HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 9 Jan 93 07:12:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.192912.29102@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>
>Folks,
>   I have recently become aware of a lot (relatively) of people, specifically
>women, wearing ankhs.  Do they have a current symbolism, or have they become 
>a new "in" thing (again)?
>
>	mark

Ready to say it's the "in" thing.

Blessings,
Janis
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Daily verse BG 1.19
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:28:08 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

> Those Pandavas are such a stiff-necked bunch!

Actually, if you keep following the texts, you will soon see that they
were not. In fact, Arjuna's sentimental attachment for his "family"
members (his cousins the Kurus) almost results in disaster.

> >Such occurrences are not mentioned, but in this particular
> >verse it is mentioned that the hearts of the sons of Dhrtarastra were
> >shattered by the sounds vibrated by the Pandavas' party.
> 
> I've been to parties like this.  Lots of fun, until
> the neighbors complain.

This is not funny. You should try to control your mind and understand
what is being said.

> >This is due to
> >the Pandavas and their confidence in Lord Krsna. One who takes shelter
> >of the Supreme Lord has nothing to fear, even in the midst of the
> >greatest calamity.
> 
> Does this mean that bad things won't happen to me if I take
> shelter in the S.L., or that I will be so psychologically
> dissociated that I will no longer care when bad
> things happen?

If you take shelter in the Supreme Lord, you will see that everything is
actually being controlled by Him, and therefore it is good. God is good.
Material dualistic conceptions of "good" and "evil" are the result of
thinking that something is not under God's control, or that there is
some "separate" thing which is not related to God. This is a form of
mental illness, since God is everywhere, and everything is resting in
Him.

> And, what is this fetish you've got about conchshells?

This is also not funny.

> And, where is my picture of God?

Your picture of God -- as I have explained several times -- is in one of
the innumerable copies of Bhagavad-gita As It Is

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |             (kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)             |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Lines: 18
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 09:47:03 MST
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann, Software)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: BYU

In article <e7lv023730Qj01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (
Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>The point I was making was that John wrote that "you may KNOW that you
>have eternal life.  In Mormonism, you can't say that you KNOW you have
>eternal life without deceiving yourself.  You can HOPE, and TRY, and you
>MIGHT receive it (according to Mormonism that is), but you don't KNOW, as
>John says you should be able to; even for those who believe on the name!
>(1 John 5:13).
>

I think I have seen something important about how you believe things Anthony.
I have seen you use this phase a few times and correct me if I'm wrong but,

Are you saying that you KNOW that you are saved just because the Bible says 
so?

Answering this might resolve a few misunderstandings.
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:27:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.134638.13391@bsu-ucs> 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
> Is anyone goin to DC January 22, 1993 for the March for Life?

	Yes.  Not ME, of course, since I'm for Choice, but I'm sure
someone is going.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                                       The more you know, the less you believe.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25861 alt.atheism:25684
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:54:28 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan11.214149.22353@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
> I'm overreacting, I know, but just seeing Pat Robertson voicing a lot
> of arguments so one-sided I'm surprised they don't fall over is bad
> enough -- seeing him on TV, with the phones around him ringing off the
> hook with people pledging money to support him, really got to me.  How
> _dare_ he try to pass _himself_ off as the oppressed one!

I don't think it's so much that you are over-reacting, as reacting in
a particular way.

Aggressive Christianity seems to operate with two contradictory thrusts.
a) they're being persecuted because society isn't set up for them, and
b) they get to interfere in your life to make you "see the light".

Now one response to that is "Help, make them stop", but that's the
response they like , since then they have you on the defensive.   My
personal opinion is that a better response is that there are any number
of nut cases walking around, and these are no worse than most.

Of course, that we, as citizens, have to make sure it doesn't get out 
of hand.   Most of us wouldn't legislate panhandlers off the streets, but
we would object if they insisted on coming into our houses.   In the
same way, we don't need to silence Christians: we just have to make sure
that they don't take over the schools, libraries and local government,
or take liberties with the civil rights of others.

Think of religion as what it is: a strictly commercial operation which
happens to operate by getting its customers in a frenzy.   You don't
have to share that frenzy, and you don't have to suppress it.   All
you have have to do is help to keep it in its place.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Thank you for your responses  : ) 
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:18:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.165146.14614@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>And, oh yes, I've figured out and have been told quite vehemently how NOT to
>post to the alt.atheism group.  It seems that I've riled them up quite a bit, but 

No, you have been asked not to preach on alt.atheism, not quite the same
thing.  Intelligent discourse is welcome, unsupported assertions are not.
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:00:58 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <C0Hr21.6uM@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
<In article <ksiew.726230394@munagin> ksiew@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (steven kok-hsien siew) writes:
<> Death is a result of sin? Gee. I don't know. I've always thought
<> that death is when your heart stops beating or if your head gets chop off.
<
<   There are two types of death.  The first is physical, the second
<spiritual.  Sin eventually results in spiritual death, which is far
<worse than physical death.

Since an atheist doesn't believe in such a thing as "spiritual death",
you may be sure that when he says "death", he means `physical death'.
We don't care for the other kind.

<> Funny considering that the Catholic Church spend so much time and energy
<>stopping Scientific progress during the time of Galileo. And what does the 
<>church says about using anaesthesia during child birth when it was first
<>introduced? GOD FORBID!! So much for end the suffering of that girl. [...]
<
<   Galileo was not condemned for his scientific theories (which were
<wrong anyway -- the Sun is not the center of the Universe),

So?  Neither is the Earth.  The Sun is at least the centre of the
Solar system; the Earth is not the centre of anything.  Galileo may
have been wrong, but he was less wrong than the Church.

<but for saying they were the absolute truth,

This didn't make him any different from the Church leaders.

<and trying to mix theology into his science.

This didn't make him any different from the Church leaders.

<It probably didn't help his cause any that he was also
<an arrogant, obnoxious jerk.

This didn't make him any different from the Church leaders.

<   As far as anesthesia, all you've given is innuendo, so I'm not sure
<what exactly you're saying the Catholic Church did with respect to it.
<However, I do remember enough history to say that in the early days of
<anesthesia, quite a few people were killed by it, because the doctors
<using it didn't quite have it perfected yet.  So a condemnation of it
<at that time (which is what you seem to be implying) does not seem all
<that unreasonable.

A condemnation of it on the grounds that it carried an unreasonable
risk for the patient would have been reasonable.  A condemnation of it
on the basis of what some old book of drivel says is as unreasonable
as it can be.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 5 Jan 93 10:23:27 GMT
	<TORKEL.92Dec31134929@bast.sics.se>
	<ksand-040193164722@wintermute.apple.com>
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <ksand-040193164722@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com 
(Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >I think Euclid is a splendid example of where the mass agreement 
   >causes the premise to be accepted as a valid one, formal logic

  Interestingly enough, you don't show the slightest sign of having even
tried to read the article on geometry by Drake.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: angelai@wam.umd.edu (Angela I.)
Subject: Really?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:46:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.191022.8050@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k087682@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Scott A. Martin) writes:
>All Gods are one God, and all Goddesses one Goddess, and there is but
>one Initiator. -Dion Fortune

Really?  I never knew that Ms. Fortune was the Initiator!  Go figure.

(Just kidding.  Been an interesting last couple of weeks...) :)

-- 
**************************  angelai@wam.umd.edu  ****************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:12:54 GMT

In article <1ivb7vINN6if@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.102730.21302@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes
>>
>> Also the 60's weren't so bad.  I mean it gave us the Civil Rights
>> and it gave us a conscience.  Before we just treated Blacks
>> sub-human and we believed any and everything our govenment told us,
>> just like the Soviets...Strange isn't it?
>
>I'm glad someone said that.   I've noticed how hard some people
>have worked in the past five years to turn "the sixties" into
>some kind of synonym for Sodom and Gomorrah, in much the same
>way that they have managed to pervert the word "liberal".

i was not tryign to pervert the word "liberal". the last time
i thought about the sixties was a PBS special awhile ago that
was VERY interesting. the soundtrack was a long Grateful Dead
jam and it documented a certain march on washington. maybe the
soundtrack added to it but it certainly seemed pretty somber to me.
i am not saying it was a bad time, only that it was a hard time.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 1993 16:38:38 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Distribution: world
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
NNTP-Posting-Host: chaos.intercon.com
X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b31

We're drifting from Paganism, so I'm redirecting this to talk.religion.misc.
Drake, you should be proud--I don't think I've read a talk.* group in over 
four years :)...

