HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<adams.724125297@spssig>
Date: 12 Dec 1992 09:08:28 UTC

In article <adams.724125297@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>Well, I'm still looking...I get some guidance from various areas.  I think
>>>my opinions are consistent, if nothing else.  I do have the confidence
>>>about my own discernment...don't know if that's good or bad.
>>Just out of curiosity -- what is the source of your confidence?
>Good question.  If I say from myself, that denies that there is more to it
>than that, and I believe there is.  That confidene comes from God, through
>the Holy Spirt.
>I suspect that the atheist response to that is that it does come from me,
>and me alone, and I just won't take credit for it.

Aha! The perfect chance to present my Zen Koan [J. ko,public + an,matter]:

"Worlds above and worlds below, no *ONE* in the world like me!"

Of course your confidence comes from God, through the Holy Spirit. 
But, these are after all metaphors. For what? 

Koan#2: "I am not the *ONE*."

Koan#3: "If I am not the *ONE*, who is?"

Koan#4: "What is the meaning of a rock?"

Koan#5: "Who is number one?" 
        "You are number six." 
        "I am *not* a number, I am a free man!"
        "Hah hah hah hah" - nervous Dan Quayle laugh

"A'ight, thas it, we audi" 	- Sir Too $hort , coming straight from
Oakland!, Cali - fornia, home of the ROCK!, speakers in the trunk
beating down the block, life is to some people heaven on earth, if you
been living my life you'd know what it's worth, you can take back all
the things you give but you cain't take back the days you live, Life
IS, [Too $hort!] And while you're in the studio, I'm in the trunk!
[beating down the block]

Worlds above and worlds below, no one in the world like Sir Too $hort,
or - YOU!

Final Koan: Does saying this, even loudly, make it true?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Zarathustra speaks!, was Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec16.180711.9630@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 17 Dec 1992 06:03:45 UTC

In article <1992Dec16.180711.9630@ac.dal.ca> 
hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In fact, there is no way to know whether or not you are dreaming at this
>moment. (sound familiar? :) 
>I have spoken! :)

If one finds oneself in a dream, how would one WAKE UP?
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:30:32 GMT

ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus) writes:
: 
: Well I, for one, do not consider Christianity the 'accepted norm.'  I accept 
: few norms.  (Peterson, for example).  I do not think that sticking with a name
: that tends to help people misunderstand you to be realism.  Using a different
: name would have a more positive effect, especially amongst cynics who have *way*
: too much fun with the word pagan.

If you have a problem with a word that a group of people have chosen to
describe themselves - feeling it "silly" - then it is YOU that has the
problem.

: (This is, btw, called "pragmatism").

No comment.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24105 alt.atheism:23926 alt.slack:3524
From: ecasey@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Edward Casey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: Deep Thoughts
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:02:37 GMT
Organization: Florida State University

In article <fWFUrDH@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Jack Handy) writes:
>What if -
>
>A gigANTic, doNUT shaped, white space vehicle landed on earth -
>And a tall, blond, Aryan-looking fellow stepped out and yelled so
>***LOUDLY*** that eveRYONe in the world could hEAR:
>
>"FEAR NOT! FOR I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA AND I AM HE THAT LIVETH AND
>HE THAT DIETH, YET BEHOLD, I'M BACK! AND DON'T CALL IT A COMEBACK, I'VE
>BEEN HERE FOR YEARS! ATTENTION ALL BELIEVERS, YE WHO CALL THYSELVES
>CHRISTIANS AND YE WHO ARE BY NATURE SHEEP! HERE'S YOUR MESSIAH! NOW,
>MAKE HASTE, COME QUICKLY MY SWEETIES, INTO MY ARK OF DONUT SHAPE, (sorry,
>it's the beast I could do on sUCH short noTICe, at beast I got a good deal!),
>COME ABOARD THE JEHOVAH-1, (aye, she be a just ship), FOR WE ARE BOUND TO
>THE KINGDOM OF YOUR LORD. COME MY EAGER SERVANTS AND MEAT YOUR MASTER.
>FOLLOW ME AND BE FREE."
>
>Would the aNSWer ever be in QUESTion?
>
>Even if you sudDENly found yOURsELF stRANGEly supERSTitIOUs?

