HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep13.054345.9321@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:47:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.191909.4387@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>YHWH actually means something like "He who creates"

In article <fSwTEfg@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>No, it doesn't mean anything,

In article <1992Sep13.054345.9321@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>Ratshit. Go read a textbook on Hebrew Bible. You clearly don't understand
>anything about this issue.

Right away, oh great source of BUSHit. I should have known all along that
YHWH actually is the *secret* Hebrew word for "He who creates" and that
those crafty chosen people would not allow just anyone to know this. But
are you sure it isn't Yahweh or Jehovah? And what are the Hebrew
meanings for those words?

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> it is a marker for He whose name is not
>>to be pronounced, He who said, "I am that I am".

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>Yes, that's right, but it is most certainly a name.
>"I am that I am" is a pun, you dolt. In Hebrew, it's something like
>"eh yeh aser eh yeh".
>The entire exchange goes something like:
>"Who are you? I am that I am. But who shall I say has sent me. Tell
>them I am (eh yeh) has sent you. ..." eh yeh is a pun on Yahweh.
>In fact, the source is linking it to the verb to be.
>The J source is quite clear that YHWH is a name. 

I assure you that "I am that I am" is more than just a pun. Even you
yourself have been clever enough to detect that it is the conjugation of
the verb "to be", how observant. Now, please follow your observations.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>This is a much later development. The early Yahwists do not appear to have
>had any qualms about pronouncing the name. Later on, vowel marks are
>added to indicate that it is to be pronounced Adonai(Lord) or Elohim
>(God). YHWH is no less a name than Baal or Marduk.

Pronounce the name? Do you mean YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah? And this
verbalization by the early Yahwehists, I assume you have tape, audio or
video proof? Or is this some more divine inspiration?

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>The whole YHWH, Yahweh, JHWH, Jahweh, Jehovah
>is one gigantic misunderstanding of Judaism.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In a word, bullshit.
 
You said it, not I.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>It is a symbol, not a
>word. The transcendent is transcendent of name.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>Mystical bullshit. You clearly have no clue of what you speak, sir.

Yes, and you of course do. As always.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15880 alt.atheism:16762
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:06:50 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <graham.715833616@galois>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>> 	Pay attention. The stuff mentioned from ZPG was _stupid_. That's
>>> what I said, that's what I meant, that's my objection, and I've even
>>> explained why. What is your problem? Perhaps you'd like to defend the
>>> statement that the world can only feed 3.2 billion, when the present
>>> population is ~5 billion, and growing all the time? What do you think
>>> they all eat, sand?
> 
> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>It may have escaped your parochial American attention, but currently in
>>Somalia the United Nations observers estimate that some 5000 children are
>>starving to death every day.
>>Maybe the world really can feed 5 billion, but the evidence suggests
>>otherwise.
>>mathew
> 
> Mathew, I suggest you look at the case of Somalia a little closer.
> Unlike places like Angola, Malawi, the northern part of South Africa, etc,
> (which are suffering from 21 months of drought), the Somalian problem
> is entirely self-induced. Somalia has not been in a drought and used to
> have a strong agricultural sector capable of feeding the country and
> many of its neighbours. The reason they cannot feed themselves has nothing
> to do with being able to feed themselves, and everything to do with
> civil war. If they would stop fighting, they do have the resources
> to feed themselves.
> 
> graham
> --
> Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
> Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
> graham@maths.su.oz.au

Feeding themselves is not the issue.  The main issue is the enormous damage
being done ALL over the world by increasing populations which are expanding
into jungle and other environments and destroying them.  Read about the damage
done to non-human species in Madagascar, Brazil, all over North America, Asia,
etc.


"In China there are no old trees....."

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:16:45 GMT

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>Burning oneself to prove ones worthiness is foolish suicide that does not
>please God AT ALL and if I may say so does not exhibit faith....

FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE!

John, assume for a moment (and this is tough, I know) that you might just
be wrong.  Assume that they might be right.  Now rethink your comments.
Not everyone has a western view of life....not everyone values the
individual.  Not everyone WANTS eternal life!  The ultimate end for this
religion *IS* extinction!  Nothingness!  Eternal life is FEARED.

Try reading some far-eastern theology or religious texts.  The Bhagavad
Gita is not a bad start.  Totally different perspective than our western
one.

>There is a big difference between faith and stupidity, and I only apply it
>(faith) to one thing: that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and
>man, and the joy of my life (both now and "after").
In your opinion.  Look at it from THEIR perspective.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:54:24 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-040992185731@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Isn't it weird that a non-Christian is using Jesus' words against
>a Christian???

No, it is not weird - it is expected.  Satan used Scripture with Jesus and
Jesus responded with an it-is-written response, himself.  I again say that 
you, Kent, need to read the whole passage and see that God can save the 
rich man, but man (rich or not) cannot save himself by works.

