HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:32:03 GMT

In article <BvD58q.Fz5@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.212356.5417@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>That is metaphorical. The issue of true/false is largely unimportant to 
>>>metaphors. I assume you are not a keyboard, but it doesn't matter.
>>Consider:
>>Kent is either a slow typist or a fast typist.
>>2. Is "foo" if Kent is a fast typist.
>>2. Is "bar" if Kent is a slow typist(e.g. two fingers, 2 wpm).
>>
>>You may not like the words "true" "false" but clearly there are metaphors
>>which are accurate and those which are not. Would you like to choose
>>words to go in for "foo" and "bar" to substitute for "true" and "false"?
[Bullshit deleted.]

Why don't you just answer the question, Mr. Harvey?
-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
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered....9
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:03:22 GMT

In article <Sep.26.01.18.14.1992.13571@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>It's really silly to claim to know more than the LDS about what the
>LDS faith is.

It's possible to know less than someone about a subject in general, while still
knowing some specific tidbits that they don't.  To claim to know one specific
thing that one LDS doesn't, is not the same as claiming to know more than "the
LDS" about "the LDS faith".
--
"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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:25:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <69033@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> I can see how you can say this, but the whole big issue seemed to key 
> off of Quayle's comments about the Murphy Brown thing, at least
> in my opinion.  Again, I believe his intent, not the media's interpretation,
> was that putting up a single mom as a model, for any thing/idea presented
> is really a model.  You may reject it, embrace it, or laugh at it, but it
> is still there to be evaluated.  The media has a lot of power and they
> can help turn the tide, if they want.

The really silly issue is that Murphy Brown (or the script makers and
the producers) didn't want to glamorize single parenthood as something
special. Here's where Quayle and his low IQ level caused the glitch. He
frankly believed that thousands of women all across USA would try to
get pregnant without establishing family bonds. Sigh, I sometimes wonder
how people think.

And it's not even a question of turning the tide, or establishing a new
trend. This country *already* has a lot of cases with single-parenthood
families. And the president could have addressed the problem 10-15 years
ago when this problem first appeared. It has accelerated, and guess who
has not talked about it until we have an election year, and lack of other
ideas?

> I think "Family Values" is an indicator not a scam.  Do you think there
> is NO connection between the stability of families and that of the
> nation as a whole???  To me, Family Values show the concern the leaders
> have for everyone.

I actually do believe that there's no connection between stability of
families and the economic crisis we have here just now. I'm raised in
a fairly liberal part of the world (Nordic countries), and we do have
economical and social problems, but those are minor compared with the
ones we have in inner cities of USA today. Also, there are a lot of
problems in highly religious countries of the world, including Christian
ones. There's more than religion in the social tango. Things are not
as black and white Quayle and the fundies want to see the problem.

Cheers,
Kent

Example of common sense, part 1:
Reporter: What would happen if science discovered some fact
          that contradicted Buddhist doctrine?
Dalai Lama: The doctrine would have to change.
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: LDS: Can LDS be Saved?
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 27 Sep 1992 11:16:09 MDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Brigham Young University


Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the
fundamentalists are right about Mormonism.  The question then
arises, can Mormons, as Mormons, be saved?  Or must they
abandon Mormonism to be saved?

I am LDS.  I believe that Christ was the Son of God, and that I
can be saved only through His atonement.  I believe I have been
born again and accepted Christ as my savior.  Can Christ atone
for my "sin" of "heresy" in regard to my other superfluous LDS
beliefs and practices?

If the answer is yes, then are not Mormons, at least in some
sense, Christians?  If Christ has saved me, am I not a Christian
by fundamentalist standards?

If the answer is no, then does this not clearly mean that
something more that just faith in Christ that is required for
salvation?  There is obviously some additional intellectual
assent to certain types of doctrines or ideas that are required.
Can we only be be saved by Christ if we believe in certain
fundamentalist doctrines about the nature of Christ?  Or can
Christ save anyone who accepts him, even if that person may
not have a full and proper understanding of all doctrines?  Are
there certain things you must believe or not believe in order to
be saved, beyond simple faith in Christ?

If Christ can't save a Mormon in his sin of heresy, how can He
save a fundamentalist in his sins.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:36:00 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct6.150056.5003@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
(Eric Rescorla) wrote:
> In article <70148@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> >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.

I agree that one can't state what is a myth or not. It's up to each
one of us. I do believe that the belief in elves is a myth. I do think
you Richard also agrees on this one. There are many things we both
could consider to be myths, there are things we disagree upon. Jesus
is a good example. Most likely he's a historical person, but it does
not automagically imply that he was a God.
 
> >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?

As it's now Jesus don't have any power over my writing :-). Anyway,
the Jesus-myth is a nice and beatiful one, with the exception of all
the blood and suffering stated in the Gospels and later doctrines.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Ark-athon
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:05:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <lc60qnINN9vq@news.bbn.com>, ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
wrote:
> Furthermore, the mountain now known as Ararat has been known by that name
> only for the last few hundred years; certainly not before the 13th or 14th
> century. 
 
> Earth-shattering?  Perhaps not.  But it is indicative of the level of
> knowledge of the participants and organizers of this event that they can't
> get straight so simple and basic a fact as this.

Actually, I'm thinking about driving up to Portland, Arkathon, that
sounds fun, maybe better than a SF convention? Does anyone have the 
ICR institute museum address, another looney place to visit?

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:32:55 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <70148@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> 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.  Is it that you
> realize that he demands a change in your life if he is true?  It
> is not that he was a real person, but that this person was God
> incarnate and he demands a change from you and you don't want it,
> 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.

I don't want Jesus to be a myth, it is the case. Same with Elvis,
or elves my grand-grand mother saw when she was a child. I agree
that Jesus has power over a lot of people, but this is also the 
case of political ideologies or Michican Uni football fans :-).

Otherwise I don't think anyone should reckon my own actions with
the exception of myself.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:39:45 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <1992Sep27.152421.1389@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>                         CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED! 
>      
...
>               First, Jesus Christ was NOT unique, John 3:16 NOTWITH-
>          STANDING.  There is ALWAYS at least one such perfect living 
>          Master (God Incarnate) PHYSICALLY ALIVE in this world AT ALL 
>          TIMES, a continuous succession THROUGHOUT HISTORY, both 
>          before and after the life of Jesus. 
>    
>               The followers of some of these Masters founded the 
>          world's major religions, usually PERVERTING the teachings of 
>          their Master in the process.  Christians, for example, added 
>          THREATS of "ETERNAL DAMNATION" in Hell, and DELETED the 
>          teaching of REincarnation. 

Yeah, sure.  And how do you know this?  Special, gnostic revelation?
Or perhaps Jesus didn't say:

  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:
  but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
  (Matt. 10:28)

  Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye
  did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these
  shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life
  eternal. (Matt. 25:45-46)

Anyone who fails to realize that Jesus Christ is absolutely unique in the
salvific history of the earth is being duped (by their Father the Devil).

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 03:06:02 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu wrote (in article <1992Sep27.152421.1389@cnsvax.uwec.edu>):
>               One such perfect Master alive today is an American, Sri 
>          Harold Klemp, the Living "Eck" Master or "Mahanta" for the 
>          "Eckankar" organization, now headquartered in Minneapolis, 
>          (P.O. Box 27300;  zip 55427). 
>    
>               Another perfect living Master is Maharaj Charan Singh 
>          Ji, now living in Punjab, India, and is associated with the 
>          "Sant Mat" organization. 

And yet ANOTHER perfect living Master, walking in our MIDST and being
KIND and JUST without having to CAPITALIZE a lot of WORDS (which looks
AWFULLY like a ZIPPY THE PINHEAD strip) is Colleen, the only DEITY who
responds to POSTS about her on USENET.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:07:16 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

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

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 06:28:13 GMT

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. 

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

> For Christ and His Kingdom,
> Richard Pitts
> 
> -- 
> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
> Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
>                         -|-  |  -|-
>                          |   |   |

RKP
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WHAT IS ALL THIS?
Date: 28 Sep 92 04:09:42 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep27.214355.3892@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>dale.lature@cccbbs.UUCP (Dale Lature) writes:

>To paraphrase Joseph Campbell, the proper purpose of religion isn't
>to change the world, but to teach one to live in the world.  That
>doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to change the world, but that
>we must start within ourselves.  Religion is a tool to help guide
>this inner investigation.

This sounds wonderful, but it seems to be quite a redefinition of the
word "religion."  It seems to me that the more religious people get,
the less introspective they get, and the more sure they get that their
own particular way of life is The Only Way.  It would seem that religion
is used as a tool to help stunt this inner investigation.  It's also a
tool used to so confuse people as to how the world really works, that
they wouldn't have a hope in hell of changing it even if they were
inclined to.

>Solving the world's problems is important,
>but not as important as finding a meaning in life.  I don't think
>anyone would say that the meaning of life is to relieve suffering.

Why not?  My purpose in life is to learn as much as I can, and to
use whatever I learn to do my part to fight ignorance, stupidity,
and superstition, in an attempt to finally get humanity out its
infancy.  Is my life incomplete?

>The goal of relieving suffering is to provide people with the 
>necessities of life to allow them to discover meaning too.  If you
>ask me, modern religion has lost track of its real purpose.

If you ask me, I'd say that religion has long outlived its
usefulness.  Man no longer needs superstitious mumbo-jumbo
and mystic fog to cloud his mind and overcome his feelings of
powerlessness.  We understand the universe pretty well now.
We're in control.  Well, sort of.

>P.S. I'm an atheist, but I think the metaphors of religions can
>be profoundly true.

I disagree.  I think that the metaphors of religions are profoundly
silly, much as you would expect from the primitive people who
generated them.  Not that I think we're much less primitive,
but I do think that trying to extract profundities from the
mythologies of cavemen is not the way to enlightenment.  They
do make interesting reading though.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: yohan@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 3 Oct 1992 17:33:52 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: caravan.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Sep30.152159.12918@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>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.

So what is mathematics based on?

>
>> 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

Such as?

>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.

Oh, so there is a logical proof for a religion?  Which one and what is it?

>
>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.

So what's your point?  Oh, I do agree that religion is a fascinating topic for
psychologists.

>-- 
>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."


Jon Newton
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:20:11 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Oct02.165856.1123@brtph560.bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|In article <69731@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
||> In article <1992Oct01.211109.17112@brtph560.bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
||> |cases, however, I distinguish between their AIMS and their MMETHODS. Again,
||> |do you support discrimination against gays (specifically such things as being 
||> |fired or denied employmeny BECAUSE of being gay) or not?
||> 
||> Depends on the situation - I can see why one would not want a homosexual
||> representing one's company.
|
|I can see why one would not want a black representing one's company (a 
|salesman for KKK press:), or a woman, or a cripple, or even a <gasp> christian.
|Is it OK in your view to fire/deny employment to someone BECAUSE THEY ARE A 
|CHRISTIAN? If not, what is the's the pertinent difference?

Can you see why a Christian group would not want a atheist representing them???

Is there no moral action that one can say that they don't approve of and
so reject a person for employment?  If one can, in this "free society",
pursue one's happiness, then why can't one support only the morals one
believes are correct?  Oh, is it just that homosexuality is 'right' and
we are wrong for disapproving of it.  Some would advocate the same for other
sexual preferences, too, you know.

||> >But you're willing to trash his/her life simply because he/she doesn't agree 
||> >with your (unsupported and irrational) religious views? With "love" like 
||> >that who needs hate?
||> 
||> Pardon me for stating my supported views.  Love is has many faces.  It doesn't
||> always say do what you want, but it can and should say "I love you too much
||> to keep letting you do that."
|
|Richard we all love you so much we can't go on letting your mind rot under 
|the strain of your evil worldview. sorry, but we're going to have to shoot 
|you. but you must understand it's beacause we love you.

Hmm.  I see the analogy.  NOT.  Your approach stops me because it is
hurting your mind, not because of it hurting me.   If you are more 
enlightened than I, then surely you can overlook my ignorant ranting? :-)

|"Live & Let Live" is THE FUNDAMENTAL NECESSARY rule for a free society. 
|anything else is tyranny.

How about children - do they get to do what they want?  Are any 
guidelines establish that go against their unhealthy exploration,
which is due to their lack of maturity?  Could they fall off the cliff because 
they were investigating in a dangerous area - wouldn't we stop them?  

Oh, I guess it is live and let live. :-)
 
For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |