HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 31 Dec 92 12:49:29 GMT
	<ksand-301292174306@wintermute.apple.com> <C04CrJ.Mv0.1@cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <C04CrJ.Mv0.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:

   >I'm surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet, but nowhere is it
   >claimed by any competent geometrist that the premisses (we mathemeticians
   >like to call them 'axioms' or 'postulates') of Euclidean geometry are 
   >in fact 'true.'

  I thought it was best not to risk overloading Kent's circuits. But you
are right of course, and in the case of axiomatic set theory, many of the
people who actually prove things in the subject would say that the axioms
are strictly speaking meaningless. They're wrong, of course, but their
opinion is perfectly compatible with axiomatic set theory being a subject
abounding in logically valid arguments.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: God's Lil' Buddy
Date: 23 Dec 92 04:05:36 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: world		



|/(rpitts)
|/I think you are the one who wants to debate - note your capital letters.
|
(me)
|What?
|
|Capital letters don't indicate a desire to debate.  They indicate a desire
|to force you to address the question that sieferman asked.  Which, true
|to your evasive form, you have not done yet.  You ask people to believe
|you, to trust in your god, and you won't answer questions about it. 
|Why should anyone put any confidence in you when you won't answer questions?


/(rpitts)
/What?
/I've answered the questions and will do so again 

No, you have not.


/(rpitts)
/- could it be that you
/misunderstood or maybe you fail to understand my responses?  

No, I understood what you said.  However, what you said does not qualify
as an answer to the questions I posed.  So I will ask it again:  in light
of the fact that the bible contradicts the physical universe, provide
proof that the miracles happened as they are written.



(me)
|Would you buy a car from a man who wouldn't tell you anything about the
|car?  I don't think so.

/(rpitts)
/If you were a saleman, would you continue to deal with a customer who 
/was agressive and verbally harassing you?

Look, Pitts:  I am not trying to "sell" anything.  You are the one who
is out trying to win everyone over "for Christ and His Kingdom".  It is
up to _you_ to provide the information about the "car"; you are the one
trying to get me (and everyone else) to "buy" the car.  When you try to
proselytize for your religion, you are trying to "sell" me something.  If 
you cannot answer basic questions about the merchandise you want to sell, 
then stop trying to sell it until you *can* answer the questions.
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Origin of XMAS tree and XMAS wreath?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:37:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, viviana@igor.tamri.com (Vivian Aldridge) says:

>Hi,
>
>Does anyone where and how the Christmas wreath and the
>Christmas tree originated?  Is it Christian? Is it
>Pagan? .....???
>
>Thanks!
>Vivian
>              .     .  .      +     .      .          .
>         .       .      .     #       .           .
>            .      .         ###            .      .      .
>          .      .   "#:. .:##"##:. .:#"  .      .
>              .      . "####"###"####"  .
>           .     "#:.    .:#"###"#:.    .:#"  .        .       .
>      .             "#########"#########"        .        .
>            .    "#:.  "####"###"####"  .:#"   .       .
>         .     .  "#######""##"##""#######"                  .
>                    ."##"#####"#####"##"           .      .
>        .   "#:. ...  .:##"###"###"##:.  ... .:#"     .
>          .     "#######"##"#####"##"#######"      .     .
>        .    .     "#####""#######""#####"    .      .
>                .     "      000      "    .     .
>           .         .   .   000     .        .       .
>    .. .. ..................O000O........................ ...... ...
>
>
The tree is a relatively recent thing.  It originated in Europe, as I
recall.  Wreathes, on the other hand, are very pagan.  They are generally
yonic symbols.  (The yoni is the female sexual organ....)


-- 
All propositions are true in some sense, false in some sense and
meaningless in some sense.  
                               --Hagbard Celine H.M. S.H.
<this is a signature virus, to spread it, just copy into your sig-file>
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Catholicism
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:24:36 GMT

In article <92366.094202U56597@uicvm.uic.edu> <U56597@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>I was christened and grew up Catholic.  In recent years, my family has been
>attending a non-denominational church.  However, I would like to return to the
>Catholic church.  Would I have to go through a re-confirmation (I did take
>communion and everything, too) or have a confession session or would I just
>go back?

   Hi Karla, it's wonderful to hear that you wish to return to the
Catholic Church.  The Church teaches that Baptism and Confirmation can
only be administered once.  If you have already been confirmed, then
there will be no need to be reconfirmed.

   What I would suggest you do is to begin attending Mass as soon as
you feel you want to.  It would probably be a good idea to go to
Confession as soon as possible, and to wait until after that before
you begin receiving Communion again, even if you do attend Mass before
that.  I wouldn't worry about Confession; it shouldn't be frightening
or anything like that, and the priest won't yell at you or anything.

   The reason I think it's important to go to Confession (a.k.a the
Rite of Reconciliation) before going to Communion is that receiving
Communion signifies unity with the Church.  Since you have left the
Church that unity probably won't fully exist until you have been
reconciled again.  If anything, I think you'll probably "feel better"
after you've gone to Confession.

   If you feel that you've forgotten (or never learned) many Catholic
teachings, you might consider attending RCIA (Rite of Christian
Initiation for Adults) sessions.  These are sort of adult catechism
classes.  They are normally for people who are planning to be
confirmed, but often there are a couple of people who have already
been confirmed, but just want to "brush up on" their faith.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
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: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 08:32:37 GMT

lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
: 
: How do you explain those people with whom the craft has been passed down 
: from generation to generation since before Gerald Gardener's birth?  I
: know someone who is one of those people.  As a genealogist I can tell
: you that even family stories hold keys and evidence to past events.  It
: is a major lead to genealogical discovery.  All family stories have
: elements of truth in them.  The trick is to seperate the facts from the
: chaff.

There has been no documented evidence presented. All we have is claims
by various people. If such traditions existed, you would assume that
someone, somewhere, would have written something down. No such documents
have ever been uncovered.

... delided ...

: Where the hell did the ancestors of people who have had the craft
: passed down get it if Gerald Gardener wasn't even born yet?

From all the evidence we have - they didn't get it, or have it. There
is a lot of old folk medicine - however, that is not Witchcraft.

I, among many others (such as Margo Adler), would very much appreciate
any documentation that would prove my above statements to be false.

Bill
From: parker@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (in ever-tightening circles...)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Happy Winter Solstice
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:41:32 EST


WHEREAS: There being no credible evidence for their existence, all gods
         (and goddesses) are constructions of human imagination;

WHEREAS: The Winter Solstice is the REAL "Reason for the Season", long
         predating the invention of the "jesus story" alleged to have
         occurred at this time of year;

BE IT RESOLVED: To all thinking human beings [in the Northern Hemisphere :-)],
                have an happy, peaceful, enjoyable Winter Solstice.


Entered On This Net_Node December 21, 1992.

+---------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
|        Gary Parker        |       E-Mail: parker@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com      |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
|                      Men make gods in their own image                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Allen-Bradley Company,|
| its parent company, or subsidiaries.  Your actual mileage may vary.        |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Choosing a Bible translation
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:57:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec21.074533.4832@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
> My own personal conviction is that IF the Bible is REALLY the word of God, He
> can manage to keep it meaning what He originally meant it to mean.  There is
> no such thing as absolute meaning even given a perfect translation, as the
> _real_ meaning is the form it takes in the reader's head.  Enter the Holy
> Spirit, which will allow a person to believe the truth, even as love would
> dictate.  Don't ask me what that means, I just typed it in a daze as it is
> 2am.  

I do think that you rather elegantly -- by mistake -- also described
why the Christian world today is split into separate doctrines.

My personal opinion is that an omnipotent God would certainly make
sure that the universal truth is clear and explainable in one single
way.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:45:07 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec23.232546.6068@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) wrote:
> > 2000 years ago. Maybe you realize my dilemma, I might as well
> > start believing in Mitras. Mysteries are mysteries, and sometimes
> > they are good reading, but to just have faith in them requires
> > something my skeptical mind is not willing to give up.

> Let me tell you something about all the confusing Christianity's
> running around and how I dealt with that in my jump:-) When I
> did jump into reliance on Him(J), the [religion confusion(TM)] was
> the farthest thing from my mind. I went into total reliance on
> Him and Him only which short-circuited all the confusion. I've
> been that way for over ten years. If I am ready, and led to a
> group of believers, I'll do that, but it hasn't happened yet.

I guess this depends on the mind of the person, some people could 
happily accept many things  related to faith. After ten years working
in the computer field I think I have seen the reality concerning
hype and vapor-ware, so in that sense it's our background that mold
our personalities. 

Which leads to the Heidegger view of the world where nothing can't
be defined universal because our brains accept feedback and are constantly
modified based on the environment. Another issue why I don't believe 
in faith and ultimate realities.

Have a nice vacation,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24633 alt.pagan:14585
From: casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 27 Dec 1992 23:17:04 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: atlantis.cs.orst.edu

In article <1992Dec27.202836.18230@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>>folk-magic.  I, who am a Witch, use witch to mean that.  If, however, they 
>>refer to Wicca as something other than what it is, then I will complain.  Also,
>
>Yes, I mostly refer to Wicca as something other than what it is.  Can
>I hear you complain ?

I think that Humpty Dumpty had the same general outlook on language usage.
He came to no good end.
>
>>if they are trying to imply that Witches are Satanists I will get annoyed even
>>if they don't use the word Wicca.
>
>Hold it right there, you are using Satanist with a capital S and that grieves 
>me no end.

What the heck...most people refer to Christians with a capital C don't they?
Just two sides of the same coin.

BB
Paul



-- 
                          * * * * * * *
"It is possible to join forces, to identify common goals, and to agree on
 common action." - U.N. World Commission on Development and Environment
		       casspa@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WITCH was PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 26 Dec 1992 18:13:18 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) says:

>
>I was under the impression that despite claims otherwise, modern-day worshippers
>that call themselves witches generally started their religion in modern times,
>rather than having a direct connection to ancient worshippers.
>
Mostly, this is true.  There do appear to be a small number of traditions
that are quite old, however, most modern witches follow a form that was
developed at the beginning of this century.

-- 
All propositions are true in some sense, false in some sense and
meaningless in some sense.  
                               --Hagbard Celine H.M. S.H.
<this is a signature virus, to spread it, just copy into your sig-file>
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose; ANSWERING ------> Willard
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:02:15 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <adfl02Ef2eHs01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>However, Kermit, you refuse to even look at the evidence.  Not all
>Mormons are like that, several have written to me in presonal mail and
>I have given them info for them to research themselves and make their
>own decisions.  From this I have seem several Mormons come to know the
>true Jesus.  So I do think there is point to all this.  Even though

In that case, I'm sure they would be anxious for you to divulge
their names in support of your cause so we could check you out
on this, and perhaps add their voices to yours.




-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:51:00 GMT

sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
: In article <1993Jan1.092719.17208@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: >
: >From what I have read in the Bible - Jesus did not say this. He is  
: >supposed to have said "I am the way". That does not deny others as
: >also being valid. He was only claiming that his way was valid.  I
: >would expect, if the people who collated the mythology called the
: >Bible had meant "only", that they would have written it that way.
:  
: Doesn't the rest of the verse go "no man comes to the Father but
: through me?"  Scarcely a ringing endorsement for other ways.

Nope. Nor is it a denial. I do not recall any attribution stating that
a person must worship his way. That is a much latter addition, by the
followers who wanted to suppress all other competing religions.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 29 Dec 92 05:49:38 GMT
	<TORKEL.92Dec28112115@lludd.sics.se>
	<ksand-281292142215@wintermute.apple.com>
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <ksand-281292142215@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
 (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >So the prime issue is then when do we define that a building block
   >is valid for constructing logical statements?

  This "prime issue" is obscure to me since I don't know what you mean by a
"logical statement" or a "valid building block".

   >Well, we might disagree on this issue - and that's fine.

  Disagree on what? This is a simple technical issue. In logic, the validity
of an argument has nothing to do with either the premisses or the conclusion
being in any sense verifiable. If you object to this, I suggest that you
explain what (non-standard) sense of "logically valid argument" you have
in mind.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: 12/22/92   God's Promise in Hebrews 9:12
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:11:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <Bzn2Fv.CvI@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
(Robert Weiss) wrote:
> 	Neither by the blood of goats and calves,	
> 	but by his own blood
> 	he entered in once into the holy place,
> 	having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Paul at his best!

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24892 alt.pagan:14768
From: lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Angela and I (was Re: The meaning of "pagan")
Date: 1 Jan 1993 03:12 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec31.185333.19687@wam.umd.edu>, angelai@wam.umd.edu (Angela I.) writes...

>In article <31DEC199211503855@elroy.uh.edu> lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:

>>In article <1992Dec31.054444.27043@wam.umd.edu>, angelai@wam.umd.edu (Angela I.) writes...

>>>In article <30DEC199203090145@elroy.uh.edu> lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:

...post deleted.....


>I am sorry that I misunderstood you, and obviously you have misunderstood
>me.  Perhaps we could both be more careful of our word-choices and
>avoid further misunderstandings.

Agreed.  I will endevor to do so.

Please accept my apologies.  If there is one thing that ticks me off quicker
than anything is for someone to put words into my mouth, whether they be
bad or good.  This has happened with great frequency recently and I'm 
afraid that you simply got the backlash.  It is not an excuse, and I do
truly apologize.


> 
>Love and blessings,
>Angela
> 
>-- 
>**************************  angelai@wam.umd.edu  ****************************

*HUGZ*

Blessed Be,
Tammy



Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24563 alt.atheism:24279 alt.pagan:14518
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: God etc
Date: 24 Dec 1992 07:01:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) says:
>In article <uX4qVB1w165w@momad.li.ny.us> siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:
>>torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>
>>>   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?
>
>>    Then enlighten us, O sage, what precisely is relgion about?
>
>The observed fact that humankind has always searched for something 
>outside of himself points to the conclusion that we are incomplete in
>ourselves.  Some might say it is a learned behavior, nevertheless if
>we really didn't need something beside ourself and outside of ourself
>then there wouldn't be such searching as is evident cross-culturally
>throughout the ages.

A fair definition, but limited in scope.  Many religions believe not in an
external god but an internal one.  God is not "out there" rather it is "in
here".  
-- 
All propositions are true in some sense, false in some sense and
meaningless in some sense.  
                               --Hagbard Celine H.M. S.H.
<this is a signature virus, to spread it, just copy into your sig-file>