HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: ** The Birth of NEW-ISRAEL ** ( Re: Death of America xx )
Summary:  a modest suggestion
Keywords: Making ready for the Messiah
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:22:13 GMT

In article <C07tHH.L7w@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
writes:

>In article <1JAN199320014243@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu
(General Jubilation T.) writes:

>>	[ a sortamanifesto thingy ]

>	[ a protest ]

I can well understand Mr. Toal's objection, but I should note for the
cross-puddle crowd that General Jubilation T. Cornpone is a figure (of
fun) in the L'l Abner comic strip (and the Bd'wy musical made from it),
so that one (here) is hardly given to taking such a post without irony.
Newsgroups: /dev/null
Subject: Re: ** The Birth of NEW-ISRAEL ** ( Re: Death of America xx )
Summary: a modest suggestion
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Keywords: Making ready for the Messiah

In article <C07tHH.L7w@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
writes:

>In article <1JAN199320014243@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu
(General Jubilation T.) writes:

>>	[ a sortamanifesto thingy ]

>	[ a protest ]

I can well understand Mr. Toal's objection, but I should note for the
cross-puddle crowd that General Jubilation T. Cornpone is a figure (of
fun) in the L'l Abner comic strip (and the Bd'wy musical made from it),
so that one (here) is hardly given to taking such a post without irony.
-- 
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.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of America 3
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 16:16:44 GMT

In article <BzF1x4.4wJ@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>   Honestly I don't know why the posters to this thread have suddenly
>   become so apocalyptic.   I work in the computer business: my company
>   (HP) and all those around me are downsizing. DEC, IBM, Apple,
>   Compaq, Data General, etc etc have all announced massive layoffs.
>   Excellent software and hardware engineers with years of experience,
>   current skills, and families to feed are walking the streets looking
>   for work for months.  
>
>   And yet *even I* don't think we're heading for another "Great 
>   Depression".  

upon what do you base your belief? the evidence overwhelmingly suggests
that the US is on its way to a financial disaster. do you have any evidence
to the contrary?

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Death of America 3
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:38:55 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

Lots of emotional laments.  Seems to me that some good things and
some bad things are happening, sort of like always.  Arab-Israeli
peace talks might be fruitful or might turn to shit.  Russia may
make the transition to "Democracy" or may slide back into another
period of central planning.  Somalia might be a beginning for a
new world order, or might be a premise for renewed imperialism.
One works and hopes for the best.

If you're worried about your future as a programmer, do the
intelligent think:  broaden your skills.  Learn another language,
like Russian or Spanish, learn more about biochemistry or
an engineering field, and just look around and be creative.

There are enough uneducated people waiting for the government
to plan for them.  The educated ones should look after themselves.

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
From: Spartan@cup.portal.com (Rich Clark MacKinnon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: President, superman
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 12:04:57 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Dec29.151501.25263@polaris.utu.fi>

In article <1992Dec29.051146.22329@midway.uchicago.edu> yung chang
hsueh, hsue@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:
>right policies and decisions. He should be a intellectually super man.

I think presidential scholar Tom Cronin summed it when he said (approximately)
that a president needs to be a common man of uncommon ability.  Cronin's
work on the "superman" president and the presidential paradoxes gets at
the difficulty of personally incorporating divergent public wants.

Rich MacKinnon
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5552 talk.politics.misc:65378
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Communitarians = Anti-Libertarians (was Re: Communitarianism & Body)
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:27:24
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu's message of Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:04:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.060446.7642@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>Well, what little respect I had for the "communitarian" movement just went
>out the window.

>They want a law to make organ donation mandatory.

I have some respect for some conservatives and some respect for some
liberals, but none at all for the communitarians.  In my opinion, they
represent the worst of both worlds -- conservative contempt for civil
liberties mixed with liberal contempt for free-market capitalism.

I ran across a book entitled "Communitarianism and Liberalism" which
consisted of communitarian critiques of liberalism.  In the preface,
the editor wrote (paraphrased from memory), "Communitarian criticisms
of liberalism are actually criticisms of libertarianism.
Communitarians share with liberals a belief in egalitarianism, but
criticize liberals for allowing excessive concern for individual
freedom to interfere with their egalitarian goals.  This is the
opposite of the libertarian critique of liberalism, which criticizes
liberalism for allowing egalitarianism to infringe upon individual
freedom."

In some ways, Clinton seems more like a communitarian than a liberal,
with his proposals for national service, boot camps for non-violent
offenders, and addressing the crime problem by putting a horde of new
police officers on the streets.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: Olli-Jukka Paloneva <opaloneva@abo.fi>
Subject: Re: President, superman
Organization: Turku School Of Economics
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 15:15:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.051146.22329@midway.uchicago.edu> yung chang 
hsueh, hsue@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:
>right policies and decisions. He should be a intellectually super man.

I think that president can not be too wise in order to be able
to communicate and share other peoples trust. He must be an
actor, who can manipulate other people to think and act. So,
I'd say that he's a kind of movie director. He should not be too
honest either - people do not like honest opinions of themselves.

I think that difference between James Carter and Ronald Reagan
will make it clear.

Olli
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5536 talk.politics.misc:65006
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Date: 1 Jan 93 00:50:38 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <adams.725661951@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>>In article <adams.725585678@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>>Relative few christians question the historical accuracy
>>>of the resurrection, but I have known some who do.
>>True enough, but one has to reject certain parts of Scripture, most notably
>>Paul, to do this...
>
>I have never known any believer who did not "reject" some
>parts of the bible; eg, some of the more brutal punishments
>in Deut.  In the NT, there are many parts that are routinely
>rejected (or given a convoluted interpretation to make a passage
>say something it does not), such as that bit about cutting off
>you hand if it offends you.
You have a point, of course...but flat out rejection of NT teaching is much
more troublesome than simply showing the modification of teaching from the
Old to the New.

>>>>There is no con game here.  It is your choice to make.  Your decision on
>>>>whether or not you think Scripture is the word of God.  No force, no
>>>>intimidation. 
>>>
>>>No intimidation?  What happens to people who make the
>>>wrong choice?
>>
>>I have no idea...that's up to God.  Iraneaus and others seem to think that
>>the choice didn't matter...and Iraneaus was canonized by the Roman church.
>
>Sounds like you "rejected" those scriptures which say exactly
>what happens to people who make the wrong choice.

I know what Scripture says, but ultimately, it is up to God, is it not?
Scripture says that those who reject God are damned to eternal torment...
"their fire is not quenched and their worm does not die"...

>And, the RC church normally canonizes people more for their
>character than their writings.  As a balance to Iraneaus,
>consider what Thomas Aquinas (saint, and doctor of the church)
>said about the fate awaiting people who make the wrong choice,
>and how to remove them speedily from this world and propel
>them into the next world.
Not all Saints are saints, eh?

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:33:54 GMT
Summary: God and Justice

In article <17929@pitt.UUCP>, geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
> 
[alot of deletion]
> Do you truly revel in worshiping such a God, and if so,
> why?

I don't revel in it.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_. 
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:45:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.235307.9825@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.005123.28155@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>, johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Art Johnson) writes:
>This seems like a reasonable way to think about this. The only reservation
>I have is that I think Orwell would be touchy about saying a person
>is made up of body and soul. "Soul," in an atheistic sense, means 
>personality, whatever it is that makes a person unique, not some kind
>of substance.


	I would tend to agree with this comment.  Orwell, clearly, 
	felt that the idea that there wassome holy conciousness
	that was seperate from environment, physical experiance,
	was wrong.  One of his points in 1984 is that a person
	is purely the product of his environment, and when that
	environment changes, so will that person.


>The other interesting point is that in actuality, Orwell turns out to
>be right. Skilled interrogators armed with the latest technology are
>in fact irresistable, I am assured by a local member of Amnesty 
>International. The vision of humanity espoused by STTNG turns out
>to be false. Some people take longer than others to break, but


	In the end of theepisode, Picard confesses that he saw five.
	(I think--I wasn't really paying attention--I got tired of the
	1984-watered-down rip off of a "plot".. Pain aint all there is 
	to it..) 


>everyone breaks in the end. They can dismantle your personality
>and rebuild you as the person they want you to be, providing your
>body is strong enough to survive the extreme methods required to
>effect this process. So it goes. I am not sure if this discredits
>Christianity or not...


	It almost certainly discredits the "it's the way I am and I can't
	control it" view of just about anything behavioral.  No surprise
	there.


>>      Now, I'm going to think about how _1984_ relates to religion, and get  
>> back to you on that. :-)
>
>Well, what does it say about "souls" if a skilled interrogator with 
>sufficient time and resources can take even the most dedicated Christian
>and turn him or her into a fanatical atheist (or vice versa)?  As I said,
>I am assured by a man who has been involved with Amnesty International
>for years that this not only _can_ be done, but _has_ been done more
>often than we will ever know. 
>
>There are many other interesting questions that _1984_ raises regarding
>religion...I'd be interested to knock them around. 


	I'm sure, had Orwell lived to see modern drugs and the
	sensory-deprivation chamber, room 101 would not have existed 
	in the novel.


-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.

         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
		   	     Pain teaches.   <for mailing and other info, .plan>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.computers
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Kent,hammer, SatanISM
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:45:24 GMT

dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
] 
] >So my point was that an omnipotent being would have certainly anticipated
] >this turmoil and confusion, and made sure that it would never happen.
] >
] >As we all know NNTP and SMTP are fully described, and we could send
] >email and newsentries all around the world. 
] 
] Uh, Kent -- your post reminds me of the adage that when one
] has a hammer in one's hand, everything begins to look like
] a nail.

I think that Kent is Onto Something Here....

Everytime that a news Article Fails to Post,
or a Piece of Email Bounces, or an Email Loop Occurs,
We Can CLEARLY see the HAND OF SATAN!!!!!

Obviously IF it were NOT for the DarkSinisterSatanicForces
email would always follow the correct rules of interpretation
of tokens, and go where it needs to go....


ciao
drieux


ps: Fight the REAL ENEMY!

SatanicForcesLurkingInTheMachines!!!!



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/29/92   God's promise in Jeremiah 33:8
Date: 29 Dec 92 04:30:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	And I will cleanse them
	from all their iniquity,
	whereby they have sinned against me;
	and I will pardon all their iniquities,
	whereby they have sinned,
	and whereby they have transgressed
	against me.

	Jeremiah 33:8
Date: Wednesday, 23 December 1992 21:01:28 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <adams.725124795@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)  wrote:
# 
# pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
# >Then, if you'd like you can try to figure out
# >what it could mean, you can see if you agree with the JPS rendering, ie
# >the extra words they add and the meaning they think it has. And, if
# >anyone has information on how NIV arrived at the translation they have,
# >please post it. In particular, I'd be interested in hearing how they
# >arrived at "IN THE PAST" and "BUT IN THE FUTURE" and "Galilee of the
# >Gentiles."
# >^^^^^^^^???????
# There are no textual notes on this verse in my NIV Study Bible, and the
# NRSV translates it as 'nations', again with no text notes.  Similarly for
# the NASB and the use of 'Gentiles.'   This would be a good question to
# propose to the committees responsible for the versions...

  Uh, folks... 'Gentiles', from the Latin 'Gentium' MEANS 'nations';
  this follows the Hebrew 'goyim' = 'nations' exactly.  So there's
  no discrepancy.  For what it's worth, the Hebrew version of the
  verse ends:

      " ... derech hayam 'eiver hayardein galil hagoyim."
            OR, word for word,
      "<way> <the sea> <side> <the Jordan> <Galilee> <the nations>."

  Since I was already picking apart Mr. Pitts' translations of that
  verse, be sure I wouldn't pass up a problem here.  Of course,
  Hebrew is a marvelously concise language, as you can see.  I'm
  far from being fluent enough to appreciate plays on the language,
  but it's easy to see why every Israeli I ever met is a punster.
  Their milk tongue lends itself so wonderfully to ambiguity and
  multiple simultaneous messages.  I believe the experts who
  rave over the poetic mastery in some of Davids songs.

  BTW, this little bit of Hebrew investigation didn't take any
  great expertise; just a dual-language copy of Isaiah and a
  Hebrew dictionary.  Both are readily available, and I strongly
  advise ANYONE who's really interested in the subject to get
  copies of their own.  I use the Soncino Press _Isaiah_.  The
  Artscroll edition is gorgeous, and their editions of the
  Writings in particular contain a more extensive commentary.
  For Isaiah, though, the Soncino is more conservative and
  (to me, at least) gives more insight into the translation
  used.  Now, if I could afford to have BOTH sets...

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:15:12 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <adams.725739195@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>I can't answer this question...I don't know.   The best I can do is believe
>in God, trust Scripture, repent my sins and live my life the best I can.

To what end is this "the best you can do?"  In concrete terms, what do you
hope to get out of this, that you choose to follow the way of another
rather than your own?

>Speaking 'off the record' so to speak, there are many ways to look at
>Genesis.  Paul Harvey and I went through a theoretical thing on this back
>in the fall.  Some of the conversation went along these lines.

Off the record, of course...glad God doesn't subscribe to this
newsgroup, huh? ;-)  Seriously, I would've liked to have seen that
discussion.  Sounds relatively interesting.

>>>Clearly I know which I prefer...but I also know which I deserve.
>>Why do you believe you "deserve" it?
>
>For all those things I've done that are ungodly...and there are a lot.
>Yes, I repent of some, but not of all..I can't deny who I was and what I
>was before I was saved...
     ^^^^^^ ^ ^^^ ^^^^^

I thought you started out this post saying that it was impossible to
know whether you were saved or not...? <g>

Are you saying that you are willingly unrepentant of some of your
so-called sin?  I'm not sure I understand this.

Your premise - "If you do ungodly things, you deserve hell" isn't quite
what I was looking for.  If a woman refuses to have sex with a man, would
you say that she "deserves" rape?  "Deserve" seems to be one of those
semantically null verbs, that really doesn't mean anything.  What I
think you're saying - correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you're
saying - is "God has the power to send me to hell.  He says that if
I do certain things that he says are 'ungodly,' then that's where he's
going to send me.  If done those things, and so he's probably going to
send me to hell."  Is that about it?

In all honesty, I agree with you and the guy I quoted last time, in a
sense.  I do what I consider right, with little regard for any moral
system or societal convention.  I consider what others think I should
or should not do, but ultimately, the decision - and the responsibility -
lies with me.  If what you believe is right, and God chooses to send me
to hell, then I will go gladly - not because I think I "deserve" it, but
because I would not wish to spend a single moment in a heaven ruled by
such a God as that.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:45:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.92Dec29123836@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> In article <1992Dec29.020114.5071@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com
>    >Skinner is trying to make Sandvik obey a standard of evidence which Sandvik
>    >has never professed to hold.
>    >I'd call that stupid.
> 
>   Yes, you already did, demonstrating that you didn't understand the
> point made by Gregg Skinner.  It is not a matter of what standards of
> evidence should be applied in verifying the premisses of an argument.
> The point instead is that verifying the premisses has nothing to do
> with verifying that an argument is logically valid. Kent Sandvik's
> complaints about the lack of logic in Christianity are no more
> justified than the complaint that there is no logical reasoning in
> Euclidean geometry or axiomatic set theory since the axioms can't be
> verified. The reply to such a complaint is not that the axioms *can*
> be verified, but that his requirement is irrelevant.

Sigh, my complain is that we all agree on the premisses of Eucledian
geometry, even if we can't verify them. At the other hand we *don't*
agree on the Christian premisses, making statements about logic and
Christianity something that we can't speak of. In other words moot.

I think Socrates was right 1). And where the concept of agreements
about premisses suddenly becomes relevant. This is a very important
issue, because it explains the difference between science and religion.

Kent
1) "I only know that I know nothing"
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/25/92   God's Promise in 1 Peter 2:24
Date: 25 Dec 92 04:58:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Who with his own self bare our sins
	in his own body on the tree,
	that we, being dead to sins,
	should live unto righteousness:
	by whose stripes ye were healed.

	1 Peter 2:24
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/2/93   God's Promise in John 12:26
Date: 2 Jan 93 04:24:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	If any man serve me,
	let him follow me;
	and where I am,
	there shall also my servant be:
	if any man serve me,
	him will my Father honour.

	John 12:26