HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Accuracy of Texts
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:02:53 GMT

In article <722093130.413@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>Eric Rescorla (rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu) wrote:
>: 1) Much of the DSS was released years ago. You can pick it up in any
>: decent bookstore. The books have titles like "The Dead Sea Scrolls
>: in English."
>  The DSS scrolls fall into four main categories.
>
>  a) Versions of existing Biblical texts. Almost all (?) released
>  b) Commentaries on same. Much released
>  c) The copper scroll (list of treasures of Temple). Not released
>     (for reasonably good reasons)
>  d) The so called 'secular' documents which are, apprently, actually
>     religious documents internal to the Qumran community. Not released
>     for no readily apparent reason.
As I say, academic infighting.

>: 4) The reason that the portions of DSS which were  not released
>: were not released is, as far as I can tell, that they were fragmentary
>: and therefore took much longer than anticipated to translate. 
>
>     Many scrolls have been translated for many years and not released
>     hence the anger of Allegro and Eisenmann.
I do not know this to be the case. Remember, this isn't just a case
of doing a first pass translation but rather of the scholars involved
trying to do a real good job. I fail to see why any scholar who
had in fact done a good translation of a scroll would choose not
to release it.

Remember, a conspiracy to hide the scrolls can't exist if the scrolls
are not hidden.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "capsco one" <capsco.one@canrem.com>
Subject: what is marantha?
Reply-To: "capsco one" <capsco.one@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:16:29 EST

In regards to the end of the world...

> Steve Matheson <sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu> writes:
>> "capsco one" <capsco.one@canrem.com> writes:
>>> Steve Matheson <sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu> writes:
>>>Jesus himself said that even he did not know the date and time.
>>
>> Whatever happened to omniscience?  Was Jesus lying?
>
>Who said Jesus was omniscient?...  No, Jesus wasn't lying.
>
>Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona

Mark 13:32 says "But of that day or hour no one knows, neither the
angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."

Now this is pretty confusing, 'cause the Father and the Son are supposed
to be one person.  1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in
heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are
one".  John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

The authors of the Bible certainly try to give the impression that Jesus
was omniscient.  He makes all kinds of predictions, including his
betrayal by Peter (Mathew 26:34), plus predicting his own death on
numerous occasions.  (Matthew 16:21, 17:21, 20:18, 26:2).  If he wasn't
omniscient, how could he have done this?  Did God tell him?  I can
almost hear the conversation now:

God: Hey Jesus, did I tell me I'm gonna destroy the world?  It's gonna
     be a great show.  Lots of earthquakes, signs in the Sun and Moon;
     men fainting.  Should be lots of fun.

Jesus: That's great.  When's it gonna be?

God: Sorry.  I can't tell me.  It's a surprise.  But I want me to
     go down to Earth and warn everyone.  Tell them "this generation
     will not pass away till all these things have been accomplished".
     That'll keep 'em on their toes.  Oh, and by the way, I'm gonna be
     crucified on a Friday.

Unless of course you don't believe that Jesus was God?

Joe deSousa                     I don't speak for CAPSCO
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:30:04 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov19.221401.27880@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:

[on comparison of 'clitorectomy'with 'circumcision']

>You drastically overstate the comparison between the two.
>
>The pain associated with circumcision is transient; the
>pain associated with the other operation is massive,
>and it causes intercourse to be painful.  The effect
>of circumcision on sexual pleasure is essentially
>unquantifiable; the effect of the other operation
>on sexual pleasure is drastic.

 Why inflict *any* pain if it is not strictly necessary? I suppose
one can justify it with "God said we should do it, so it must be
worth it," but it's not a reason that would convince many on this group...

>Americans have far more "barbaric" practices:  in
>our community (Connecticut) it is almost universal
>for teenage and pre-teen girls and occasionally
>boys to have holes punched through their earlobes
>and metallic studs and rings forced through them.
>I would say almost 90% of the girls in my daughter's
>school class are "victims" of this form of mutilation.

