HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 30 Dec 1992 17:09:40 CST
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
 <1992Dec27.235003.4413@rosevax.rosemount.com>,
 <eharbin.725547983@convex.convex.com> <1hnejhINNnna@gap.caltech.edu>
 <eharbin.725567520@convex.convex.com>

In article <eharbin.725567520@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward
Harbin) says:
>
>>>On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?
>
>>How about in one of the many cultures that used to exist but have been
>>completly destroyed by Christian evangelism?
>
>>You see, Christianity has wiped out not just individuals, but entire
>cultures.
>
>By which you mean, you couldn't think of any in which you would choose to
>live.

Nope. What was said by the above poster (you eliminated the attribution for
some odd reason) didn't really respond to your question,but it was a fairly
adequate response considering your rhetoric.

What about Israel? You don't mean to tell me that it's a "Christian" nation
due to the fact that Judaism influenced Christianity....

>>Hmmm.  Here once again we see the collossal ignorance and arrogance of a
>>typical Christian:  I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that

>I'll accept your humility and openness as a model. Of some sort.

Who's to say you _haven't_ been?

>Put it
>this way, if you were in charge, I suspect the difference between anti-
>and a- religious would be negligible.

And if you were in charge...what then?

>A little too much heat here for mere
>neutrality.

Whose "neutrality" are we talking about,here? I suspect that your meaning of
the concept is more than a bit loaded....

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So much for frivolous lawsuits.**
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: Psychics' Predictions Fizzle For 1992
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:16:55 GMT

>do you really think people actually believe this obvious entertainment?

I'd say they do.  Aren't "psychics" sometimes used by the police or
is that bull*** dished out by the cons who call themselves psychics?
Last night I was watching a program where they were looking back at
the Lizzie Borden murders.  It was an intelligent program until they
brought in some "experts" to look into the case.  One was a criminal 
investigator and the other was a psychic and I turned it off.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: Chuck Missler and imminent Armageddon
Organization: LA&W RR
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 17:07:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.032541.16061@fsl.noaa.gov> bear@kestrel.fsl.noaa.gov (Bear Giles) writes:
>(How many of these articles originate in alt.messianic?  I can only post
>to sci.skeptic from work (although I correct the follow-up line) but if
>the originators don't get my response I should move this newgroup back
>to the University of Colorado...)

Actually, it started in sci.skeptic and got cross posted to
alt.messianic when the discussion was centered on the Messiah.  The
thread has degenerated into topics no longer appropriate to
alt.messianic, but still "lives" there.  =B^(

So please alter your newsgroups line to one group or the other as
appropriate.


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:48:55 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

>   On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?

>In the US of A, you moron!  The USA is NOT a christian nation,
>regardless of what scum like Pat Robertson, Ronald Reagan, etc., like
>to claim.

In fact, it's a Christian society with no established religion. I don't want
an established religion any more than you do, but I do want a Christian
country and I observe most of my countrymen are Christian - a state of affairs
I approve. Even us morons may express a preference - or is that too much
liberty for your taste?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson)
Subject: Re: Homeopathy
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:40:10 GMT

In article <6769@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.223832.21360@Princeton.EDU> rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes:

>#former.  I don't know whether Janssen's study is very high quality or
>#not, but I do know its claimed results comform to a growing number of
>#others.  Not to mention the direct experience of _many_ asthma
>#sufferers. 
>#
>
>Well, it seems I'll have to try to find it now and report on it.
>It'll take some time, though.  The universities here won't open
>until next week.  Maybe I was a little naive thinking that someone
>quoting a paper would have read it personally.
>
I would like to be able to read more languages, and travel about as
needed to find interesting articles.  In the case of the Janssen
article my knowledge is from summary mention in other sources.  I look
forward to hearing what you find when you have time to check it out.