I, for one, would gleefully follow the herd down to the landing site,
watch as they boarded (were eaten by?) JHVH-I, wave bye-bye as it lifted
for parts unknown, and then PARTYYYYYYYYYYYYYY


Dr. Shigmar Ignatius Unmentionabilis, The Barbarian
Dali Llama, First Discordian Church of the Sacred Moustache
Impotentate of the Illuminati
Anarch of the Whole World, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1gu158INNd35@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 1992 07:16:43 UTC

In article <1gu158INNd35@agate.berkeley.edu> 
key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key) writes:
>a word is a word.  and its meaning can change.  perhaps i am that
>arrogant fool who thinks he can change the conotationns associated
>with 'pagan'.  at the very least i want to try.  
> ...
>ps 'queer' is/was a derogatory term for homosexuals.  the homosexual
>	community has adopted it and reclaimed the word, and
>	now 'queer' is used as a word of empowerment

Yeah, that's the trick. Turn the energy of the words of oppression right
around and back at the oppressors, they can't deal with it, it cracks
them up. These words are supposed to keep you down, you're not supposed
to revel in them. Downpressor man, we're ya gonna run to, on that day?
And still you want to live like nine-oh-two-one-oh while we scream out,
YO! Let's talk about a revolution. What's left, my >conscious< says?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: What would you have said?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:04:41 GMT

pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White) writes:
>|> >I don't have any figures. However, you do bring to mind that there can
>|> >be a difference between the message and the way it is carried out. 
>|> >Just because people foul up, doesn't necessicarily invalidate the message.
>|> No, but it makes it harder to swallow as a way of life or an influence in
>|> government, for example.
>I definately disagree. Any honest person knows that people make mistakes.
>So a religion where the claim is that every one is perfect who subscribes
>to the religion is suspect, not vice versa.
Let me rephrase my position, since your point was good and mine was misstated.
I feel that Christianity as an institution, a 'religion,' and as an organized
force has done far more bad than good.  Moreover, it has done soe while 
violating its own ideology flagrantly and repeatedly.  Not just honest mistakes,
but serious masses-killing whoppers of ridiculous proportions.  Thus, I feel 
that church is invalid, that people trying to 'save' me is invalid, that the
Moral "Majority" is invalid, and that Christian influence in government, as an
institution, is a spooky thing, not to be trusted when one looks at history.
 
>Government in particular needs all kinds of influence because of the
>abysmal job it is doing. Almost any influence will improve government.
Yeah, point taken.
>|> 
>|> >The Bible teaches that Christianity is a call to receive eternal life and
>|> >a call to become Christ-like. It does not say, that giving your life
>|> >to Christ results in immediate perfection. In fact, it says that the
>|> >Christian can expect to grow in spirit throughout his life. 
>|> Yes, but Christ never killed.  Thus, it is *never* Christ-like to kill, and 
>|> thus the statement that Christians kill more than they are killed is a pretty
>|> well-pointed critique of Christianity.
>|> 
Again, I am critiquing the religion in an organized form, not the individual 
faith.  The church is corrupt.  It needs hard core reforms.  Until those 
occur, I am not interested.  Any belief that is so compellingly true would 
surely, in my view, be harder to corrupt on such agigantic scale than that.

>|> ______________
>|> Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
>|> ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:59:34 GMT

A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk (Alan Robinson) writes:


>Go on then- answer the subject line.

The chicks, man, the chicks!

mark
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Defining the kingdom of God
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:37:02 GMT

In article <ksand-121292154754@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com
(Kent Sandvik ) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec10.144623.16650@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
|>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
|>> Mr. Sandvik suggests this is not an example of valid logic.  His
|>> support for this statement is an attack on each of the assumptions
|>> listed above.
|>> 
|>> While the assumptions are each controvertible, I note that arguing
|>> against the assumptions does nothing to refute the logic of
|>> Christianity's conclusion.  For the purpose of constructing a logical
|>> statement, the assumptions are held incontrovertible.  We ask, "If
|>> these assumptions hold, does this conclusion follow?"  If the answer
|>> is yes, the conclusion is logical.  The above example passes this
|>> test, and is thus an example of logic in Christianity.
|>
|>I agree that this is an excellent example of 'Christian Logic'. However
|>if you can't show that each one of the premisses are valid, then you
|>are indeed on the same thin line of reasoning Christian philosophers
|>are (in)famous of.
|>


I think this is what is the problem:

>For the purpose of constructing a logical statement, the assumptions
are held >incontrovertible. 

I'm not sure what "incontrovertible" means, but I think he is saying
that the validity of the assumtions don't matter when determining
if a statement is logical.
 
>We ask, "If these assumptions hold, does this conclusion follow?"  

If the moon is made of liquid iron, then the moon is hot.

>If the answer is yes, the conclusion is logical.  

"The moon is hot" is logical.

>The above example passes this test, and is thus an example of logic in
>Christianity.
                       
To Christains, the moon is hot.


This is how Ken interps Gregg's post.  I hope Gregg wanted to point out
that a logical conclusion is not ness. a TRUE conclusion.
I don't see what Gregg's point was, because, as I have shown, ANY
conclusion can be logical given the right assumption.  I don't
think that this is a very important point in a logical sylogism.
Whatever.

Brian /-|-\
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: God etc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Distribution: talk
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:06:05 GMT


  I find it baffling why, from the point of view of religion, it should be
considered a question of importance whether or not there is a God who
created the world, or again, whether or not Jesus was in fact a Savior
of mankind. Surely all this business about the universe being created,
about eternal life, about damnation and power and hopes and fears, is
irrelevant to what religion is about?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Atheist, speak up.
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:34:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.183252.117@cs.cornell.edu>,
rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
|>What does it mean to be a Christian?
|>
|>
   
To worship Christ.

Come on!  I'm still waiting for your answer to "What does it mean to be
a Muslim?"!

Brian /-|-\
===================================================
The Truth is still the Truth 
even if you choose to ignore it.
John 14:6
===================================================
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose; ANSWERING
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:34:16 GMT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <39C=02gI2e7I01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

[...]

> Are they heretical?  Point is, the book existed when he WAS
> Apostle, and if it was heretical, he would have made the changes
> that he was "enlightened" with when he became Apostle.  He did
> come out with a new version when he was Apostle. Maybe that is
> what he did?!?!? 

In a sense he did do this.  His later works (ie: the Messiah
series) correct some of the mistakes made in _Mormon Doctrine_.

McConkie intended MD as a jumping of point to motivate others to
read and study the scriptures.  Even though some things in his
later works contradicted things he had said in MD, he felt no
need to go back and correct them, or to "cover his tracks".  If
people were really interested, they would study the scriptures
for themselves to find out, which is exactly what McConlie wanted
them to do.

> What does the "Prophet" do then?  If he is a prophet of God, shouldn't
> he be able to set us straight on what IS doctrine?

Yes.  Try looking in an institute manual, like _Doctrines of
Salvation_ for Religion 231, or in the intitute scriptural
comemntaries.

[...]
> I don't think the book is Scripture, or even official.  But McConkie was
> an apostle, next in line to be prophet, but he died, and his views are
> worthy of consideration.  

Nope.  Howard W. Hunter was, and still is next in line.  McConkie
was still a few places away from it.  The senior member of the
Twelve (the president of the quorum) is the one that is next in
line.  Currently that is Howard W. Hunter.  After that i think it
is Gordon B. Hinkley, Boyd K. Packer, Thomas Monson, and on down
the line.

Maybe a referesher course on succesion in the presidency in the
LDS Church.
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What would you have said?
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:01:26 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <Bz67u4.J2A@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
|> pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White) writes:
|> >I don't have any figures. However, you do bring to mind that there can
|> >be a difference between the message and the way it is carried out. 
|> >Just because people foul up, doesn't necessicarily invalidate the message.
|> No, but it makes it harder to swallow as a way of life or an influence in
|> government, for example.

I definately disagree. Any honest person knows that people make mistakes.
So a religion where the claim is that every one is perfect who subscribes
to the religion is suspect, not vice versa.

Government in particular needs all kinds of influence because of the
abysmal job it is doing. Almost any influence will improve government.
|> 
|> >The Bible teaches that Christianity is a call to receive eternal life and
|> >a call to become Christ-like. It does not say, that giving your life
|> >to Christ results in immediate perfection. In fact, it says that the
|> >Christian can expect to grow in spirit throughout his life. 
|> Yes, but Christ never killed.  Thus, it is *never* Christ-like to kill, and 
|> thus the statement that Christians kill more than they are killed is a pretty
|> well-pointed critique of Christianity.
|> 
|> 
|> ______________
|> Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
|> ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 

-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
	Matt	Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you
	11:		hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk,
	4-6		those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead
	NIV		are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.
			Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:22:19 GMT

key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key) writes:
>not every pagan fits nicely into a cubbyhole.  there are many pagans that
>follow new age, neo-paganism, druidism, wicca, astaru, or any other named 
>path.  but there are also pagans who follow path that are eclectic and
>draw from many different paths.  these pagans, like myself, follow paths 
>with no names.  i feel pagan is sufficient.
I'm sorry, but I feel that, just like Christians, you're making things hard on
yourselves by refusing to identify that people 'out there' have a notion of
what that word means.  I dunno, I think of pagan and picture hairy men breaking
open bones and drinking the marrow.  I know that isn't the whole story (or 
perhaps any of it), but come on...

>and as for mocking christianity, how so?  christians don't have sole
>claim to the use of words.
No.  But they invented a few.  A fe that sound silly and pompous when they use
them.  Pagan is such a word.  Almost comical in connotation.  I don't mean to
insult you....I don't know what I mean to do.  Yeargh.

Matt I.

Remeber:
People Against Goodness and Normalcy......just the facts, ma'am.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Atheist, speak up.
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:03:33 GMT

Lest people begin to wonder, I'm going to explain one of the things i
said in my assessment of Christianity:

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
>>What does it mean to be a Christian?
>
> ...
>that you can count on other people to help you in times of trouble,
> ...

I wrote that line for a reason.  Members of the Campus Crusade for
Christ back in college always used to emphasize that they were bonded
by their faith, and that they were a brotherhood (I found it
exceptionally odd that they never referred to a 'sisterhood') who
would always help out one of their members who was in trouble, &c. &c.

I was confirmed a Lutheran at one point in my life.  My family did a
lot for our church; my father was the church's treasurer, my mother
taught a Sunday school class, and I was very active in catechism
classes and special events.  We helped a lot of people there, and
raised a lot of money for the church.

Then one day my father lost his job with Unisys -- he was laid off
because another person was willing to do the same work for a lower
salary.

Of course word spread quickly through the church, because some people
there had worked with my father.  Before long, a lot of people knew
about my family's plight, and we got a lot of sympathetic looks, and
it became rather obvious that people didn't want to bring up the
subject with us out of politeness.

Problem was, nobody from the church ever called us.  Dad was never
offered sympathy nor assistance in finding a new job.  He even left a
message for the pastor once, asking for any possible contacts he might
have luck with; the pastor never returned our call.

Meanwhile we continued to receive all the usual requests for donations
of our money and our time.  It was readily apparent that all these
nice people were being very hypocritical towards us, and eventually we
stopped attending the church.  We never heard from them again, except
once several months later when we received a notice that our year's
supply of donation envelopes was about to run out and that we could
buy another year's worth.

This is why I, personally, don't buy into the often-heard tune that
"Christians are better people than non-Christians."

I've got two more personal examples of Christian congregations being
thoughtless herds of pigs that I can recount here if anyone's
interested.  Sure, all Christians aren't bad, but enough of them are
that I tend to worry.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:33:58 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

Sorry, John, for misspelling your last name in a previous post on this subject.

In article <1992Dec20.030245.9794@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>You have conveniently ignored that in the OT Hebrew culture the two are
>synonymous.  A "young woman of marriageable age" had better be a virgin or
>she would be killed.  It is not stretching it to call all such women of this
>time period virgins, in my opinion.  Besides, you will never find a
>translation without such minor errors.  Thats what notes in the border are
>for, and you would have to burn every translation if you were this strict
>with all of them.

As I said in a previous post, it may not be a stretch to call such women
virgins but that is not what the word says.  'ALMAH is used everywhere else
in the OT (Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, 
Song of Songs (Solomon) 1:3 and 6:8) in the sense of "girl" or "maiden."

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:58:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.004321.15751@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:

|Willard missed what I said entirely. The LDS boast of living
|prophets is full of holes, and Bringham is a good example.
|The LDS hide behind the non-infallible veil, that no one is
|perfect. 
|It's probably my fault that you missed because I mentioned scripture.
|Certainly words from the Lord through ANY living prophet should be
|considered scripture, yet this Gift seems to be lacking;read on.
|Now my point again. The LDS living prophet displays no more
|ability to prophecy from the LOrd than your average orthodox
|believer.
|Bringham, as an example spoke alot of words that sound impressive,
|yet there is little or nothing of substance that even Mormons
|recognize as coming from the mouth of the Lord.
|Not much has changed since Bringham that I have read or seen
|which  indicates to me the "living prophet" boast is empty?

barry, I know that you love the last word, so I will make my comment and
let you slash away. Living Prophets while acting under the direction of
the Holy Ghost can speak God's Word to Us today! Living Prophets can
present additional scripture that may be included in the LDS canon.
Living Prophets can make prophecies concerning the future (AND HAVE).
Mormon objections to Anti-Mormon presentations of their beliefs generally
center around attempts to present unofficial pronoucements as official.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc