HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The future?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 05:25:35 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada

matthews_k@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:

- In article <c67RqB3w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
- > <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
- >
- >  Intelligent questions deserve intelligent answers.
- >
- > -
- > - Why do I get the feeling that there are far too many people out there who
- > - spend their lives thinking judgment is just around the corner and die
- > - disappointed?
- >
- >   My answer to this one is that these people  are the more self-righteous
- > people in society.   These people die disappointed because :
- >
- > 1) they don't know how to be loving.
- >
- > 2) these people are VERY unfulfilled.
- >
- > I, for one, hope never to fall under the catagory of a self-righteous perso
- >
- > Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
- > userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
-
- Y'know, the reason I've been a Trekkie/er for umpteen-odd years is because Tr
- says we WON'T blow ourselves to pieces.  It's optimistic, and I love that.  I
- what quantum physics seems to be saying about how _thought_ can affect the
- universe is true, we'd best stop thinking we WILL kill ourselves off, or it'l
- come true.
-
- New Agely yours
-
- Kellie
- internet::matthews_k@cubldr.colorado.edu


Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Treaty of Maastricht, synonymous with the Key to Armageddon.
From: dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 8 Sep 92 07:23:24 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <ksand-070992001430@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>If Jesus says that rather a camel could push itself through the
>eye of a needle, than a rich man could get to heaven, and modern
>Christians change Jesus' wordings that it means in the general sense,
>then what could I say? Or what would Jesus say, when future followers
>are changing his words?


	Um, just thought I should clarify something here.
	"an Eye of a needle" back in that time, was a defense used agiainst horse-
men to keep cavalries from invadinf fortresses.  It was an entranceway shaped
roughly like this:

	________________________________________               __
	|							|
	|							|
	|							|
	|	________________________________________________|
	|							|
	|							|
	|							|
	|________________________________________ 	       _|

		_____
	       /     \_/\
	       \_____/-\/     <----  Approximate size of horse/

	As horses are smaller than camels in most cases (arabians are anyway)
this structure served to control the entrance of horses without precluding their
possible entry.  It was a pain in the ass for a camel to get through.

	But possible.

	DISCLAIMER: I am not christian, nor am I defending christianity or its 
god-concept.  I am intelligent, and I am defending intelligence, and i think the
facts should be known.
	If anyone can use this information in an actaul flame against christianity,
I am all for it, and encourage you heartily.  I do not mind blind mindless faith 
being undermined.  Such things often lead to thought and intelligence is then
a possibility.

						Dodger.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 17:55:55 GMT

In article <18l0noINNo9r@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep08.024227.482@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>>I can't make any sense out of this.  What do you think the results of
>>overpopulation are, if not excessive damage to the environment?  If you
>>consider the 3rd world to be overpopulated because of environmental
>>damage, why would you not think the same of the U.S.?
>
>Just because the U.S. is hurting the environment doesn't mean we're
>overpopulated.  I assume that was what you were trying to say; your line of
>thought wasn't clear.

No, that was not what I was trying to say.  Could you please define what
you mean by overpopulated?  How do you think you'll know when the U.S. is
overpopulated?  It obviously involves more than just being able
to feed everybody for the time being, because producing that food may
have unsustainable effects on the environment.  For example, it may be
possible in the short term, to feed a few more Brazilians by knocking
down rain forests to create farmland, but the medium and long term
effects of such a policy are disastrous.

>>Not only that, but as long as there is such
>>a skewed distribution of wealth in the world, and as long as there are
>>people who do not have their basic needs met, none of us will be secure.
>>Sorry if that sounds like pinko propaganda, but it happens to be true.
>
>It isn't true anymore.  The only type of class revolution the U.S. will
>have to deal with is an internal one.

I'm not so much worried about a class revolution as I am about some
desperate people getting their hands on some nuclear weapons and
bringing about Armageddon because they have nothing to lose.  Can't
say I'd blame them really, because it looks like y'all are going to
kill us all slowly anyway.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:15:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <67878@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-080992193704@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Then I would suggest that instead of paraphrasing your statement
> >that God can save rich men, let me know in what part of the scriptures
> >Jesus clearly says this. I think this would solve the dilemma
> >immediately, or what. Then you would also use the rules Jesus
> >and Satan had during their mountain fight.
> 
>    Mat 19:25   When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and
>       asked, "Who then can be saved?"
>    Mat 19:26   Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible,
>       but with God all things are possible."
> 
> UNPARAPHRASED - "WITH MAN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, BUT WITH GOD ALL 
>                  THINGS ARE POSSIBLE."

Simple question, where does this statement say that rich men will be 
saved by God as well????

It says, with god all things are possible. It's a huge set, it comprises
a lot of things, like for God it's possible to Sin, or that for God
he could break covenants and cause another Flood. You see the dilemma
maybe from this distorted perspective (I hope).
 
> To what is this referring?  UNPARAPHRASED - "WHO THEN CAN BE SAVED?"
>    Eph 2:8   For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this
>       not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
>    Eph 2:9   not by works, so that no one can boast.

I have to post another posting about the social statements Jesus
did. In general he wasn't that much interested about 'communistic
ideals'. His main motto was that the Kingdom of God was near, and 
everyone should just leave their jobs, join him and wait for the 
great day. This is actually the main message when he wanted the rich
man to sell everything he got and join Jesus.

I just wanted to point out how richness in Jesus definition was
really nothing, and by giving all the money people had and joining
Jesus was the main concern he had. 

As we know modern Christians still want to serve both Mammon and
Jesus. Otherwise most churches would not collect golden materials.
Same with the situation with Christianity in US, a nice marriage
of capitalism and religion.

Cheers,
Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Hindu "creation science"? (was Re: I visited the ICR in pers)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:37:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Summary: actually, no

In article <BuBwA2.p1@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com
(Paul Harvey) writes:

> And the cycle begins again. Cycles upon cycles. Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva is the
> Hindu trinity that is the manifestation of the ONE transcendent. (Sound
> familiar Christians?) Brahma is the creator, Vishnu is the sustainer, Shiva
> is the destroyer.

And other than the cardinality, this has ZERO resemblance to the Christian
Trinity.  Are you a Fregean?  or possibly a memeber of the first coven of
Russell, for whom the set of all sets equipollent to the give set makes
all representatives indistinguishable?
-- 
Michael L. Siemon			"I know of nothing -- I suspect
					not even death -- that is so fixed
mls@usl.com				in the present tense as love."
standard disclaimer					-- Jess Anderson
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 18:31:08 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

[ James Meritt is God. ]

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) wrote (in article <68191@hydra.gatech.EDU>):
>... what can you suggest I request that you do to
>prove you are god?  Could you try to get executed (via cruxifiction, if
>possible) for supposedly starting a insurrection (political move) and
>then on the third day be seen in a flesh and bone body which can 
>transcend matter (i.e., go through walls)?  Or what do you propose as
>your proof?

He could.  He could also suddenly teleport you to Siberia and put on a
fireworks show above your head.  But if you need this sort of physical
proof that he IS God, then you're not relying on faith.  You need to
take a leap of faith and LET yourself believe.

I was thinking about this on the way to work this morning.  "Give me a
sign," I asked the heavens, "so that I may believe!"  And lo! and
behold! the license plate on the car in front of me read "JAMES" and I
noticed this just in time to stop from plowing into his rear bumper,
because he had slammed on his brakes.  I have been SAVED!

>Oh, by the way, Yahweh considers the witness of His Son, Jesus the Christ,
>as the only sign we need - PEOPLE STILL DON'T BELIEVE EVEN THOUGH HE
>ROSE FROM THE DEAD, as he said they would not.

Yeah, sure, Jesus rose from the dead, it says so in this old book
right here. But Jesus is only make-believe, and Mr. Meritt LIVES!  He
never died in the first place!  And he still walks among the people!
Mr. Meritt said he created the universe, and obviously the universe
exists, so he must've done it.  And I even read in a post recently
that Mr. Meritt is God, and that post was propagated to hundreds of
thousands of news sites across the globe, so it must be true!

Witness Mr. Meritt; that's the only sign you need!  And if people
still don't believe even though Mr. Meritt is walking among them
preaching his Good Word, well, that's their loss, and sadly they'll be
sent off to an outer circle of Hell at the Final Judgement.

     << Brian >>

P.T.: If this whole post sounds outrageous to you, swap the names
"Jesus/God and Mr. Meritt", and you'll see how outrageous it looks to
some non-Christians.

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15891 alt.atheism:16773
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What happened to Gavins' kill file
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:07:21 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <ksand-060992132042@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sa
> >I would not be surprised if we sooner or later end up in a situation
> >where most people post, have kill files, so they never see the comments.
> >Sort of a one-man-band Usenet postings :-).
> This is QUITE common. A lot of people use killfiles set to screen
> out anything with Re: in the subject.

My talk.bizarre killfile is smarter.  It rescues anything which is a followup
to something posted from here.

If I were using rn, I'd do something like

/References:.*mantis.co.uk/h:m

(Check this before trying it, it's a long time since I last used rn.)


mathew
-- 
Bush/Quayle in '92!
God Bless America!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist) 
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:14:00 GMT

weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:

>>> The Christian concept of God includes the idea of "self-existence", that the
>>> very power of being rests in him. 
>>
>>Of course, we all know the REAL answer to the question "who created God?" :)

>Mr. First Cause ??  :)

Dang!  First Sean says I'm God (calling me Mr. First Cause) and NOW, Dave
is saying that I (Mr. First Cause) created God!!!  Yow!  I created myself!

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: paal-sb@hsr.no (Paal Steinar Berg)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: This pi "thang"
Date: 7 Sep 92 11:09:04 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

In article <1992Sep4.121825.7334@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>    In article <1992Sep4.091437.8888@hsr.no> paal-sb@hsr.no (Paal Steinar Berg)
> >  writes:
> > 
> >    >The bible is *wrong*!!!
> >    >This is the real value of pi:
> >
> 
> [lots of numbers deleted]
>  
> >
> >    >Get it????
> > 
> 
> Holy Zeus! Did you type all those numbers in by hand????? If so - I submit
> you as evidence of the power of atheism to motivate a person to incredible
> feats of endurance and fortitude!
> 
> sh

Umm, well I used the include file function......

Paal  DoD#0674
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JW humor
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:38:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep8.004615.7389@infonode.ingr.com>,
tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) wrote:
>   Under the topic of JW humor, somehow it would seem aprapo, that antti
>   would slip in and try to say something that he has been hidding
>   for a long time.  [[ Warning, Warning.]] The things that Siivonen says
>   and does should not be taken as representaive of the ideals that the
>   JW try to promote within their group. Think of him as a psudo-JW.
>   Having the appearence of sanctity, but denying the power therein.

So are we dealing with a religious orphan that no group wants
to accept as their fellow? In general, doesn't that show how
hollow the issue of objective truth in religion really is? 

I still don't subscribe to the notion that religious movements
have a monopoly on the doctrines. Reading peoples' comments on t.r.m
has even enhanced this personal observation. And no objective
truth means no truth.

Cheers,
Kent


"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Subject: some questions about
Reply-To: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: talk
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:48:15 EST


In <sbuckley.714787195@sfu.ca>,
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>the jw's regularly re-write the bible to fit their arbitrary
>feelings about life

Well, I've heard this before too.  But could you give an example of where
we ever re-wrote the Bible several times in succession (as the word
"regularly" implies)?  Or did it even once?  I do not feel this statement
is accurate, and would appreciate it if you would defend it.  I'm curious
where you might have got this impression.

I often volunteer to use whatever translation the person I'm talking to
feels comfortable with; I have half a dozen within arm's reach as I'm
typing this because I'm addicted to comparing them, and knowing other
Witnesses I'm not out of the ordinary in this.

Thanks for writing, and I'm looking forward to hearing back!

Take care,

Herb

.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Handyman's Guide to Science:                                                |
|     1. If it stinks, it's chemistry.                                        |
|     2. If it's green or it wiggles, it's biology.                           |
|     3. If it doesn't work, it's physics.                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|UUCP:canrem!herb.sutter INTERNET:herb.sutter@canrem.com COMPUSERVE:70312,1233|
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

:DeLuxe2 1.12 #9091 * File not found.  Should I fake it? (Y/N)
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario, Canadas
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:16026 alt.atheism:16950
From: esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:57:16 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

Jarek writes:

}This makes sense only for VERIFIABLE assumptions. You are an agnostic so
}you are supposed to know that you cannot provide a non-circular proof of
}ALL your statements. You must always rely on a number of unverifiable
}axioms. As these axioms are unverifiable, no evidence can be used in any
}meaningfull way to support them. You can only say: "I like my axioms".
}Now, I claim that I don't use more unsupportable (unchangable) axioms
}than you do. See the discussion of "I am" in the following.

  You seem top think that the unprovability of an axiom is the same as
the unverifiability of an axiom.  Of course a fundamental axiom of a
formal system cannot be proved within that system (that's why it's an
axiom).  But you seem to think this implies that one set of axioms is
just as good as another.  But this is simply false.  We can test a set
of axioms by using the system as a model, and then seeing how well the
model maps onto what we experience in the world.  So, for instance, if I
have an axiom that says "P -> ~P" and I want to decide whether to accpet
this axiom or an alternative axiom that says "P -> P", I can see what
sorts of inferences I can make using both axioms, and then checking the
results of those inferences against my experience.  Try plugging in some
values: let P = "having this dollar".  Then the first axiom will allow me
to infer that if I have this dollar, then I won't have this dollar.  But
I DO have this dollar, so I have good reason for rejecting the axiom.
The alternative, however, allows me to infer that I do have this dollar
(which I do), and so it fits better with my experiences than the first
axiom.  Thus, even though I can't prove the second axiom within my
formal system, it doesn't follow that is is, in a broader sense,
unverifiable.
  In addition, the sorts of assumptions science makes are not merely
blind posits that are made by a mere whim or trivial fancy.  They are,
rather, procedural recommendations that may be abandoned if they don't
square with observation and experience.  Witness some of the wierdnesses
of Quantum Physics, and how observations have forced scientists to
abandon some of the assumptions that intuitively seemed justified in
advance of empirical disconfirmation.

}"During the observation of 'I', an event of observation of 'God' took
}place".

  You OBSERVED an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immaterial,
unextended, uncolored, being having the properties of having created the
universe and revealed himself to humanity in the guise of a human being
named "Jesus"?  Or if your observation didn't include all of these
properties, which properties did you observe?

--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu    |  One chance.
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A RIDDLE FOR YOU :-)
Keywords: THERE ARE NO KEYWORDS!
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:59:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


NO, NO, NO!  The answer is not a closed photon or any other type of
photon.  If you don't want to try and guess the real menaing of the riddle
then don't, but don't waste everyone's time trying to post some cryptic
message belittling Christianity.  This is for FUN, something many like YOU
could do with more of.

Again, if you think you have the answer ot the original riddle I posted,
then send me the answer ot my MAILBOX, this sort of thing is why I have
one. 

Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu
Steve.Gross@lambada.unc.edu

God Bless.
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: College Boyz (The John M Paradox)
	<1992Sep6.232421.27931@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Sep8.172736.1879@linus.mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:22:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.172736.1879@linus.mitre.org> 
m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>Bad news. The end of the world came and went. NONE of you are worthy! ;-)

Yes, this is true, in a sense. Heaven is right here, right now, only most
don't see it for what it is. Hell is not seeing. Some of us do know what
life is really worth. Jah! ... Ras TafarI! You see this is stand up for my
right, I don't care who the guy is, I know my right.