Roger



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Date: 2 Jan 93 19:45:35 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
 
>|> [Hitler's] regime and his government, however, were not founded on
>|> Christian values.  That is the point that was being made (although
>|> I agree that Hitler's "religion" can cloud the issue).  I don't
>|> know of any Christian denomination at the time of Hitler that
>|> espoused the killing of non-Christians as even remotely following
>|> Christ.  I won't even mention the superiority of one race over
>|> another, etc. 

>This is highly misleading.   In reality, most of the mainstream 
>denominations in Germany expressed support for Hitler and for his 
>regime at some time or other.

[stuff deleted]

One cardinal convinced the Nazis that instead of preventing Jews
from breeding by sterilizing them, which of course the Church
regarded as wrong, they should be sent to concentration camps
instead. One more example of the warped mode of thinking that
is Christianity.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Crucifixion of Jesus?
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:06:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.005208.5507@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.020611.10243@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>
>>Jim, the English translation I have barely supports this the
>>theory.  I have transcribed the NIV translation below of the
>>passages you site.  If both of these texts started out as word by
>>word copying, then the translation certainly leaves something to
>>be desired!  Note, for example, that Matthew doesn't even mention
>>that the paralytic is lowered through the roof.  This certainly
>>can't be a by-product of translation, now can it?  Looking at the
>>English, this is about as good a case of paraphrasing a commonly
>>known account that I can think of. 
>
>From "Introduction to the First Three Gospels" by William Barclay
>(Professor of Divinity & Biblical Criticism at the University
>of Glasgow, AND a believing Christian)
>
>   One of the most interesting facts which emerge on a close
>   study of  the first three gospels is that Matthew and Luke
>   seem deliberately to 'improve' Mark. They alter certain
>   things in Mark in order to improve Mark's style and Mark's
>   material. They sometimes improve his vocabulary ... they
>   sometimes improve his style ... Mark is prepared to put things
>   in a way from which Matthew and Luke shrink, because they are
>   more aware of the theological implications than Mark is. Matthew
>   and Luke tend, so to speak, to 'protect' the apostles. They tend
>   to omit anything that might look like a criticism of the apostles...
>                              p. 88-89.
>
>So your "non-copying" hypothesis is rejected even by the mainstream of
>scholars who are themselves Christians.

Of course Barclay's opinion is close to that of many scholars
today.  If you read my previous postings, you would see that I
acknowledged the mainstream theories of M, Q and the copying of
Mark.  I also said I disagreed and asked for someone to post
reasons why this "copying" couldn't be explained as both of them
having a common source.  I'm still waiting, and to tell the truth,
quoting XYZ as saying that they believe this or that just doesn't
answer my question.  Also note that everything you quoted above
also holds if all the Synoptic Gospels had a common source.

>
>Stating the matter bluntly, Matthew and Luke were derived from Mark
>because the preceeding document was felt to be Theologically Incorrect,
>and in need of improvement.

That's a nice theory, what facts do you have to back it up (Gee, who
sounds skeptical here? :) )

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Psychics' Predictions Fizzle For 1992
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 01:14:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.231655.12160@cs.unca.edu> kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>>do you really think people actually believe this obvious entertainment?
>
>I'd say they do.  Aren't "psychics" sometimes used by the police or
>is that bull*** dished out by the cons who call themselves psychics?
> ...

  I've wondered about this too, and just found an article on this 
topic in the new Winter 1993 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.  It is

Psychics:  Do Police Departments Really Use Them?
by J. A. Sweat and M. W. Durm  pages 148-158.  

  They surveyed the 50 police departments of the 50 largest cities
in the U.S..  The majority don't use psychics at all, and it
appears that the others have obtained very little benefit or 
perhaps have been hindered.  The article provides the survey, the
response data and a fair amount of discussion on the details.

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:58:40 GMT

roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
: 
: >Before the Bible-thumpers respond, repeat their mantra after me (preferably
: >with as much whining as possible):
: >	But THEY weren't *REAL* Christians.
: 
: There's more than one mantra out there.  How about:
: 
: 	But JOHN_-_WINSTON'S not a *REAL* Skeptic.
: 
: He posts on sci.skeptic, therefore his views must be interpreted as being
: indicative of skeptics.  This doesn't sound narrow minded, does it?
: 

Your comparison is meaningless since JW never _claimed_ to be a
skeptic.  He posts stuff in sci.skeptic, but that no more implies that
he claims to be a skeptic than by preaching the gospel to atheists
does the preacher claim to be an atheist.

Argument by analogy isn't too rigorous to start with, but you're
hobbling a lame horse when you pick analogies like that.  (On the
other hand, a good metaphor is a joy forever.)

Carl never said (at least not while I was looking) that anybody who
talked about christianity or talked to christians was a christian.

The point was: If somebody _claims_ to be a christian, how are we
poor, ignorant, non-believers to judge whether or not they _are_ a
christian?  We can't, so we must operate under the assumption that
somebody who claims to be a christian _is_ a christian.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I'm reporting for duty
Rosemount Inc.                                |as a modern person.  I want
                                              |to do the Latin Hustle now!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Psychics' Predictions Fizzle For 1992
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:11:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.044622.25437@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> 
> 
>                                 Bay Area Skeptics
> 
> 
>                       PSYCHICS' PREDICTIONS FIZZLE FOR 1992
> 
> 
>         President  Bush  was  not re-elected. Madonna did  not  become  a

.. long list of failures deleted 

>         Based  on  the  continuing  failure of  the  "psychics"  to  make
>         accurate predictions over the years, the Bay Area Skeptics  urges
>         everyone  -  especially  the media -  to  exercise  some  healthy
>         skepticism when "psychics" and other purveyors of the  paranormal
>         make  extra-ordinary claims or predictions. Anyone  who  swallows
>         the  "psychics'"  claims  year after year  without  checking  the
>         record is setting a bad example for students and for the public.
..
> 
>   
>         Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>   
>  Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
> 


Do you really think people actually believe ("swallows the "psychics'" 
claims") this obvious entertainment?  Like, wow, next you'll be 
worrying about whether people believe Soap Opera stories are real. 
I mean, does _anyone_ put any $money$ on these things, like betting 
in Las Vegas on the number of orgasms Madonna will have with Elvis in February? 

Just being a pest - my three cars all have brake trouble and I'm feeling 
nasty,  Wm. Hathaway 

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.med
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: Hearing aids
Followup-To: sci.med  
Summary: Yes, Virginia, fequency selecting hearing aids are!  
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 21:06:19 GMT

Hi Rolf, I figure you might like a first person validation.  I am
currently using hearing aids that selectively boost frequencies over
2000 in proportion to my loss (-90 db at 4000) while leaving the
lower frequencies unaffected.  Sound comes thru the aid in a direct
path as well as thru the circuit so I hear the lower frequencies
un-amplified.  I have acoustic trauma from 25 years of skeet and
pistol shooting (much done before the knowledge of what damage it
does) with the addetive affect of presbyacusis (normal hearing loss of
aging.)
    All I can tell you is now I can understand conversations in noisy
background areas, understand what a person 15 feet away in a committee
meeting is saying, and not have to ask every OR nurse to repeat the
question.
    One needs to see a registered audiologist who keeps up to date
with latest techniques, and also see a otolaryngologist that is up to
date on hearing aids in the first place.  The technology is rapidly
changing......thank God.

Merry Christmas, Rolf                        Len Howard

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21756 alt.messianic:3732
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Date: 28 Dec 1992 17:47:29 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <eharbin.725547983@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
>In <1992Dec27.235003.4413@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>
>>Thousands (if not millions) of people have been tortured and killed in
>>the service of christianity.  Even the thousand-year old conflict
>>between the celts and the anglo-saxons is now reported as a conflict
>>between protestants and catholics.
>
>On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?

How about in one of the many cultures that used to exist but have been
completly destroyed by Christian evangelism?

You see, Christianity has wiped out not just individuals, but entire cultures.

>This century has tried several experiments in explicitly anti-religious
>statecraft

Hmmm.  Here once again we see the collossal ignorance and arrogance of a
typical Christian:  I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that
non-Christian does *NOT* mean anti-religious?

Since the rest of your bullshit seems to be based on this one flawed
assumption, I won't bother responding in detail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21958 alt.messianic:3824 alt.atheism:24836
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 4 Jan 93 03:08:36 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan4.022547.24574@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
|> >no one could be in any real doubt about what the Nazis intended
|> 
|> Well, now you're not just convicting the Vatican, but also all those people
|> who supported the Nazis early (including men like Oswald Spengler), all 
|> of the nations of Europe who cooperated and supported the Nazis because
|> of their fear of the Bolshevics, and particularly Chamberlain but
|> also Roosevelt and the Americans who opposed early entry into the war,
|> as Jew killers. After all, as you point out:

I think you are getting yourself confused.   Yes, this does apply
to people who supported the Nazis.   They had Hitler's intentions
on record.   He made no secret of them.

Did other nations "support" Hitler?    Would you care to quote either
Chamberlain or Roosevelt in support of Hitler?

|> 
|> >  Their anti-semitic program was on public
|> >show early on.   The elimination of Jews from Germany was in Clause
|> >5 of the 1920 Party program.
|> 
|> So all these people "wanted the Jews and Atheists killed" as you put
|> it?

No, you are getting yourself confused again.   You really must be
careful about attributions.   I have said nothing like this.

|>   The Catholic Church is led by fallible men who make foreign policy
|> mistakes and have many skeletons in their closets, and they can be 
|> sanctimonious, just like others (I won't mentionany names). But who 
|> hasn't made terrible mistakes, given a thousand years of history and rapidly
|> changing moral values?

But that's exactly the point!    That's all that Churches are.   They
are fallible organizations of no particular worth.   So why do they
try to claim some kind of moral authority?

|>    And looking back now with comfortable 20/20 hindsight and high moral
|> indignation, who did behave correctly during that awful time?  
|> Your accusation that the Catholic Church "wanted" the Jews and Atheists
|> is revolting.

Except that I didn't say that.    If you are going to fly off the
handle and flame people, at the very least try to flame the right
person.

It's ironic that someone who wants care to be paid can't even bother
to match the right quote to the right poster.

jon.
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:50:22 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec22.223557.6777@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>In <1649@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>>It is my understanding that one *can* develope a tolerance ('immunity') to
>>arsenic over time by taking small, gradually increasing doses.
>
>  It's my understanding that increased cyanide tolerance, rather
>than being an immune response, is the result of increased production 
>of (liver?) enzymes which detoxify heavy metals, stimulated by the
>earlier doses.

Unlikely, since cyanide is composed of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen; none of
these are heavy metals.

   Robert
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: kenl@origami.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Ken Lehner)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 19:23:07 GMT

In article <eharbin.725547983@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
|> 
|> On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?

I'd prefer the non-Christian United States, thank you.

|> It was in Christian societies that both modern science and 

Have you heard of Arabic numbers?  Where exactly did geometry originate?

|> liberal democracy evolved. This was not accidental.

Are you saying that it was the Christianity of the society that somehow
enabled the evolution of modern science?  Certainly Galileo would have
some concern with this belief.  How is it that the Christian aspect(s) of
society contribute to science?  Especially things that tend to throw doubt
on religious teaching (e.g., evolution, cosmology, dendrochronology).

|> wherever you find human suffering, Christians are in the forefront with aid
|> aid and comfort. The Christian ethos has much of which to be proud.

So does the Jewish ethos, and the majority of religions.  It's the actions
in the name of those religions that some have trouble with.  I personally
have trouble with religions whose teachings allow people to dictate to
others how to run their lives.

|> 
|> We also have much of which to be humble.
|> 
|> That the New Jerusalem has not arrived and that Christians are sinners is
|> tragic. We deserve to have our feet held to the fire for our divisions,
|> our hypocrisies, our failures. That being said, I note that you actually
|> call on us not to be less Christian but more Christian (and you, as I, know

"Christian is as Christian does"?