 Interesting that you put 'victims' in quotes. Considering that this
practice is engaged in voluntarily and sometimes against the wishes
of the parents, I think it puts it in a different class than
circumcision. Circumcision is practiced at so early an age that I
doubt anyone could call it 'voluntary' and mean it.
 When you consider the case I read about where a baby boy was
raised as a girl due to an accident during circumcision, it does
give one pause. Not that any risk precludes the practice, but *I*
wouldn't do something like that to someone who cannot possibly make
the choice to take such a risk.
 Yes, I *am* circumcised, but not by choice...

>Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: HERETICS
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:27:40 GMT

In article <92323.211145MHB108@psuvm.psu.edu> <MHB108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>     Religious people are full of crap. I have almost never met a supposedly
>religious person who practiced what he or she preached.
I have.

> Religious fanatics
>have no place in the United States.
I disagree with this completely. They have precisely the same level
of place as you or I do.

>they can heal people . Overly preachy people really rattle my nerves.
I find them annoying, but not disturbing.

>     Yes I am a heretic. I think it is more important to try and be a good
>person and treat others with respect than whether or not I am going to
>be saved by some entity I am not even sure exists.
I tend to agree, but that's because I don't believe the entity exists.
If I did, I imagine I would feel somewhat differently.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Keywords: Cure
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:37:47 GMT

dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.161003.27772@bnr.ca> ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:
>>>Seems to me a Believer is a lot like an Alcoholic.  They are both 
>>>unreasonable and the more drunk they get the more irrational their
>>>actions become.  After all we do try to help alcoholics and drug
>>>addicts, so why shouldn't we try to help Believers.  
>>
>>Interesting idea.  How many people are aware that the most well known
>>treatment for alcoholism, AA and its Twelve Steps, advocates giving control
>>of one's life over to God?  Without this God (or Higher Power) some even say
>>that it's impossible to recover from alcohol (and other drug dependencies).
>>So, the cure for the disease is itself a disease?
>>
>>Yes, yes, i'm aware that there are "atheists" who practice the twelve steps,
>>but i think you really have to twist the words to do that. (Somewhat like
>>fundamentalist christians twist the Bible.)
>>-- 
>Or maybe could it be that the alcoholics are just given a replacement drug,
>namely some delusionary beliefs = God.  Therefore the alcoholic is still not
>cured, but rather has now a different problem.  Wonder if that's why there
>is so much danger from recidivism. 

Yeah. Saw on a current affairs program some bloke who reckoned he had been
cured of his Dungeons and Dragons "habit" by becoming a born-again fundie.
When he went over the "evil" things he had been thinking whilst in his D&D
junkie stage it didn't sound too bad to me. Really felt sorry for the dude
because he'd gone from a form of mindset which he had some form of control
over into a mindset which is ordained for him by church leaders for which he
has no say. Mind you the current affairs program interviewed him as though
he was one of the stronger willed recoverers from some sort of satanic cult
(sorry David, but you know how everyone else thinks about those dreaded
imaginary things) and were asking him about what it was like to be
brainwashed as if he was now completely clear of brainwashing (made me want
to puke actually).

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: PROOF OF GOD
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:25:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.155216.6484@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> y41@aix320b.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood) writes:
>     Well, enough nonsense about God. Since everyone seems to have run 
>out of clever arguments I think it's time to search for God.  But, 
>before we go off looking, we gotta figure out what the heck (I don't 
>believe in hell!) we're looking for.  So, before we can find the guy, 
>girl or whatever it is that we are looking for, we need to figure out 
>what the heck it is. Otherwise, an organizied search would be fruitless.  
>Does anyone out there know what we are looking for?

God is a great Mystery.

This is why I became an Atheist, I am not a big fan of mysteries, I'll
take a good sci-fi over a mystery any day.

jc
-- 

What we really need to do to bring peace to the middle-east
is to get the Jews together with the Muslims
and teach them to act like good Christians.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21721 talk.religion.misc:21610 alt.politics.homosexuality:7441
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 10:29:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
> In article <ednclark.721452810@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey
> >                                In fact there are few printable words  which
> >are said with as much sneering hatred as pooftah, and to a thirteen year old
> >it is a big worry that you might be one.
> 
> I dunno. This argument is so often heard, but such a worry never crossed my
> mind. Maybe I was too preoccupied with trying to appeal to girls (in which I
> was unsuccessful at that age)...

