HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:21:59 GMT

In article <NV8uTB6w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>
>> >1) What is the soul?
>> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
>> 
>> 1) There is no such thing as a soul (why do you think there is?).  But if
>> you are asking what makes us who we are as individuals, then the answer is
>> the combination of the matter of which we are made and the form/order/
>> arrangement of this matter. Don't confuse the form with your concept of
>> the soul -- form is a property of matter and does not exist independently
>> of matter.
>
>Question 1 grade: 0%
>> 
>> 2) Purpose implies design, which is not evident.  So then we are left to 
>> our own devices to give meaning and purpose to our lives.
>> 
>
>Question 2 grade: 0%
>
>Overall grade: 0%  (pupil in wrong class)
>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

You are right, I thought that you were talking about metaphysical reality
and wanted an explanation that fits the evidence.  If I had known that you
were really just looking for some confirmation of your mental midget/
emotional crutch/learned at your mother's apron/anthropomorphic/
wish fulfillment/make-believe/fantasy-land beliefs I might have said:

The soul is the airy essence that was created many years ago by an explosive
utterance from The Great Flatulent One.

And the purpose of life is to travel the journey from His bowels to His
nostrils and fill His senses with a truly exhilarating aroma.

Until you have the courage to deal with the real world and face the fact
that the universe was not created with the comfort of humans in mind then go
spew your BS somewhere else.  Living is easy with your eyes closed, so I
suggest that you wake up, grow a brain, and then get a life.

jc
-- 
I sink like a stone
That's been thrown in the ocean
My logic has drowned
In a sea of emotion                   -- Sting
From: troye@cs.mcgill.ca (Troy ENGLISH)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:16:42 GMT

In article <Bx9w86.Eyv@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <LEE.92Nov5104927@ace.npac.syr.edu> lee@ace.npac.syr.edu (Lee C. Brink) writes:
>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 92 10:15:54 EST, greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) said:
>>
>>JSG> In article <Bx7Lpp.Gw2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> chak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Buckshot Willie) writes:
>>
>>>  I personally find PC language to be unwieldy, tiresome, unnecessary,
>>>and annoying.
>>
>>JSG> Why do so many of you seem insistent on wrapping the question of using
>>JSG> gender-neutral pronouns in a blanket in "PC" positions?
>>
>>Because the "PC" movement wants to change speech so it resembles "doublespeak"
>>from George Orwell's "1984."
>
>Don't evade the question.  Why drag a nonexistent political entity
>into the discussion if you can't defend your points yourself?

What kind of rebuttal is this??? He was defending his points by using
the 'nonexistent political entity' with which we are all familiar as an
example to help explain his beliefs clearer. Seems to me that you are
evading the issue by responding with a post that has absolutely no
bearing on the question at all.....


>
>(And they call *me* paranoid ...)
>
>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 


-- 
*****************************************************************
--Your naive idiocy makes me very angry -- Job (The Lawnmower man)
"I want to lie Shipwrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice"
--Part of Themesong to Red Dwarf
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Tony and Antti Deserve Each Other
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:18:52 GMT

In article <1c=b02US2aIB01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.133414.3959@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.185417.17061@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>
>> Now, tony rose, has turned his misguide thoughts in your direction.
>> Congrates, Antti, you now have an opponent, worthy of your talents.
>>
>> Yes, you two _deserve_ each other. Your argument style seem to mesh
>> in close order.  Why you two seem tobe pretty much the same _type_
>> of person. I mistakenly thought at one time, that he had a lot in
>> common with the JW's, as he argues with the same style of misinformaiton
>> that you do. I see now how I could have made such a terrible :-) mistake
>>
>> Think of this both of you will get you just punishment. You can be his
>> punishment, he can be yours!
>>
>
>Please witness true love from a mormon above!


 Gee tony, I've sent you E-mail, but you never respond.


 When you thought I was accusing you of being a JW, that wasn't quite
 true. I was thinking of _this_ JW.  The JW lurker rightly took me
 to task for assuming that anybody as crass, ignorant and downright
 shifty as you two, had to be JW. In their mind, that came close to
 slander. In retrospect, it proably was, for that I apoligize.

 Simply put, the net-tatics and "versions of the truth" are indicative of
 you both.  Remember the thread, tony, of "if the mormon were honest, they
 would agree with me"?  That's exactly an Antti style, character malignment.

 Your approaches to "Truth" are almost exactly the same, your approachs to
 scripture study are _exactly_ the same, proof-texting.

 The major difference in the "cult" you misserve. Tony seems to represent
 the lunatic fringe in the EV' chrisiten side and Antti, the luntic north
 european JW side.  


  Have at it boys, the subject won't matter,  you two _deserve_ each other!




-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 05:52:03 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

$stephan@sasb (Stephan Fassmann, Software) writes:

> In article <7g3sTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
> >1) What is the soul?
> 
> The body inhabited by a spirit born of our Heavenly Father.

Question 1 grade: 50%

The soul is not a combination of body and spirit. The soul is the
individual spirit in the body. The body by itself is nonliving matter.
The soul is the person, whether in or out of the body.

> 
> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
> 
> To become perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect.
> 

Question 2 grade: 95% (best yet)

The purpose of human life is to reestablish our forgotten relationship
with God. In this way, with God's mercy, we can become perfect.

Overall grade:  72.5%
Thank you very much!

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:03:12 GMT

In article <2XqyTB5w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>> >The soul is an actually existing living entity whose principal
>> >characteristic is consciousness and who is part of the Supersoul, or
>> >God.
>
>> Huh?  If it's an "actually existing living entity", then what's its
>> genus and species?  I thought religion considered the soul to be part
>> of a human being, and not an "entity" unto itself?
>
>Genus: spirit
>Species: soul
>
>Don't know about "religion" but the Vedas say the soul is a separately
>existing entity, not dependent on matter. Also not restricted to
>inhabiting human bodies.

Why accept the Vedas over any other holy book?

You haven't even shown that God exists, never mind that He acts as the
Vedas describe.  

>> And what it "the Supersoul, or God," if not an abstract concept?  ;-)
>> Can you demonstrate it to be something concrete?  Can you take me
>> somewhere and point to something and say "there, that's God"?
>
>Supersoul
>Genus: God
>Species: Spirit
>
>As a matter of fact, we can point God out to you. But would you
>recognize Him?

Ah, this is classic.  If I don't recognize an omniscient God when I
see him, then that must be the way He wants it.  Who am I to go
against God wishes?

I have spent time in the past honestly beseeching God to show Himself.
No dice.  Either he's not there or He's not answering the phone.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:10:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <720984135.171@minster.york.ac.uk>, cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
wrote:
> Having said this, I think Russell's line is not an argument, but a
> provocation inviting one to consider the role of intelligence within
> Christian teaching.

I actually agree, with the slight bias that Russell wanted to reinforce
the issue of blind faith that overrides any intellectual thinking
concerning the Gospel message. Actually, I would like to take a neutral
standpoint, and state that maybe feelings/faith could be as important
argument than a logical conclusion. We do have laws based on fairly
emotional issues (such as killing a man because he/she killed another).

> Several people have rushed into to demonstrate that Russel was
> wrong. The quotes they provide, however, serve to reinforce my
> perception that the gospel message is not supported by intelligence
> or rational argument, but by revelation.

I totally agree, it's rather hard to find any praise of intelligence
in the Gospels, with the exception of some parts in the OT.

As for a revelation, the eye is in the beholder. Those who feel it's
the truth, fine. Those who don't accept the revelation, that's fine as
well.
However there's a very clear separation between a revelation and a 
logical conclusion. Note all the work Descartes et rest put into
making logical conclusions from the Christian message. And they mostly
failed as well.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Subject: Anti-Mormon Genes?
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date: 12 NOV 92 10:52:02    

In article <BxILux.Jys@javelin.sim.es.com>, gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com 
(Glenn Clapp) writes...

>A DEVASTATING FIND

Speaking of finds, I was browsing around in a copy of the old LDS "Messenger
and Advocate" newspaper from March of 1836 and I ran across an article which
spoke of a person who was stirring up problems against the Mormons in 
northern Ohio.  I wasn't able to find a full name, but the article referred 
to him a couple of times as "Old Man Clapp."

Any relation that you know of, Glenn?

Dana Bunner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,alt.atheism
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Jungian Archetypes
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:49:33 GMT

  Sorry for this completely off the subject post, but the title just reminded me
of the time my mother went to visit a psychologist friend.  On the wall was the
symbol most familiar as the central piece in the Korean flag, only this piece
had three swirls instead of two.  My mother asked what it was, and the
psychologist told her she picked it up at a garage sale.  "Ah," my mother
replied, "It must be the Ying, Yang, Jung."

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Now that the Anti-Mormon Issues are Subsiding
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:57:13 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <BxBp9F.Ao9@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes...

>In article <lflomtINNi31@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes...

>	It was in May or June when I originally came upon this 
>newsgroup. The genesis of this current thread can be more or less 
>traced to there. In light of the fact that you term this an 
>`anti-Mormon flare,' I think that you should know how it started.

Robert (Bob?),

I've been reading this newsgroup for 3 years and the LDS wars pop up on 
a regular basis.  This particularly one is longer than normal but not
all that different than some previous ones.

>	At that time, there was a woman named Becky Harris, who gave 
>here testimony here. 

I read Becky's posts and even saved them.  However this war did not originate
with her messages, it was already underway when she jumped in with her
experiences.

>	She was derided by those that responded from the LDS side. Her 
>personal testimony of the shock that she had in the Temple was 
>ridiculed and made light of.

To maintain some sense of fairness, this was not universally true.  The
prime correspondent with Becky was Jay Windley (Hi Jay, if you're reading
along) and while Jay wasn't always the most sensitive in his responses I
believe he was trying to be and on more than one occasion, he apologized
when he felt he offended Becky.  There were even messages expressing 
some sympathy for Becky's experiences posted by LDS.  For the most part Jay
was simply relating his own experience and preparation for his first trip
to the temple and comparing it to Becky's.  It was apparent that their
experiences were not the same.

Personally I thought Becky's messages were honest attempts to convey the
shock of her trip and the trauma which followed it.  While other members
may have been offended by her posts which described temple ceremonies, I
thought she had a right to do so (given the nature of this forum and that
she did not hold them to be sacred).

>	But the genesis of what you call anti-Mormon flares lies in 
>the bashing of ex-LDS by the `saints.'

While I will not deny this has taken place, I do not agree with your
analysis.  Of course, I allow you the pleasure of the same.

Dana
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20743 alt.atheism:20923
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Biblical support of atheism was Why Did Jesus Lament?
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:26:05 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

I came in late, so maybe someone already mentioned it,
but "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" is the beginning line
of a messianic psalm (22?).  Maybe Jesus was reciting
this psalm on the cross.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:31:22 GMT

In article <Bx77ty.J0q@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>
>I was in a restaurant the other day and overheard a conversation
>coming from a nearby table.  The participants were loudly discussing
>
>I was insulted by their tone.  On the other hand, I doubt there was
>any intent to insult.  I have spoken with quite a few people for whom

>   (I was)
>insulted, but they did not mean to insult.
>
>>Now if you take offence to something that someone has said when no
>>offence was intended, the problem is with you, the listener.
>
>What I am really offended by is that when I ask that the speaker not
>use language that I find exclusionary or intimidating, the response is
>almost universally something close to yours.  Once you know that I
>find your words troublesome, and you continue to use them, you are

Rather sounds like a personal problem, doesn't it?  For example, I go to
a restaurant to eat...conversations bother me...so I ask everyone around me
to please not speak.  They ignore me and continue to speak normally.  In your
view, should I consider that they are insulting me "with malice aforethought"
or should I just realize that I have made an unreasonable demand upon their
rights to speak.  (their rights *are* important too, right?)

On the off chance that you are really sincere about this, please consider that
I consider these seemingly never-ending posts about genderless pronouns to be
exclusionary and intimidating.  Please desist.  Thank you.

If you continue to post about this, how about doing it somewhere other than
alt.sex??.

David


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:52:53 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov9.183238.9891@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) wrote:
> I would have to respectfully disagree. I have seen no teaching in the 
> gospels that discourages the use of the intellect. But if it's necessary,
> you, Kent and Jim can cite passages and we'll end up disagreeing over 
> the proper interpretation. 

Note also how Jesus time after time uses parables based on the concept
that those that think like children (in other words rely a lot on
faith, instead of using introspection, something learned later and that
is part of intelligent thinking) will enter the kingdom of God. I'm
interested to hear how this interpretation would imply that intelligent
children will end up in heaven as well. In other words, what's the
Christian scope concerning 'act like children'?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: schaerer@isi.ethz.ch (Thomas Schaerer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: READ THIS
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:18:24 GMT
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]



	Hello Jennifer,

	Did you receive a mail from me?

	Greeting from Thomas	schaerer@isi.ethz.ch
				--------------------
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 05:48:34 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

> >> >1) What is the soul?
> 
> 3soul n
> [ME, fr. MF, fr. L solea sandal, a flatfish]
> (14c)
> :an animus (family Soleidae) having a small mouth, small or rudimentary
>      fins, and small eyes placed close together and including superior
>      food animae (as Solea solea of Europe); also: any of various
>      mostly market animae of other families 

Question 1 grade: 0% (joking to cover up ignorance)
> 
> >> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
> 
>                 overweigHt as teenagers
>                       adUlts, researchers said
>                       woMen
>              study the HArvard School
>    look at growth patterNs
>                      chiLdren in the Boston area.
>            161 who had dIed
>                         Found that
>          who were considEred to carry excess
> 

Question 2 grade: 0% (Human life not the purpose of human life)

Overall grade: 0%

Try again!

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:09:55 GMT

In article <BVRyTB6w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> So where do you get the answers from?
>Bhagavad-gita, Bhagavat Purana, Chaitanya Charitamrita, and other
>standard works of the Vedic scriptures.

Can you be more specific?

Oh, how do you know that the answers are right. while similar answers from
books like the Bible are wrong?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 05:48:34 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:

> >1) What is the soul?
> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
> 
> 1) There is no such thing as a soul (why do you think there is?).  But if
> you are asking what makes us who we are as individuals, then the answer is
> the combination of the matter of which we are made and the form/order/
> arrangement of this matter. Don't confuse the form with your concept of
> the soul -- form is a property of matter and does not exist independently
> of matter.

Question 1 grade: 0%
> 
> 2) Purpose implies design, which is not evident.  So then we are left to 
> our own devices to give meaning and purpose to our lives.
> 

Question 2 grade: 0%

Overall grade: 0%  (pupil in wrong class)

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc