HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidson@ccrs.emr.ca (David Davidson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Ha, I'm the pagan that posted  Jesus For President
Date: 27 Sep 92 07:38:22 GMT
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa

So, I have been threatened with eternal damnation, laughed with/at, and
generaly got the bile up of a few fundamentalists. Well, your damn easy
targets mate. This was my whole point...
I knew this would piss the lot of you off, and I would get some replys
saying that I shouldn't venture out in the next thunderstorm if I was
you, and thats just it, what kind of god would send some one to eternal
torture for making fun of him. For instance, If I was to pray,
(I'm kneeling as I type)
Oh God you are so big, gosh I meaan really huge, we are so very impressed
especially all of those floods and huricanes you cause, or could prevent
if you wanted, .....
so, if your diety wants to punnish me for all eternity just because I like
to point out the flaws in all the myths that have been generated around
He/She/It, and if you still think that I should burn in Hells fire,
please send me $19.95 US funds (no cheques please) to obtain a blessed
prayer cloth, my patented healing mantra, a vile of Pat Roberstons sweat,
and a guarrenteed place in heaven. amen.
dAVID. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: NIV Translation Question
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct2.134428.15777@engage.pko.dec.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:55:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.134428.15777@engage.pko.dec.com> 
pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.191024.29927@linus.mitre.org> 
szobell@mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes:
>>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.
>The NIV's rendering of this verse is neither new nor original.
>Long long before 1929, Josephus stated in his "Antiquities of
>the Jews" (Book 10, Chapter 5, Section 1) that Pharoh Neco went
>to help the King of Assyria against The Medes and the Babylonians.
>... and thus his account should be more
>reliable than the Masoretic text, which forms the basis of OT
>text in most Bible translations. 

Some more info on Josephus:
Ref: My People, Abba Eban, 1968, LibofCongress:68-27328

Josephus Flavius
Joseph ben Mattathis was born in 37 ce of a priestly family in
Jerusalem. Educated by Sadducees and Pharisees alike, he earned an early
reputation for his learning. The elite of Jerusalem would trun to him
for advice and interpretation of the Law. In 64 he was sent to Rome to
intervene on behalf of Jewish prisoners. He succeeded in obtaining their
release with the sympathetic help of Poppaea Sabina, the wife of the
Emperor Nero. When he returned to Judea he found the country seething
with unrest. He was appointed leader of the defense in Galilee. In this
he was bitterly opposed by the more fervent Zealots who had grouped
around Johanan of Gush-Halav (Gishala). Josephus was not cast in the
heroic mold. Besieged by the Romans in Jotapata he tried to negotiate
surrender. When he failed he was forced to fight with inferior forces.
When the stronghold fell, many of his comrades committed suicide, rather
than be captured by the Romans. But Josephus quietly slipped out of the
mountains and surrendered to Vespasian. Jewish history has few
renegades. Josephus entered it annals as a traitor. But his reputation
for inconstancy was mitigated by his literary achievement. He left two
major works of historic importance: Jewish Antiquities, a history of the
Jews from the Creation to the Roman War; and The Jewish War, an account
of the Jewish struggle against the Romans. Though written with a clear
apologetic bias, the latter is an unrivaled source for this period of
Jewish history. Josephus was also the author of Against Apion, a
polemical book which constitues the first detailed exposition and
defense of Judaism as a religion.
From: U52539@uicvm.uic.edu (--- BORYS ---)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Why can't most leave other's FAITH alone
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:05:46 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago


    It has come to unnerve me that most religions out there today try to
exemplify a way of life that allows for tolerance or at least love of the
man.  Why do so many people become FANATICS and violate other peoples' lives.

FAITH can not be proven.  QUIT TRYING TO SHOVE IT DOWN UNWANTING THROATS !!!
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are LDS Christians?
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:49:28 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <16696@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1fn102fg24hA01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>>
>>In testifiying about the Book of Mormon, the Mormons are glad to share
>>with you the testimonies of these men.  Of course, they don't share all
>>of the testimonies with you!
>>
>>This is reprinted from the Mormon Church section of the Deseret News,
>>Salt Lake Citym Utah.  September 20,1969
>
>Sounds like you got this "testimony" from the Mormons!  Don't they
>own the Deseret News?  The testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses
>were specially made for the Book of Mormon.  Obviously, at the
>end of Whitmer's life, he will have said much else.  Should everything
>he ever wrote about it be printed up and inserted into the front
>of the book just to make sure his testimony is complete?