When a few kids tried taunting me by claiming I was gay, I smiled and blew
kisses at them.  They didn't know how to respond to that.


mathew
-- 
"... A socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to
 leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
 capitalism and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson on Feminism

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: RCircumcision
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:15:09 GMT


The real tragedy is that the practice of circumcision creates circumcisers.

Jim Copeland
-- 

What we really need to do to bring peace to the middle-east
is to get the Jews together with the Muslims
and teach them to act like good Christians.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: suopanki@stekt5.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Reply-To: heikki.suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi
Organization: University of Oulu, Dept. of EE, Finland
	<1992Nov18.151044.23933@watson.ibm.com>
	<1992Nov19.092029.24644@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
	<1992Nov19.221401.27880@watson.ibm.com>
	<dpn2.124.722235695@po.CWRU.Edu>
	<gmiller-201192094210@gmiller.worldbank.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:28:03 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:55:29 GMT, gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller) said:

Gene> Is there anyone who can elaborate on circumcision outside the
Gene> Judeo-Christian tradition?

I think Muslims do it too.

And I also want to point out that Europeans don't generally
circumcise their sons.

-Heikki
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Accuracy of Texts
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:14:54 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Re: Suppression of large numbers of the Dead Sea Scrolls

There is a discussion going on in sci.archaeology on this topic.  There
is little sympathy anymore for the excuse that scholarly excellence is
the reason why the scrolls have not been published.  It has gone on far
too long for that.  There seem to be three schools of thought as to why
the scrolls are being kept back.

1. (conspiracy theory a) that the Vatican or other unnamed Christian 
authorities have suppressed scrolls that contradict the New Testament.

2 (conspiracy theory b) that other groups (not necessarily Jewish) 
have suppressed scrolls that tend to confirm the New Testament.

3. (academics as usual theory) That plain old academic greed has kept 
the scholars holding on to the texts as personal sinecures guaranteeing 
them academic clout and lifetime employment.

So far, the only evidence I have seen is for (3), and the rest seems
to be mere speculation.  Of course, a reason (4) should be included
in that some of the delay is for legitimate scholarly reasons.  But
in my opinion (3) is the most likely.  I guess it's time to start
reading BAR to keep up with the latest.  Whatever the reason, it
certainly is an outrage that these texts are being hoarded in this
way.  Nobody, Christian, Jew, atheist, or sceintist, or any combination
thereof, should have any objections to making all the texts available
at least in facsimile form.  I think BAR is trying to push for that.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: God As Drug
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:42:01 GMT

In article <62130@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>In the anti-AA line of argument, several people have written along the lines
>of this person:
>
>>Or maybe could it be that the alcoholics are just given a replacement drug,
>>namely some delusionary beliefs = God.  Therefore the alcoholic is still not
>>cured, but rather has now a different problem.  Wonder if that's why there
>>is so much danger from recidivism. 
>
>Besides being a rather facile comeback, this fails a very basic test.

What very basic test does this fail Mr. Wingate?

>One could understand the christian faith along the lines of
>
>(1) People are basically sick.
>
>(2) Cause of illness is alienation from God.
>
>(3) Cure is injection of God through baptism and faith in Jesus (wh,. in
>    this scheme, serves as a sort of God-pill).
>
>Therefore, saying God is a drug is weak; the problem from a christian
>perspective is that you refuse to take your medicine! :-)

Yes, I suppose one could understand the christian faith along these
lines.  One could also concoct an almost infinite number of other
cockamamie explanations.  How shall we resolve which cockamamie explanation
is best?
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: No Sex in Heaven -- It's Official (was Re: Pascal's wager)
Date: 15 Nov 92 12:13:07 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

stucki@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu (David J Stucki) writes:
> (1) Christians don't "go to heaven". I challenge you to find a
> scriptural reference in which human beings are going to inhabit
> heaven. Heaven is the throne of God, not a place in which people
> exist. According to the book of Revelation, there will be a new heaven
> and a new earth. It is the new earth that will be inhabited by God's
> people.

How does this tally with the Pope's recent comments, then?

For those who missed the news, the Pope has announced that there will be no
sex in heaven.  So if you decide to become a Christian, your eternal life
will be an eternal life of enforced celibacy.

Or, of course, you could pick Satan.  A recent article in a local paper
claimed that Halloween was the peak recruiting time for Satanists, and that
naked Satanic perverted sex orgies occur regularly in Cambridge. 
Unfortunately they didn't say where...  Damn!

> (2) Being a Christian does not involve a sacrifice of freedom. Rather, it
> provides access to complete freedom. It is the non-Christians who don't
> enjoy freedom.

What freedom am I missing which I'd gain if I were a Christian?  I can think
of plenty of freedoms I'd lose.


mathew
[ I'll probably get some proselytizing mail about this article.  I've had
three lengthy "Accept Jesus into your heart!" messages mailed to me in the
last week.  It seems to be the peak time for this sort of thing.  I suppose
it takes the Christians this long from the start of term to find out how to
send mail... ]
-- 
"... A socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to
 leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
 capitalism and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson on Feminism
From: vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Pascal's wager
Date: 14 Nov 92 15:33:50 GMT


In article 92Nov13110455@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu, stucki@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu (David J Stucki) writes:
::Let's clear up some of the misunderstandings in the above posting.
:
:(1) Christians don't "go to heaven". I challenge you to find a
:scriptural reference in which human beings are going to inhabit
:heaven. Heaven is the throne of God, not a place in which people
:exist. According to the book of Revelation, there will be a new heaven
:and a new earth. It is the new earth that will be inhabited by God's
:people.
:

  New heaven / New Earth in place of "old" heaven does not change the basic
argument.

:(2) Being a Christian does not involve a sacrifice of freedom. Rather, it
:provides access to complete freedom. It is the non-Christians who don't
:enjoy freedom.
:
    Whats this complete freedom ? Freedom to do anything on  blind
faith in the name of religion ?

:(3) 90% of belief (or faith) is wanting to believe (or have faith).
:Pascal's wager is a starting point for many people that develops over
:time into a more mature faith. Too often people will think that they
:know or understand how God thinks, which is a dangerous assumption to
:make.

But to start believing, one has to use this very weak argument, I can not fathom
how strong will be the structure of faith built on it.  And if you think the person
anyway wants to believe, then in that case he/she really beyond the point of
looking into problems with his/her belief. Once one has already made point
about wanting to believe, then any such argument is just being used to make the
belief stronger without actually looking into the problems with the argument.


-- vinayak dutt
-------------------------------------------------------
                                           vinayak dutt
            Medical Sciences Building (2)   Mayo Clinic
                                     Rochester MN 55905
                                   e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu
				      FAX: 507-284-4705
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum --
"I think that I think, therefore I think that I am."
            -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-------------------------------------------------------
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: No Sex in Heaven -- It's Official (was Re: Pascal's wager)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:47:21 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <k550TB5w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>
>For those who missed the news, the Pope has announced that there will be no
>sex in heaven.  So if you decide to become a Christian, your eternal life
>will be an eternal life of enforced celibacy.

    I missed this!  Although in retrospect I would have predicted that this
would be the position of the Pope, I didn't know he had actually said it.
Do you know where/when, or have a reference?  Thanks.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.
From: johnsd2@vccsouth07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Pascal's wager
Date: 14 Nov 92 03:02:20 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccsouth07.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

[ Quoting trimmed a bit - moderator ]

In article 92Nov13110455@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu, stucki@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu (David J Stucki) writes:
>(1) Christians don't "go to heaven". I challenge you to find a
>scriptural reference in which human beings are going to inhabit
>heaven. Heaven is the throne of God, not a place in which people
>exist. According to the book of Revelation, there will be a new heaven
>and a new earth. It is the new earth that will be inhabited by God's
>people.

Then what is the basis of the common belief that if you are a good
doobie, when you die you go to 'heaven'?

>(2) Being a Christian does not involve a sacrifice of freedom. Rather, it
>provides access to complete freedom. It is the non-Christians who don't
>enjoy freedom.

Dubious at best. Can you justify it.

>(3) 90% of belief (or faith) is wanting to believe (or have faith).
>Pascal's wager is a starting point for many people that develops over
>time into a more mature faith. Too often people will think that they
>know or understand how God thinks, which is a dangerous assumption to
>make.

Due to the problems with the wager, its a pretty bad basis for
anything. But what the hell, if it works...


---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.