HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Art Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:54:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

In article <1993Jan24.200741.9018@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu  
(Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> >
> >You can tell that this is true by the was "pro-choicers" react any 
> >time anyone tries to do anything that might decrease the number of 
> >abortions that occur.
> 
> (Jamie opens his mouth, ready to say something sarcastic about all the
> Planned Parenthood employees who picketed schools that handed out
> condoms...then changes his mind.)
> 
> Ted, do you honestly believe that anyone--ANYONE--thinks abortion is a
> good thing?  That anyone wants _more_ abortions to occur?  That
> pro-choicers, upon hearing about an abortion, think "oh, good,
> that fetus was killed, that's great"?
> 
> If you so think, I am amazed beyond words at your self-delusion.

     Actually, I do know one person who wants more abortions to occur  
(needless to say, he's pro-abortion-rights and thinks that abortion is a  
good thing). I'd be happy to give out his name and e-mail address if you  
want, but I'd have to ask his permission first. He believes that many  
women who now opt to have a child instead of an abortion are making a  
grave mistake, because their child-rearing skills are not, in his opinion,  
up to snuff. Consequently, the children of these women are "completely and  
totally fucked up for life", and would be better off dead (he really  
believes this). I've never asked him what he thinks pro-abortion-rights  
people should shoot for as the new target number; double the current rate  
would be my guess.
 
> -- 
>  Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink:  
j.mccarthy
>  Modern dilemmas: "Why are so many people who claim to be 'pro-choice'
>  against the right of an individual to use public money for their  
children
>  to attend the school private or public of their choice."   - Craig  
Sivils

Arthur Johnson
johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:33:21 GMT

In article <C1BwCB.G67@athena.cs.uga.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
 
>
>In article <16B5E1208D.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>>So what, Paul is a prototype Fascist if there ever was one.
>
>What does Paul have to say about specific government types?
>
 
Societies, social organisations can be 'Fascist' as well.
 
 
>>Anyway, the case with agape has not been settled.
>>Ie, the question is open if it refers to sexual practices of
>>Jesus and his disciples. Note that they were all male at the
>>end.
>
>Agape is also described as the kind of love we have for God, a Spirit.
>Maybe you insinuated the above because the English word "love" can have
>sexual connotations.
>
 
Nope, I have used the Greek word, and I have meant the Greek word.
The point is to say that agape has only a spiritual meaning is an
assumption. It does not necessarily follow. Those who want to have
an asexual god think differently, of course.
 
 
 
>>And I can show you passages in the bible which say that it is better not to be
>>born, and being aborted counts as being better off, too. (Kohelet)
>>   Benedikt
>
>And many of these speak of miscarriages in the same way they speak of the
>death of a grown man.
>
 
It speaks of people who have not been born at all in a similar way.
What may I conclude now?
 
 
>If you take a verse of Ecclesiastes out of context, you can get the wrong
>idea.  Qoheleth argues many sides of the same issues, and it all leads up
>to the last few sentences of the book.
>
 
Ho hum, I have not taken it out of context, it says it there literally.
Neither do I see where it is taken back.
 
And that Qohelet has been edited in order to reduce its heretic notion
which manifests by that the sentences you probably mean do not fit in,
ie are inconsistent with the rest, is accepted even among Christian
scholarship. By the way, those sentences are not the last sentences.
 
The usual explanation is everybody who could not know about eternal life
and whose view was restricted to the world is very likely to become
pessimistic.
 
Speaks for itself.
   Benedikt
From: pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Praise Melkor, Lord of the Void!
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:46:19 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Any co-worshippers? Or just Christians and vulgar Atheists?

-- 
---
Thus spake Kalmoth the Dreaded, Bane of the Forests of Gnoy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: zoerner@esseye.si.com (Laurie Zoerner)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Smiths Industries
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:45:30 GMT

In <C1F46s.5DI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:

>   Let me also give an analogy for why women cannot be priests.  That
>of motherhood.  On one level, motherhood is a physical characteristic;
>that is, only women can be mothers because of biology.  This can be
>determined physically.  Now the priesthood (i.e. Holy Orders) is a
>spiritual characteristic, as is Baptism.  Both leave a "mark" on the
>soul, however this "mark" cannot be measured in any physical way.  The
>only way they can be measured is by the authority of the Church.  If
>we can accept by the authority of the Church that these "marks" are
>even made on the soul, then we can also accept by the authority of the
>Church who is able to receive them.  If we cannot accept by the
>authority of the Church that they even exist, then the point is moot
>anyway.

>-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
>Steve Creps, Indiana University
>creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

So, Steve, what you're saying is that women cannot have this spiritual
"mark" on their souls, so they do not have the characteristics needed
for leadership positions in the church. Because the human male authorities
in the church say that women do not have this mark. Physically, this
is the "authority of the church", a bunch of men who supposedly hear
the "Word of God" and disseminate it through the Church heiarchy.
It seems to me that this is very convenient for the male church
authority figures! They get to filter the "Word of God" to suit
themselves. Doesn't seem very Christianly to me, seems rather hypocritical.


Laurie Zoerner

***I don't speak for Smiths Industries, I only work here****
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/26/93   God's Promise in Isaiah 65:24
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:52:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41



	And it shall come to pass,
	that before they call, I will answer;
	and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.

	Isaiah 65:24
From: vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Living forever (Was: ankh (you very much?))
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:51:18 EDT
Organization: Hampshire College
NNTP-Posting-Host: hamp.hampshire.edu

In article <C17v1B.KCy@lysator.liu.se>, ceci@lysator.liu.se (Cecilia Henningsson) writes:
> [Here was a mess of attributations. I couldn't disentangle it.]
>>>>>Don't be silly. I'm quite able to have children. I have--much to
>>>>>my regret--no intention to live forever.
>>>>Well, I wouldn't be caught dead living forever!  -- Robert
>>>Well, I just quote Woody Allen (I think is the author of this one):
>>>        I want to live forever, or die trying.
> Woody Allen? Heck no! It's Vila in the eminent BBC sf-series
> _Blakes_7_. 

Just to be nit-picky, this was, if not originally, at least predating
_Blakes_7_, from _Catch-22_.  It was said of Yossarian sometime in the
first or chapter.

Woody Allen's is something like "I don't want immortality through fame,
I want immortality through not dying."  I don't know the exact quote.
               
> --Ceci

Vincent
From: dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Shocked Beyond ALL BELIEF!!!!!
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:01:51 GMT
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R

In <1993Jan25.151635.659@st-andrews.ac.uk>, ccjm@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin Charles James MacDonald)  wrote:
# Would you be more shocked to learn that prostitution is legal here in stuffy 
# old Britain? It's only *soliciting* that is illegal. What's the difference?
# How should I know? Solicitors are prostitutes that get caught?

  Do you mean that you FINALLY got around to taking Falstaff's advice?
  ABOUT TIME!  Of course, whe always knew that solicitors were whores.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Virginia and Darlene
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:31:00 GMT

In <1993Jan20.153338.17996@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:

>In article <nyikos.727470791@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>Shouldn't that read either "For Anti-Christ and His Kingdom" or
>>"for the coming triumph of secularism"?  I have seen no more evidence
>>that Publius is a Christian than I have that    drieux   is a Christian.

>Read Matthew 5:22

Let me guess.  Is this the one that says to beware of wolves in 
sheep's clothing?

The one that says not to give to dogs what is holy, or to cast your
pearls before swine?

>I am not sure what is your definition of "secularism".  But I am
>for the free marketplace of ideas, even the religious ideas.  And
>I am opposed to any kind of government intervention in such a free
>market.  Is this your definition of "secularism"?  I am one of those
>who believe the Biblical message of Jesus Christ can win in the free
>market of ideas, without any government-sponsored "religious
>protectionism".  As far as the religious matters are concerned, I believe
>in the power of persuasion, and not in power of legislation; I believe
>in the power of the Word, and not in the power of the sword.

>>Disclaimer: I have been very wrong in my assessment of Steve Adams.  It
>>is conceivable that I am just as wrong here.

>Disclaimer accepted.  By the way, Steve Adams posted a long list of
>Bible verses supporting the pro-choice position.  But so far you have
>not responded to any of those verses.  Should I take this as your
>acceptance of defeat?

No. We have had a long e-mail correspondence, Steve and I, and it's his
turn to reply to me.

And what I said at the very beginning, up there, still stands.

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27580 talk.origins:16757
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:04:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1k17i4INN3d1@dmsoproto.ida.org>, rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes...
>I wasn't dealing with an individual's stubborness or lack thereof,
>but with definitions.  I would call a fact an individually observable,
>independently verifiable piece of information.  A theory is more a

You should know that this is a very peculiar definition of "fact."
Ordinary use of the word "fact" finds nothing self-contradictory
about unobservable or unverifiable facts, whereas both of these
would be incoherent on your definition.  You also need to say much
more about what you mean by "individually observable."  Observable
by what means?  The naked eye?  Corrected vision?  Microscopes?
Electron microscopes?  Radio telescopes?

>model that attempts to the facts.  Many different theories can be
>constructed to fit the same facts.  I realize that philosophers
>have umpteen jillion different versions of these definitions 
>and even disagree as to whether facts even exist or not (or whether
>the universe exists or not, etc.)  Nevertheless, I think the above
>definitions would be held by most working scientists.

I don't think so.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Do you have any children?
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:23:29 GMT
Organization: The Language Game Inc.
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1k450tINNa7f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E.
Stansfield) wrote:
> In a previous article, rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) says:
> >I was wondering, if any of the t.r.m regulars, who don't believe or 
> >didn't used to believe that there is a Creator/God, had any children 
> >of your own?  Were you present at their birth?  Do you really think 
> >that this event has nothing to do with the design of the Creator?  Did 
> >this event at least make you think a little about how we as a people 
> >came to be? 

Well, I'm borned and raised on a farm where I've seen enough births
of animals, and yes me and my wife got a baby 20 months ago. It didn't
exactly feel like a creation moment, more of a 'finally you are out
there in the world, poor sucker'. I do love my son, but it does not 
imply that a child birth is in any way a direct example of creation.
I would rather say it's an excellent way to see how the human race
has evolved over a long time. Especially the 'ape stage' of the
small child is a fascinating time.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:21:31 GMT

haefner@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner) writes:
] 
] Recently several articles have been on the ankh and I thought I would
] ask if anyone has information on where the "peace symbol" is derived
] from. I have heard that its origins are occultic and was used by some
] ancient pagan societies. Is this true? If so, who? Anyone care to 
] offer some reliable info?


Well depends on who you talk to.

Theory One: the CND [Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament] was
alledged to have brought it about as a 'signal flag' representation
of their call letters.

theory two: {More Probable} Given that the CND folks were lead
by folks Like Bertrand Russell, who was SOFT on Communism, it
is CLEARLY a Satanic Kult Ritual Sign indicative of a broken
Upside down cross used during Black Masses and Communist
Inner Party Meetings. {Sorry, those are redundently reptative,
as Black Masses and Communist Inner Party Meetings are one
and the same thing.}

{ I had a pamphlet that prooved all of this, but
It was stolen by Devil Worshipping Communists. }


ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTORY MORMON DOCTRINE, Part 1
Date: 21 Jan 93 01:18:12 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <18142@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <Jan.13.04.46.24.1993.25141@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>>> The Bible:
>>>      Yes. 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."
>>
>>This passage is a late addition.  It does not appear in any Greek
>>manuscript before the 14th Cent, nor in any Latin manuscript before
>>the 8th Cent, and even beyond those dates it's rare.  (Of the 4 Greek
>>manuscripts in which it appears, it's in the margin in 2, and in the
>>other two there are problems.)  There are other passages in the NT on
>>which the Trinity is based, so the issue isn't critical.  But if you
>>want to persuade people based on Biblical authority, I do not suggest
>>using this passage.
>
>Gosh, Tony, does this mean that maybe the Bible is only 99.99% accurate?
>
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gordon,

When I talk about Biblical inerrancy, I am not talking of *any*
translation being error free. I know of problems with most all of the
translations. A translation is just that, a translation.  The Inerrant
Word of God is the words that were written by the prophets. The *first*
copies. This verse above is in the KJV, but not in most of the newer
translations. When the KJV was translated in 1611, this verse was in
the texts they used. Since then we have found many more texts and when
we put them all together for a translation, we see that it is better for
this to be explained in a different manner.  I am aware of these things
and that is why I study the original languages. Then I can tell what is
*really* being said. Rather, you don't learn any languages, but get a
bosom burning and then rely on your prophet to tell you what it means,
when he doesn't know the language either.You criticize me position
before you understand it. Just like you accuse me of doing with
Mormonism. Maybe we can agree to disagree!

-t
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Summary:  This is the record of Paul ...
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:02:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.195654.10017@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
(Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <C17y1K.2Gr@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>>>Porneia means "sexual immorality."

>>Exactly.  But, according to what I have read, it included homosexuality,
>>as well as incest and adultery.

>As far as I can tell, exactly what is included in "porneia" is rather
>unclear. It seems rather a matter of opinion whether homosexuality
>is sexual immorality.

>It seems to me, in fact, that your argument rests upon showing
>that to be the case.

Indeed.  And a difficult case it will be, too, since one of the very
few mentions of anything interpretable as homosexuality in the NT, the
(in)famous list in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, mentions _pornoi_ *first* and
then adds the terms that people argue about as possibly condemning
homosexuality (notably, _arsenokoitai_.)  Separate mention from _porneia_
in *this* context argues that the term does NOT include homosexuality.
Certainly in common Greek _porneia_ would not suggest homosexual "sins."
It means recourse to prosititues.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:59:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.163519.20169@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
lhsux@swingset.bae.bellcore.com (Lorne Schachter) writes:
 
>First, you cannot read the Written Law with its explanation, the Oral Law.
>The Gemarah, in Sanhedrin, discusses the whole issue of Ben Soreh u'Moreh,
>the rebellious son and gives particulars as to what it would take to
>be executed for that offense.  Suffice to say, no one was ever executed
>for it.
>
 
This form of reasoning is only valid when you can prove that the Oral Law
is as old as the written law, has had the same validity, and has never
changed.
 
I doubt any of these assertions.
 
And after what time exactly has noone been executed for it?
 
>As far as the Spanish Expulsion goes, even the Christian Bible does not
>say anywhere that it is a Divine command to kill non-believers.  Therefore,
>Ferdinand and Isabella were taking into their own hands a decision that
>they had no right to make.  That is what makes it completely
>objectionable.
>
 
Big fun. Oral Law said that they it was the Right Thing (Tm) to do.
It is one of the Catholic dogmas that the tradition of the church is
equal to the bible.
 
And there is a line in Acts which says something like noone with false
belief should live among the people of god. (quote from memory, correct
wording welcome). It don't think it is by chance that it is generally
considered to be a quote from Deuteronomium.
    Benedikt
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/28/93   God's Promise in Luke 6:38
Date: 28 Jan 93 06:57:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Give, and it shall be given unto you;
	good measure,
	pressed down, and shaken together,
	and running over,
	shall men give into your bosom.
	For with the same measure
	that ye mete withal
	it shall be measured to you again.

	Luke 6:38
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27371 alt.slack:3869 alt.discordia:755 alt.pagan:15761
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.slack,alt.discordia,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Getting to know God, was God is NOT Allah was Re: Islam at a Glance
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,misc.test,alt.slack,alt.test,alt.discordia,alt.pagan
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:38:56 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <C190pM.621@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) writes:
>In article <1jl36bINN4pt@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:
>>In article <fYaK67C@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>Does God have an omphalos?
>>
>>Does god have a pineal gland?
>
>Zits?

Where does ghod shit and what is used for toilet paper?

On second thought, don't answer that.  I think I already know.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"The English are drinking the better beer in Bavaria."
            - Archibald Macleish, "Lines for an Interment"
Lines: 8
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:19:53 MST
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann, Software)
Subject: Re: MORMONISM VS. THE BIBLE (The Doctrine of Man)
Organization: BYU

In article <1993Jan28.181932.1879@news.ysu.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
>Subject: MORMONISM VS. THE BIBLE (The Doctrine of Man)
>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:19:32 GMT
>
>THE DOCTRINE OF MAN

Hey, Frank. Do you believe any of this stuff or do you just like to type?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27139 alt.pagan:15673 alt.atheism:26711