perilous, and most contagious of crimes."  Spain was a Catholic country, and
>someone who rejected the Catholic religion had forfeited his right to live
>in a Catholic country.
>
>Using the philosophical framework that Ferdinand and Isabella lived in, the
>expulsion of the Jews was completely justified and perfectly consistent.

OK, if I might jump in here; the issue is not one of moral relativism.  The
absolute standard is that of the Tanach/OT.  By that standard, the rebelious
son's crime is not trivial.  Also, by that standard F&I were wrong in what
they did in Spain.

You are holding an implicit axiom, that you have not stated; namely that
there is not an absolute standard for morality (or at least, that you
cannot know it).
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: More GOOD NEWS from Pat Robertson
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:31:46 GMT
Summary: springboard, news, new competing service

In article <C18K9M.A9w@phage.cshl.org>, pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
> The liberal press are Nazis and Fascists and Christians are their target. 
> 
> This is an accurate summary of a fierce 10 minute harangue
> i just sat through. Can someone defend this?

This could be the culmination of a new news service from CBN
coming this February. SpecialtyNews(tm) will begin competing
against all the biggies on the networks with a new and balanced
reporting of the latest.
[from the latest and most current Flame newsletter]

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: ankh (you very much?)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:59:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.203859.2506@rtfm.mlb.fl.us> joshua@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Joshua Geller) writes:
>SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen) writes:
>
>>Imagine, if you will, outliving not only all the friends of your youth
>>and your middle age, but also all of their great great grandchildren.
>>Then imagine the enormous weight of memories, both good and ill, and the
>>vast network of associations with pain and pleasure that any possible
>>event would acquire, and the steady decrease in the novelty of daily
>>experience.  One would have to be wholly other than human to endure such
>>a burden.
>
>I don't know if someone who lived that long would be considered 'human'
>in the full sense, but if you have the potential to you can always decide
>not to at some point.

Not to mention the problem of MEMORY storage!  You'd be counting on your
toes in about 500 years, I'd guess.

Blessings,
Janis 

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc