HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:11:46 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.

In article <1h3354INNfm0@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>No, it just sounds about as stupid as most of the other bullshit from Jesus
>freaks.

Carl, do you know what you are talking about?  You don't sound like a
skeptic; instead you simply sound shrill and irrational.

Most of the people who post on alt.messianic are quite knowledgeable
and sincere about scripture and their faith.  Is there some personal
reason why you feel compelled to continue posting this invective here?

If you have any questions about Messianics there are plenty of people here
ready to listen and answer succinctly and to do so with respect for your
point of view.  All you have to lose is your uninformed preconceptions.
-- 
            _.
--Steve   ._||__    Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
  Warren   v\ *|    -----------------------------------------------
             V
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Charter Skeptic (was re: What did Judas Betray?)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:08:34 GMT

>>In article <roelle.724628610@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

>Bullshit [...], and the charter of the group is
>that it is a forum for discussion by skeptics of issues brought up by anyone,
                        ^^^^^^^^^^
>be the person who brings up the issue a skeptic or otherwise.

Substitute "flaming" in the sentence above, and you capture the essence
of the charter as practiced by a subset of participants.

>>This doesn't sound narrow minded, does it?

>No, it just sounds about as stupid as most of the other bullshit from Jesus
freaks.

Looks like the discussion on this thread has run its course.

Curt
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: 27 Dec 1992 12:04:09 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 <1992Dec22.223557.6777@panix.com>, carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>  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.  This of course does not in any way support the 
>ludicrous homeopathic therapy model.

Interesting theory, except for one small detail:  The cyanide radical (CN)
doesn't contain any heavy metals.  In particular, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) which
is used in gas chambers, contains only one metal:  hydrogen.  And I'f
hydrogen's considered to be a heavy metal, then I claim the adjective "heavy"
is redundant.

Now, of course if you're talking about arsenic, that's another matter entirely
:-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:21772 alt.messianic:3745
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 23:23:24 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.725572840@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
>Most Christians have trouble with none of the above. What Christianity
>had to contribute was a metaphysics which accepted simultaneously immanence
>and transcendence: nature was a created good in which truths may be found
>which reflect a transcendent order. And some other wrinkles. But put the
>shoe on the other foot, - why _did_ Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, [long
>list follows] come from a Christian environment, if that environment were
>not in some way friendly to their development?

Because of a felicitous combination of improvements in the economy (opposed by
Christians:  The Church, of course banned usury, which was one of the driving
forces in the economic improvements;  fortunately there were enough
non-Christians around to serve as bankers), and improvements in technology
(closely coupled with the burgeoning economy).

Oh, by the way:  Just because those fellows were in a Christian environment
doesn't mean you can claim Christianity as the causative factor.  If you do
that, then you've also got to claim astrology as equally important, at least
for the astronomical discoveries.

Your argument uses the fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."  Not very
convincing, that.


>I have the highest regard for the cultural and ethical attainments of
>other religions.

BULLSHIT!  In a previous post, you equated non-Christian with areligious.  At
least you're properly hypocritical for a Christian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:34:25 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <V1XuVB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|[a bunch of prattle quoting "God of the Gaps" 'unifications' of science
| and religion deleted to save space].

Well, how interesting Kalki, got tired of talk.origin, so you decided to come over
here and see if these people were any more susceptible to your word gammes than
the origins people, eh?

Of course your entire premise is flawed, since you only treat two of the many
alternatives, and the "science and religion are not in conflict' postion you
present (via quotes) is the one called "God of the gaps", and is not, by any
means the only, or even the main, way of reconciling religion and science.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Crucifixion of Jesus?
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:45:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.210530.1@stsci.edu> zellner@stsci.edu writes:
>
>>>|> Just curious, but how does Jesus being called the son of Mary
>>>|> imply illegitimacy?  Remember, at the time of the passage Joseph
>>>> is believed to have been dead.  It seems quite natural to be
>>>|> labeled the son of a widow, doesn't it?
>
>
>The passage (Mark 6:3) is as follows:
>
>  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, 
>  and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? 
>  And they were offended at him.
>
>Obviously this was said by _opponents_ of Jesus' claims.  This was in his
>home town, and naturally there would have been some scandal just from the
>fact that Mary was pregnant before her marriage.  Neither the opposition 
>nor the scandal tell us anything about his real parentage.

I don't see it that way at all... I only see the local people
having a stumbling block recognizing Jesus for who He really is
because of their familiarity with him.  They are in effect saying,
"don't we know this man?  He's the <related to the connection list
of relatives that were known to the local people>.  How can he be
anything really important, much less the Messiah?"

I detect no disparagement to either Mary, or James, Joseph,
Judas or Simon.

If you keep on reading after this verse, Jesus's comments support
this view.  He doesn't talk about or defend his relatives, nor
does he talk about the possible origins of holy people, but merely
states that a prophet is not recognized in his home town.  From
the NIV:

MAR 6:4     Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives
            and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
MAR 6:5     He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few
            sick people and heal them.
MAR 6:6     And he was amazed at their lack of faith.
            Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village.