>Cheers,
>Kent

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<4c7yqB1w164w@uuisis.isis.org> <1992Sep12.191909.4387@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 02:19:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.191909.4387@cs.yale.edu> 
>YHWH actually means something like "He who creates"

No, it doesn't mean anything, it is a marker for He whose name is not
to be pronounced, He who said, "I am that I am". When reading scripture,
one would say, the Lord. The whole YHWH, Yahweh, JHWH, Jahweh, Jehovah
is one gigantic misunderstanding of Judaism. It is a symbol, not a
word. The transcendent is transcendent of name.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15644 alt.atheism:16543
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:40:58 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <1992Sep02.041200.7810@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.213445.8989@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>>May I ask, Wulf, are you scared by the gospel message?  What about anyone
>>else out there, are you scared of the message right now?  May I dare
>>make the statement that I don't believe there are many non-Christians
>>out there who are fearful because of the gospel.
>
>Of course there are few non-Christians who are fearful of the gospel
>message.  If they believed the tripe enough to be afraid of it, they'd
>probably join your cult.  But the fact remains that threats of eternal
>damnation for those who are not members of the cult are quite clearly
>scare tactics designed to coerce the credulous into signing up.  And
>staying signed up.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Doug.  From our perspective, our
action is one of love and deep concern.  We believe the words of the
gospel are true and that the Lord Jesus Himself compels to reach out
with His promise of salvation.


>>I have the wonderful joy of seeing many people come to the Lord.  Yet I
>>see joy and freedom rather than fear.  
>
>You should try looking at it from the outside in.  Not a pretty sight
>at all.

I guess it's all what side of things you look at it from.

>>What do you see as our motive in gaining members? Money?  In fact, why
>>do you think we are believers in the first place?
>
>You are believers because you succumbed to scare tactics and other
>psychological manipulation, possibly as a child.  You try to gain members
>because that's what the virus which has destroyed your brain tells you to
>do.  In words: "Go and make believers of all the nations."  The virus has
>rendered you incapable of stopping to consider that by spreading it, you
>may be doing far, far more harm than good.

The reason is because God so loves us and has drawn us to Himself.  There
was no such thing as you describe in my life.  Rather I learned of the
love that Jesus has for me and the demonstration of that love by His 
giving up His life on the cross for me.  The virus is what we refer to
as the Holy Spirit of God.  Those who have been reached have been reached
at various ages from that of a young child to that of one on their deathbed.

>--
>Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.

Thanks for sharing your opinions, Doug.

-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:36:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <Btz7GL.1AL@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> Even looking at complex mathematics that nearly all mathematicians
> world view agree upon as universal rules, where's the universal
> religion?
 
> me writes:
> There's six little letters that are missing here, you get it on occasion at
> parties, seems like I outta start the esplaining. We are all a product of the 
> Big Bang, but I still can't believe I missed out on that party. So if you're
> down with this throw your hands up high and when you do it do it well, you're
> now down with a discount. Who's down with p-h-y? ... And s-i-c? Damn skippy
> I'm wit it!

Bizarre, brain overload? Anyway, so far *none* has shown me that
there's a universal religion based on Christianity. As long as you
are not able to give me this piece of evidence, my statement that
Christianity is not a universal religion is valid. 

It's really simple, Paul.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y)
Subject: Personal message to God
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 23:22:26 GMT

Hey!  Are you listening?

I'm still waiting for that lightning bolt, you know.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Hey!  Did you die or something?

Go on then, strike me down!

Hmm.  Looks like there's nobody home.  Damn.


Leif the .sigless
Yeah, yeah, standard disclaimer, do we have to go through that every time?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15753 alt.atheism:16621
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:24:21 GMT

In article <adams.715789414@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke) writes:
>
>[Biblical cites deleted]
>
>>There appears to be abundant Biblical evidence which indicates that the
>>Lord Jesus Christ will return as the judge of all the earth sometime
>>during September in 1994. 
>No man may know the day or the hour....
>No one knows the day or the hour except the Father, not even the Son, for
>the Father has not revealed it to Him...
>This is figurative writing...picking the 'month' and 'year' instead of the
>'day' and the 'hour' doesn't escape the admonition of Jesus...He has told
>you that you can't know.

How can you tell what is figurative and what isn't?  Perhaps the resurrection
was figurative too?
--
"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)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15771 alt.atheism:16636
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: JW humor
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:53:26 GMT

tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>  The point is that you normally won't say what you are thinking (You Do
>  Think I suppose) You prefer not to think on the net. You have over the
>  last year being caught lying, changing the subject of any argment (in the
>  US and England the phrase is weasling.) You post reference to newspaper
>  article from 20 years ago as scholarly reference. You demand that other
>  people support your argument by researching what you should have done.

	1. Lying. When ?
	2. Changing the subject. Yes.
	3. 20 years old refs. Yes
	4. Other people would support. Partly yes. Reasons: We don't have 
	proper scientific libraries here and the articles are written in  
	languages that I understand (and perhaps Kent), but the rest don't.

>  You dismiss others response as "rubbish" and now you been caught calling
>  someone on the net as being filled to the brim with _shit_.

	Not true. I only said that Kent was stubborn. 

>  Now do _you_ think that you have been misquoted or taken out of context?

	Partly yes, partly no. 