In article <C0BpBv.5EG.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
> I think you need to explain what you mean here.  What you've said here 
> sounds suspiciously like a "baiting" question intended to lure the 
> target into making unjustified assumptions.  No thanks; what do you 
> mean?  I suspect that you mean more than the inclusion/exclusion of the 
> Apocrypha.  Are you referring to the different versions?  The non-
> canonical texts? 

There are several different aspects of this:

 - What books are included in the canon
 - What historical texts are considered to be authoritative versions of
   those books
 - What translations (both historical and contemporary) are considered
   "accurate"

For example, some sects do not accept the deuterocanonical books ("The 
Apocrypha") as part of "The Bible," while others do.  Sects likewise differ 
in which translations and historical texts are valid.  Some American 
evangelical and fundamentalist churches tend to use the KJV as their 
baseline, while others use the NIV.  Older churches tend to endorse the RSV & 
NRSV, while the Catholic church sticks with its own translations (such as the 
NAB).  Now, in the grand scheme of things, these are all renditions of the 
same texts, but in many cases the sense of particular passages ends up quite 
different across different translations.  This becomes especially important 
when a sola scriptura approach is taken, which lends great weight to isolated 
"proof texts" taken from scripture.

There is also the issue of the source documents; traditionally, Christian 
bibles use the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) instead of the Masoretic 
texts, which are the version accepted as canonical by most branches of 
Judaism.  Direct translations of the Masoretic canon have interesting 
differences from versions which have gone through Greek and Latin on their 
way to English, ranging from differences in phrasing to rearranged or 
different verses.  The JPS translation of the Tanakh is a beautiful example.

This continues in the New Testament as well; for example, the oldest known 
text of the Gospel of Mark (The Codex Sinaiticus) ends at the discovery of 
the empty tomb, and makes no explicit mention of the Resurrection.

There is no single authoritative "Bible".  The best we have are various 
compilations endorsed by one Church or another.  Since each church has its 
own set of criteria for selecting books and particular texts thereof, each 
ends up with a slightly different "Bible", despite the fact that they are all 
unquestionably related.



Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: PRO-LIFE SEASON'S GREETINGS
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Jan 93 15:31:58 GMT

I did a separate follow-up to the post below to talk.abortion.  This one
is a talk.religion.misc exclusive.

In <1992Dec31.064832.17735@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:

>In article <nyikos.725752055@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>Ever hear of Santa Claus?  ACLU?  Santa balancing creche scenes?

For the benefit of someone wishing to take my questions seriously, the
issue was that we could not celebrate Christmas if God did not exist,
according to Ms. Demetrio, and the above was my response.

>He doesn't balance them, dear -- he packs them up neatly in styrofoam
>popcorn and stashes them away in his sack.  Balancing them would be
>madness at that speed, in an open sleigh.

Ms. Demetrio obviously does not wish to pursue this issue, but perhaps
others will.

The ACLU obtained a U S Supreme Court decision that Nativity creches
on city property can be a violation of the separation of church and
state, unless they are counterbalanced by (1) symbols from other
religions, such as a menorah honoring Chanukah and/or (2) secular
scenes such as Santa and his reindeer.  Since Santa is thereby seen
as being disowned by the Christianity that originally gave rise to him,
I think that lots of people can be considered to be celebrating 
Christmas with no reference to the divine element in the holiday.

>>>> [Petey hopes] that they [the aborted] may indeed experience 
>>>> their First Birth
>>
>>>You'd like the 'little ones' who have already been *aborted* to experience
>>>birth?  Are you a reincarnationist, or just incoherent?
>>
>>It was an allusion to the "Second Birth" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing."

>Do you always use 'first' to allude to 'second'?  Ever coach Little League?

No, and no.

>>I say this for the benefit of people who tuned in late, since you know
>>damn well 

>Don't cuss.  Santa is watching you.

>>what I was talking about, 

>You overestimate me.  Which birth is which?  If you're tagged out on
>first, do you get to steal second?  

I sure in heaven hope the aborted little ones get to second, or whatever
you want to call it.

There is a special rule in baseball that if the catcher drops the third
called strike, the player can run to first.  The little ones
do usually strike out as far as the projected First birth is concerned, 
but I hope they get to first and/or second in some other way.  That would 
be nice.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:42:39 GMT

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>I am not going to repeat myself. Reread what I wrote above. Then go back
>to the Bible, and read the statement in context. Then try to find a place
>where the statement is "I am the only way".

It is not recorded that Jesus made such a claim explicitly; however, there
were some cases where he did so implicitly, such as this one.  The Bible
does say, in Colossians 1:20, that he is the only way.



-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Christian Bible(s)
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:37:27 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <root.726246641@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>The Roman canon contains these additions:

(11 selections deleted)

>The Eastern (Greek, Russian, Ukranian, Bulgarian, Armenian) canon contains:

(3 more)

But are these part of the canon, or part of the secondary canon (deurocanonical
books)?




-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 19:05:30 GMT

Ken Arromdee correctly observed the following,

     To be valid logic is not the same as being true or
     false; valid means that the conclusion follows from the premises.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) responds:

>OK, if we can't state that a premise is true or false, how could we
>then draw a conclusion about the logical validity of the outcome?

The answer to this question appears in Ken Arromdee's words above.
"Valid means that the conclusion follows from the premises."
Regardless of the truth of the premise, we can determine whether the
conclusion would follow _if_ the premise were true.

That Mr. Sandvik fails to see the utility of such an exercise is
not terribly interesting.

>In other words we agree upon premises in the case of science and
>formal logic/mathematics, but in the case of metaphysics some believe,
>some not, and the qualification ultimately depends on the personal
>world view.

All together now:  "Agreement on the truth of the premise of an
argument is irrelevant to agreement on the validity of the argument."

>In other words everything is logical if it makes sense
>for me... Intriguing...

This is an inaccurate paraphrase.  Mr. Arromdee's words suggest an
argument is logical if the conclusion follows from the premise.  The
result of this precise test, if applied properly, does not vary from
person to person.

>My concern could be stated in one single sentence, as long as we
>don't know what we are stating, we can't draw conclusions based
>on such premises.

His concern is unwarranted.  From the premise "P implies Q; Q implies
R" we can draw the conclusion "P implies R".  We don't need any
additional information to reach this conclusion.

Mr. Sandvik's chief concern is quickly dismissed by a look at the
first few pages of any logic text.  I believe we have strong reason to
doubt his claim of expertise in the field of logic.



                                      Gregg Skinner
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proslytization
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:06:55 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


In article <765351d6559795t248@witsend.uucp> dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions) writes

>Judaism *accepts* (and in fact welcomes)
>  converts, but joining the tribe isn't easy; there's certainly
>  no recruiting effort.

But recently there are movements to convince Gentiles of a set of seven laws (Noahide Code) which will supposedly help them achieve eternal life.

In fact, before Christianity came along Judaism WAS a proselyting religion.  The fact that it no longer is, says something about the convictions of modern Jews (my opinion only - no hate mail, thanks!)

>The teaching is that *all* good people,
>  Jew and Gentile alike, have a place in the World to Come.

This teaching contradicts the Hebrew Bible where God often told the Israelites to utterly destroy those who worshipped idols - Is Judaism now saying that these people will be okay if they're good people?

>  Details, however, are left to the Implementor.
>--- D. C. Sessions  

Maybe he's revealed those details in another religion

Vijay (ucakrvb@uk.ac.ucl)