>
>Ben
>


-- 
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
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21956 alt.messianic:3822 alt.atheism:24827
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 1993 01:11:51 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan3.151154.18933@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
|> >In return, the vatican got 10%(!) of germany's tax money, and a lot of
|> >dead jews and attheists( russians ) which is undoubtedly what they
|> >wanted.
|> 
|> I think this is pretty outrageous, can I insult your mother?
|> Your hatred is showing....
|> The Vatican hid and protected Jews from the Nazis.  They had an immense fear
|> of the communists (with good reason) and chose the Nazis as the lesser of
|> two evils since the Nazis, at least, intended to let the churches survive
|> under Nazi control whereas the communists were destroying every church they
|> could get their hands on.

There are at least two problems with this argument.   One is that once 
the War on the Eastern Front got started, Stalin began a revival of the 
Orthodox church.   Far from destroying churches, he used the patriotic
fervour of Russian believers to support the war effort.

This is fairly typical in history.  Tyrants compete with Churches, but
use them when there is something to be gained.   You would think that
after two thousand years of thgis kind of thing, the vatican could come
up with something better than "lesser of two evils".   Was there some
rule that they couldn't denounce the Nazi's *and* the Communists?

The second problem is more serious.   The Nazis were not just the
"lesser of two evils".    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.   No-one could be in any real doubt
about what the Nazis intended.

|>                          What the Vatican did had nothing to do with 
|> the Vatican wanting to kill Jews and Atheists, but if you insist that 
|> it is, why don't you balance this with how many Christians were killed 
|> by the Jewish Atheists of the Soviet Union Bolshevic leadership?  Ah...
|> but that would be politically incorrect. It's okay to be bigoted about 
|> Catholics but not Jews or Atheists.

Well, if anyone here was speaking out in support of the killers of
christians, that would be a reasonable point, but I don't believe that
anyone is.   Criticising the connection between Hitler and the
Vatican doesn't make one automatically a big fan of the Kremlin.

For myself, I'm just pointing out that an organization which claims
to have a lot of moral authority, actually has a history of compromise
with a great many tyrants.

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: hem@col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Chuck Missler and imminent Armageddon
Originator: news@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:02:57 GMT

In article <9212291703.AA10956@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
>In article <28DEC199219414469@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> tis written:
>
>> While visiting my parents over the holidays, my stepfather gave me
>> a cassette of a lecture by Chuck Missler to listen to...
>>
>> 2.  In Genesis 49:10, the first letter of each Hebrew word spells out
>> (in Hebrew) the message "I am Yeshua, the shepherd king."  (Anyone here
>> know enough Hebrew to verify/refute this?)
>
>jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au provides the letter names:
>
>"lamed yod shin mem vav mem resh ayin kaf yod shin vav yod ayin"
>
>In Hebrew, they are:
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___   _ _ __  ,__  _ ,__  _ _ _ _ |_ 
> | | | | | | | |    |  | |   | |  | | |  | | | | |   |
>_|/    | |/_/    ___| _|/    | | _| | | _| |/_/     / 
>

Parse #4:

Consider the ending Yud Ayin as the initial letters of some two
word phrase, then you can get.

"l'yeish mum ra k'yeishu 'yud ayin'"

" _ _ _"  _ _ _ _ _ ___     _ _ __    ,__  _ ,__    _ _ _ _ |_ 
  | | |   | | | | |    |    | |   |   |  | | |  |   | | | |   |
 _|/      | |/_/    ___|   _|/    |   | _| | | _|   |/_/     / 

<<<  To one who has a significant blemish like yeshu, "yud ayin" >>

I'll leave the possibilities of the two word phrase up to the
reader.  Now every side can claim this as proof (positive or
negative meaning).

[(:-)  for those who take this post seriously ]
-- 
____________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| H_Markowitz@att.com | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_____________________|____________________________|
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Hormesis/Homeopathy
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:28:24 GMT

kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:

>>If they are, it's only because they don't want to overtreat you.  You see,
>>another principle of homeopathy is that the more dilutions, the stronger the
>>effect.  According to homeopathy, an 8% solution of anything should have
>>virtually no effect at all.

>IF dilution strength is the key defining element to homeopathy, I have a
>hard time believing in homeopathy, although I don't completely count it out.

I would put it stronger than this.
After all air is the ultimate dilution. It contains traces of *everything*.
So just breathing should cure you of *everything*.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: Ball lightning? (is there such a thing?)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 21 DEC 92 13:04:07    

	Ball Lightnig & Bead Lightning
	James Dale Barry
	Plenum Press
	1980
	ISBN 0-306-40272-6

	Reccomended, but by all means, your milage may vary...

A quick look did not find the "ball lightning floats down inside of a/c"
incident.  A couple of possibilities, for those with access to serious reference
libraries, from Barry's (extensive) bibliography:
	Jennison, R C
	Ball Lightning, Nature, 1969, p 895
	Ball Lightning & After-Images, Nature, 1971, p 576

	Uman, M A 
	Some Comments on Ball Lightning
	Journal of Atmospheic & Terrestrial Physics, 1968,  p 1245

Barry lists common colors as:
	red, red-yellow and yellow
Less common are
	white, green & purple.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Organization: LA&W RR
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 18:17:02 GMT

In article <85701@ut-emx.uucp> bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) writes:
>Bill Gripp says he is not anti-Semitic, and I accept his statement.
>I withdraw all comments I made that imply anything to the contrary,
>and apologize to Bill.

Thanks.



>#Since you find Avi so convincing, I guess you are the one standing with
>#him on his statement that the Dead Sea Scrolls are EXACTLY the same as
>#the current Tanakh (which resulted in a rare occasion where skeptics and
>#Christians alike could unite in a common cause!).
>
>You guess incorrectly. 

Sorry, I forgot I need to put a =B^) after every sarcastic remark.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Nntp-Posting-User: @cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University Medical College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:30:32 GMT

Tom Epstein [415] (tke@shep.att.com) wrote:
: that skeptics *must* assume that "somebody who claims to be a christian _is_ a 
: christian" is not easy to defend. If one wishes to hold the skeptical line, the 
: best conclusion one can draw from anyone's claim of Christianity (unless other 
: evidence is offered) is, "This person claims to be a Christian."

: An ancient debate within the Church has been centered on the question of exactly 
: how one should define the word, "Christian;" both as it is used as a noun and an 

I might venture to add that as a non-Christian,  my basic first-cut definition
of "Christian" as a noun would be "One who believe Jesus to be the messiah," and
then take it from there (Jews for Jesus, by my reckoning, are not Jewish, but
Christian.

After this basic cut, you can get into the good-Christian, bad-Christian
definitions...of which I have neither the knowledge nor the desire to have a
go at...


--
David Weingart  KB2CWF          In the event I am captured or killed, the
phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu       Cornell University Medical College and the
phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu   Department of Academic Computing will disavow
phydeaux@src4src.linet.org      any knowledge of my opinions.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Homeopathic remedies
Date: 28 Dec 1992 23:30:10 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 <1992Dec28.220247.19534@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>wsadjw@rw6.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>: 
>: It is even not much more irrational than astrology.
>:
>
>Excellent!  
>
>In english that is called being "damned with feigned praise."

Er, actually, the phrase is "damned with faint praise."  But that's OK, your
command of the language is normally acceptable :-).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:00:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.201554.17424@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>Fine.  I read the Gospels and conclude that to be like Jesus I must destroy
>things like he did to fig trees.  Thus the Crusaders were behaving in a
>Christ-like manner.

Did you really come to this conclusion?  Perhaps you also came to the
conclusion after listening to the George Washington tale of the cherry
tree that to be president one day, one must cut down a cherry tree!

>
>>There seems to be a notion that the fights that different
>>Christian denominations have with one another were over the basic
>>values of Jesus.
>
>Of course, the fights were over other things _also_, but the disagreement over
>the basic values of Jesus _did_ have _something_ to do with it.

Such as?

>
>>Rather,
>>after reading the Gospels, one gets an idea of what Jesus stood
>>for: e.g. Love of the one true God, love of neighbor from which
>>springs forth mercy, compassion, unlimited forgiveness, etc.
>>These values are not contested by any Christian denomination that
>>I know of but are universally accepted because to deny them would
>>deny the essence of who Jesus was.
>
>These values were contested by many, such as the Crusaders and the
>Inquisition.

I rather doubt they were contested, but merely overlooked or
ignored in persuit of some other goal.

>
>Many Christian denominations also accept these values, but disagree on what
>they mean--exactly what does mercy or compassion _mean_?  Many Christians
>do things in the name of mercy or compassion that other Christians think are
>not merciful or compassionate.

Hmm, here we go again with the self paralysis.  We just say that it's
impossible to define XYZ because two people in the universe might have
a difference of opinion of its meaning under certain circumstances.

Random House Dictionary:

Compassion - a deep feeling of sympathy for another persons suffering or
misfortune.

Mercy - 1 - Compassion shown towards an offender or enemy.
        2 - A disposition to forgive or forbear.

Now given the above definition, what problem do you see?

>--

>Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)


-- 
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: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson)
Subject: Re: Hypnosis and Repression (was Ritual Abuse Taskforce....)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:17:26 GMT

In article <DLB.92Dec18172154@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>In article <BzH5Gv.Jqv@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert
>McGrath) writes:
>
>   What is the basis for this last claim?
>
[That memories are fallible in "normal" states; hypnotic regression is
only a special case]
>
>I actually don't think there has been a comparative study.  Enhanced
>suggestibility is certainly a characteristic of hypnosis; however, it
>is certainly NOT unique to hypnosis.
>
Elisabeth Loftus has done the best known work on memory lability.  I
don't have references to hand, but it is largely her work that has made
waves in the legal testimony domain.  I think she published a book on
the topic a few years ago.  But she hasn't done comparative studies of
hypnosis versus situational influences as far as I know.  Nevertheless,
her studies are persuasive on the general issue:  our memories are not
only fragile, but we do not have much in the way of monitoring ability
to distinguish veridical from constructed memories.