>  I simply wish to make the point that the vast majority of the JW's should
>  not be "tarred with the same brush".  To assume that you know anything
>  about Christianity, JW's and/or Biology would require a massive "Leap of
>  Faith", that frankly could not be otherwise justified.

	I don't have any hint how I could support your demands. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Organization: Masters student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Date: Mon,  7 Sep 1992 20:47:02 -0400 
From: David O Hunt <dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: atheist population
	<1992Sep4.205511.3169@spdc.ti.com>

>   I wonder if anyone has any idea what proportion of USA citizenry is
atheist?
>I have a feeling it's much higher than most people imagine. I would
guess there
>are many in the closet, so to speak, who may not admit to it if a poll were 
>taken. Has anyone out there ever seen any estimates? I'm curious as to how 
>much political clout we potentially have.
> 
>Jeff Achenbach
>achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

Well, I'm not sure about the percentage (ranges I know go from 1% to 10%).

"We" could, I suppose, be a considerable powerbase if we voted as a block.
The reason I see this NOT happening is that atheists, in VERY general, are
more prone to reason and tend not to be "one-issue" voters.  Hence, it's
hard to organize...

Of course, if Pat Robertson were the VP candidate I suspect we'd _ALL_ be
voting for the opposite no matter who it was!  :)

David
dh4j@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune on "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:26:06 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Sep12.211210.5205@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> In article <segZD5y00VpN5D0IMN@andrew.cmu.edu> Steven Timm <st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> >The Smith decision was that which banned the use of peyote in 
|> >religious ceremonies.
|> If you're going to talk about Oregon v. Smith, do it right.
|> It did NOT ban the use of peyote in religious ceremonies.
|> It PERMITTED the states to ban the use of peyote in religious ceremonies.
|> These are two very different things.

They are different things, but it does put a hole in the 1st ammendment.
The 1st ammendment says the government will not limit religion nor
will it promote a particular sect or religion.  There's another ammendment
(is it the 14th?) that indicates that no state shall deny people
constitutional rights.  Permitting states to ban peyote would be
equivalent to allowing states to abridge SOME religious sacrements.

|> 
|> >  But the results have been used to argue for
|> >the state in a variety of instances, and the results to religious 
|> >liberty have been disastrous in the three years since that time.
|> Hmmm...
|> What has actually happened?

I'm curious too.

Dan
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JW humor
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:34:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep8.151942.11299@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 	Besides, Kent mistranslated. I didn't say 'shit-head', I said 'piss-
> 	head'. In our language it means stupidly stubborn person. 

Yeah, sorry, I forgot the exact translation, "kusi" means piss.
As for having a serious and constructive conversation using
such words, I doubt. 

Anyway, in Finnish naming a person kusi-paa does *not mean* 
he's stubborn (itsepainen is the word for stubborn), instead it's a
slap-in-the-face grave attack.

If you consider such rude language to evoke logical empathy 
from my side, sorry, does not compute. Instead it clearly
shows your intellectual side.

Cheers,
Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: danoc@xtrek.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Date: 10 Sep 1992 19:54:43 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: xtrek

(ken bell) eloquently provides an example of why some people
have difficulty with the christian god concept:

 Concerning eternal consequences for inevitable acts there is perhaps an 
 even more difficult and fundamental problem, and that is: How can an 
 infinite consequence be metted out for a finite act undertaken with finite 
 and imperfect comprehension of their consequences?  

 <example deleted>

Here is yet another example of a central problem I see with
christianity, or even judaism for that matter. This scenario
and dozens like it make no sense to me. The heart of the 
problem lies not only in the situation, but more succintly
in the "answer" given: i.e., god's will, etc.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: SPIRTUAL HEALING
From: daniel.campbell@cccbbs.UUCP (Daniel Campbell) 
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:30:00 GMT
Reply-To: daniel.campbell@cccbbs.UUCP (Daniel Campbell) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS - Cincinnati, OH - 513-752-8248

Is there such a thing as Spirtual Healing? Wheres it come from? Where
can one harnas it?
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:20:39 GMT

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

>Someone:
>>[trying to explain where evil comes from]
>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>This doesn't explain how it arises....all it does is explain how it
>>mutates.  Where did it COME from?  Why are people evil?  Take Stalin or
>>Hitler...what made them evil?
>>
>>That's true.  God had advance knowledge.  If you've looked at all at the
>>coversations I've had with Sean Hartigan, you'll know I recognize this,but
>>still maintain that evil was actualized by man, even though it was created
>>(or at least the logical possibility of evil) by God.

>Steve you are making the same mistake you accuse the other poster of
>making, namely not explaining where evil comes from. Saying that God
>made evil logically possible is not an explanation of where evil comes
>from. First you have to answer why he did that, where did Gid get the
>idea of evil from (or did it pre-date him?), why did God make man at
>all, etc, etc

Actually, I've been over this topin on the net quite a bit...I have a paper
I wrote about a year ago on this topic (it's not great, but it'll do until
I have the time to rework it some).  If you're interested, I'll mail it to
you...it's too long to post, in my opinion (about 5 pages).

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558