Yes, the LDS Church owns Deseret News, and that is where I got it!  If you
go to Deseret News in Salt Lake City and look at the back records, you
can see the same article I posted.  They endorse it!

>>IF A MORMON TAKES THE PEEP-STONE OUT OF MR. WHITMER'S TESTIMONY, THEN HE
>>IS SAYING THAT WHITMER'S TESTIMONY IS FALSE.  If a Mormon says Mr.
>>Whitmer's testimony is true, then he is endorsing the occult.
>>
>
>What is the occult?

That is a specific question with a vague answer.  To answer it properly I
would have to post a long letter.  So no flames please.  The occult is
anything dealing with "mystical" or "supernatural" powers or influences.
Otherwise known as "Satanism".

>>Peep-stone gazing is a form of divination practiced by fortune tellers.
>>They would place a stone in a hat and place the hat over their face to
>>exclude the all light.  Then they would "peep" into the stone to "see"
>>lost items, or in this case, a lost language into English.
>>
>
>Where do we find this account of fortune tellers doing this with the
>stone and the hat?  (Some work not written about Mormons, I hope).
>I thought they used a crystal ball.  I never heard of the stone and hat.

In any Occult section of any used book store!

>>translation of the Book Of Mormon. Does God give his revelations through
>>a stone in a hat?
>>
>
>Are you presuming to limit God's options?

I asked the question, "Does he?",  not "Could he?".  Please don't mis-
understand the things I say.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17687 alt.atheism:18409
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:17:37 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct4.194202.25920@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
>Subject: Re: Faith
>Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:42:02 GMT

>In article <exukjb.283.718224886@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>>In article <fTq3rz2@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>>No, it was this idiot, what can I say. But maybe you are right. So, YO,
>>>>ERIC and KEN, WAKE UP! What do you guys think about faith based on
>>>>inductive logic?
>>>I have no idea, since your meaning for "faith" is unclear.
>>The most salient difference between belief and faith, as I have said before, 
>>is the component of valuation involved in the faith attitude, and which is
>>not present in the belief attitude.

>Well, yes.  This seems fairly reasonable.  However, it's not the definition
>that Paul seems to be using; as far as I can tell, he uses the word "faith"
>to refer to every belief (valued or not) as well as a bunch of other things.
>--
>"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)

Well, not exactly. My KJV says "Faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence [assurrance - Marg.note] of things not seen".  Hope is 
expectant desire, an attitude or disposition that presupposes a valuing or 
pro-estimate of what is expected.  Here we have, in fact, the two elements
that I'm suggesting are essential to faith--of any faith, not just religious
faith: valuation and the idea of absence of absolute or complete objective
certainty.

So it still seems to me, if I am reading this text aright, that my account
is so far sound.  Of course, I admit Paul has the right to use this word
stipulatively.  But I don't necessary think he's doing that here.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:55:33 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>>        The Bible warns us of 'another Jesus':
>>
>>  2Co  11:4 For if indeed he that comes preaches another Jesus,
>>  whom we have not preached, or ye get a different Spirit, which ye
>>  have not got, or a different glad tidings, which ye have not
>>  received, ye might well bear with [it].
>>
>>        And goes on to tell us who would present it:
>>
>>  2Co  11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers,
>>  transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
>>
>Well, I'm not sure what the historical context of that was.
>Paul was trying to warn the Corinthians about some impostor
>apostles I would suspect.  The idea that he is talking about
>the Mormons is ludicrous.

Do all the Biblical references that refute LDS Doctrine become
"historical" and not important to us today?  It seems that I run into this
response a lot!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:40:18 GMT

In article <lcjglpINNob3@news.bbn.com> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>
>Concering Rich Men not making it to Heaven:

But Matthew does not say "Heaven".  It says "Kingdom of Heaven".
In another article, I have quoted Scofield to show that 
"Kingdom of Heaven" (literally, Kingdom of the Heavens), as
used in Matthew, refers to the rule of the Heavens on the EARTH.
It is an EARTHLY sphere.  If you want, I can repost the quote
from Scofield.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dfavor@logan.tivoli.com (David Favor)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: In Defense of a Little Virginity
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:53:11 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

Omaha:
>	I'm afraid that marriage is still used for more than just
>religious. It's used as a means of bringing someone into the country. My
>husband was betrothed(in the traditional, medieval sense) to a woman of
>another rich family, and Elf's brother was betrothed to the woman's
>sister, to meld the family fortunes. Because Elf married me, he is now
>considered the "black-sheep" of the family. I kid you not. Marriage is
>still used to keep wealth in one place.

I've been spending my weekends studying Texas Real Estate law here of late.
I have been amazed at the nature of property law as it is generally interpreted
in the context of marriage. it's rather appauling. in essence the individual
that understands the law can create very beneficial scenarios for self while
insuring that the spouse involved is thoroughly screwed.

this situation rarely arises because few people are able to understand our
laws well enough to use them to advantage, however, the implementers of law
understand the connotations when law is written. the idea of using marriage
as a vehicle of securing and extending wealth is alive and well in the 1990s
and will probably continue for many years.

it saddens me to consider people entering into marriage as a business decision.
to me, it seems that all parties to this type of arrangement are entering into
a form of slavery. those in control of the situation, the slavery of the past
that suggests they continue this practice. those that are the pawns, the slavery
of giving up their hearts in the name of building wealth. sigh...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: thaddeus@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Thaddeus R. Crews)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:26:18 GMT

In article <BvEMI5.n34@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1acbmbINNqlu@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu> 
>yohan@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
	[stuff deleted]
>>Christians base their life on
>>a few feelings they have that are generally a result of upbringing or from the
>>tnedency to attribute everything they can't understand to god.
>
>Hmm, well I'm not a Christian so I can't really comment on that, perhaps it
>is true?

Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan... one should not go around talking in such
generalizations.  I am a Christian but it is not because of my upbringing
(I never went to Church until I was 15, and until then I had never heard
the word "Jesus" used in any form other than cursing), nor is my faith
(you said "life", but I think this is what you mean :-)) based on a lack
of understanding about the world around me, or any other non-understood
"thing."  I don't understand how people would want to have sex with goats,
but that is NOT why I am a Christian.  :-)

Faith is not a bad thing; in fact it is necessary.  Farmers plant seeds
in the faith they will grow (even tomorrows sunrise is uncertain, but I
have faith it will happen, and so I live my life as if it will rise).
[yeah, yeah, I know the sun does not actually "rise", so save the bandwidth
and don't write about the Earth's rotation etc...  that is not my point]
My point is we all live by some amount of faith.  The key in being a
wise person, IMHO, is to have a faith that is based on the best data
available rather than some blind faith.  And I believe Christianty to
be based on solid stuff (reliablity of scripture, my personal life, my
friends and their lives before and after Christ, answers to prayer, and
a solid and consistant understanding of the world around me).  Does this
PROVE Christiantiy to me? No.  But it gives me reason enough for my faith
to be solid and not blind.  Christianity can never be proved (or disproved)
apart from the direct intervention from God (or Ala).  So any Christian is
just that by Faith.  That is, I guess, why it says "without faith it is
impossible to please God."

And yes, Jonathan, there are Christians who were simply brought up that
way and have never really thought through why they claim Christianty for
their own, but they do not make up all the Christians as your statement
implies.

p.s. -- This is my first posting to alt.atheism, so go easy on the flames.
The rhetoric is not cared for, but sincere statements are appreciated.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Thad Crews                         (email thaddeus@vuse.vanderbilt.edu)
              "Crime would not pay if the government ran it!" 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:49:31 GMT

In article <68750@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}In article <1992Sep21.222435.20580@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
}>In article <68639@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}>>>>As my answer to 'proving' you (Mr. Meritt) are not a or the god, I will 
}>>>>appeal to time, for it is on my side.  If you are god, then time will tell.
}>>>Interesting.  Should I also use this procedure to decide about _your_ God?
}>>Yes, you may use this procedure, but I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND IT.
}>OK.  Why do you recommend it for one purported God but not for another?
}
}For I believe - that's why.  Simple, but that's my reason - there maybe
}a lot of reasons why I believe, but the fact that I do is my reason.

Good reasoning there, Richard.  You come up with two tests for me, and it
turns out that Jesus can't pass either of them, either.  So you fall
back on the "I believe - that's why".  Thank you for the abbreviated
summary of the emptyness of your understandings.  Clear, concise, not
uncommon, and a stupid thing to base a matter of life or death on.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:04:36 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <69367@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}In article <1992Sep29.164931.27666@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}|In article <68750@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}|}For I believe - that's why.  Simple, but that's my reason - there maybe
}|}a lot of reasons why I believe, but the fact that I do is my reason.
}|
}|Good reasoning there, Richard.  You come up with two tests for me, and it
}|turns out that Jesus can't pass either of them, either.  So you fall
}
}You asked me to prove you godness - Jesus did not.  Much less you 
}conviently forgot my final response - TIME WILL TELL - I've made my
}decision to follow Christ - you've made yours to not follow Him.

Like you point out, I didn't ask Jesus, I asked YOU.  And YOU don't seem
to be able to come up with anything that Jesus can do either.

BTW:  I've decided not to follow YOURS.  Interesting that you think that
YOURS is THE ONE.

}|back on the "I believe - that's why".  Thank you for the abbreviated
}|summary of the emptyness of your understandings. 
}
}I claim very little knowledge.  I am not that well read, but I guess
}your knowledge is so great that you can't say that OR is that your pride?

So?  You don't know.  Am I suppose to be suprised?
I don't need great knowledge to identify someone who himself claims
to ignorance (as you just did).

}|                                                 Clear, concise, not
}|uncommon, and a stupid thing to base a matter of life or death on.
}
}Believing in Jesus the Christ, God's Son, Creator of ALL that exists,
}is far better than believing in one's own understanding (that is putting
}your trust in your own ability to know everything.)  What can you
}do about your the extension of your own life or can you even make yourself
}grow taller.  I preach Jesus as Lord - who or what do you say is lord of
}your life????????

This is an example of your "very little knowledge", right?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Subject: Re: In Defense of a Little Virginity
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:30:49 GMT

In <37174@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jma@reef.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes:
>Did varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu really type:
>   > >   What if they don't *want* to be married?  
>   > 	Then they don't love each other.

>What?  Marriage and love have *NOTHING* to do with each other.  What
>is your basis for saing that two people who truly love each other are
>goig to marry each other?

	Hopefully this is not another definition problem. Marriage (as I define
it) is not necessarily any specific legal status, but a state of mind.
    
>   > 	Why? Obviously, if I hold an opinion, it is possible for me
>   > to believe that the opinion I hold is the best way. While this is not
>   > true of all my views, this one in particular is as such.

>However, the rules of social interaction decree that you recognize
>that your opiion might be wrong no matter how strongly you believe in

	They do nothing of the sort. There are certain opinions that
I hold that I do recognize as possibly being incorrect. But there are
alos those (this, drugs, abortion, God's existence) that I do not
and WILL not recognize as being wrong, because they simply are not.

		Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mls@unislc.uucp (Michael Simons)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:09:10 GMT

From article <1992Oct6.020716.26998@cs.yale.edu>, by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
> In article <cfhR02OR24a101@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>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.
> How far does this go, Mr. Rose?
> Your statement implies that anyone who deviates in the slightest from
> correct doctrine(or at least correct Christology) is damned. Is this
> correct?
> -Ekr
> 
I think you'll find that if you use the Fundamentalist Muckraker definition
of Christianity that pretty much everyone but them are excluded.  Mr. Rose
should tell us if he includes Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic,
Church of England, Presbyterian, Unitarian, etc, in his definition of
Christianity.

Mike Simons
Unisys -- Salt Lake