HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Daily verse BG 1.16-18
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:50:48 GMT

Do you have a point to these non-sequitur quotes of yours, or are you
really just living in a world far, far away from everybody else's?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:09:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.185333.19687@wam.umd.edu> angelai@wam.umd.edu (Angela I.) writes:
>In article <31DEC199211503855@elroy.uh.edu> lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>>Once again, I say, what you want to CALL yourself is your business.
>>It is not my place to approve or disapprove....
>I was addressing my post to those people who claimed that a person
>calling themselves a Christian/pagan is "not really
>Christian."
  According to more or less mainstream Christianity as I know it,
she isn't really a Christian. If you ask an orthodox Rabbi if "Jews
for Jesus" are practicing "real" Judiasm, he'll probably say no, but
from my exposure to members of the group (admittedly limited), they
still consider themselves to be practicing Judiasm. More or less orthodox
Islam believes in the validity of Christianity and Judiasm, but they don't
recipricate.
  From what I've seen of her beliefs, they are outside what most people 
would call "Christian." 

>>Once again I am discussing philosophies, not trying to divide.  Christians
>>would call the woman who refers to herself as Pagan/Christian a blasphemer.
>>She is welcomed among us.
>Not all X-ians would condemn her.  Not all pagans would welcome her.
  Also, not considering her a Christian isn't the same as condemning her.


-- 
Mike Swaim            | "101 Dalmations? Yeah I saw that."
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | "You Did! REALLY? The same film?
Disclamer: I lie      | Let's stop driving! We must get out and jump
up and down and up and down and dance around and around!" Matt and Delerium
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: And over to you Sean... (a mixed bag of subjects)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 7 Jan 1993 02:28:03 UTC

In article <1993Jan6.140645.9919@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>The dog has dignity. She's just waiting. 

Man's best friend. Old Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard to fetch the
old dog a bone, but when she bent over, well to cut a long story short,
the dog had a bone of his own. Move over Rover, let Jimmy take over.

>God is relevant as long as you want to be "saved." That is, as long as you
>want to have some external judge pronounce you "good."  If you no longer
>care about being good or evil, because you've seen that these two things
>are just artificial classifications with no real meaning, than you
>lose interest in being saved.

But some people can only handle this level of duality, where one lines
up with the good against the bad. It's like mommy and daddy and kids all
over again. Now repeat after me, this is good and this is bad. Or George
Bush: White House Dog: Good, White House Cat: Bad, bad-bad! Christian:
Good, Atheist: Bad, bad-bad! Wasteland: good, Individuality: bad, very
bad!

>The universe just _is_, and it is we
>who call this thing "good" and this thing "evil."

Thas right! Sang it! Sang it! It is *that* it is! Who is the one who needs
the knowledge of good and bad? Who is the one with the hands? Who put
that hand graffitti all over the cave in France? But to get to this
level one has to be able to put the opposites of good and bad together,
to see them as one and the same, as manifestations of the one. Not easy
to do, requires thinking, bad, bad, bad.

>Now, even if 
>God himself calls X evil and Y good, that doesn't make it so. In other
>words, if God thinks good and evil are real, he's as deluded as we are. 
>Another reason I can't believe in this moralist God. God shouldn't
>be stupider than some of his creations. 

Remember, into the light. The transcendent is transcendent.

>As private parts are we to the Gods:
>They play with us for their sport. 
>- Blackadder II

Where would we be without the BBC, or is this a rival? If it wasn't for
British Television and Dame Edna doing her best to hold up the dignity
of the Royals, that isle would have gone to hell in a bucket a long time
ago. Ah, I suppose it's just me, pining for the fjords. Well, I'm off,
you see I'm on a quest, for The Grail of course. Yes, I'll be troding
true that valley, piercing that valley, no different that Perceval would
have done. Perhaps romancing a few roses along the way.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: 1/3/92   God's Promise in Hebrews 9:12
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:10:24 GMT

In article <C09C4y.Axw@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
}
}	Neither by the blood of goats and calves,

Makes you sorta wonder about:
1. Why all the insistance on blood sacrifices?
2. Why worship such a bloodthirsty diety?


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25956 alt.atheism:25782
From: nelson@pdn.paradyne.com (Bill Nelson)
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Reply-To: nelson@pdn.paradyne.com (Bill Nelson)
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, FL
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:15:26 GMT

In article <C0q73D.BL1@phage.cshl.org>, pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
|>In article <1993Jan11.221750.9774@iscsvax.uni.edu>
sperry2699@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
|>>> 
|>>
|>>Why is what Pat Robertson is doing criminal?  Sorry that you must lower
|>>yourself to the use of those "colourful metaphors" to express your opinion
|>>(a.i. "asshole").  
|>>
|>>
|>>ECM
|>>
|>
|>sorry, yes, i am embarrassed by the poor expression.
|>i see Pat Robertson only rarely and yesterday was one of
|>those days and i am very worried about what's going
|>to happen in the next few years. the death of the country
|>itself seems within the realm of possibilty. something
|>at least as bad as the 60s.
|>
|>-- 
|>-- Pat Monardo
|>-- pjm@cshl.org


I agree, the death (or at least bankruptcy) of our country does seem possible
within the next few years.  But to blame that on people like Pat Robertson is
not correct.  Our society was founded on Christian values but has progressively
moved away from them.  In turn, the crime rate has sky-rocketed and instead
of teachers worrying about students with gum in their mouths, raising their 
hand to speak, or sticking someone's hair in an inkwell, they have to worry 
about kids rioting, selling drugs, and carrying (using) guns.  Is there a
correlation?  Some say yes, some say no, you decide.  Pat Robertson's stance
is simply that he *does* believe that it is these movements away from Christian
values that is causing the problems and he is taking action to try and 
correct this.  Others on the other side of the fence that don't agree with him
are taking actions of their own based on what *they* believe to be the roots of
the problem.  

Yes, I agree, you do have a right to worry but instead of looking for
somewhere 
to put the blame, look for where you can help out.  A wise man once said that 
"If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem!"


BTW this is not an endorsement of Pat Robertson or anyone else for that matter.


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
& Bill Nelson   & Alice: Cheshire Puss, Would you tell me, please, which &
&               &        way I ought to go from here?                    &
& AT&T Paradyne & Cat:   That depends a great deal on where you want to  &
&               &        get to.                                         &
& (813)530-8696 & Alice: I don't much care where......                   &
&               & Cat:   Then it really doesn't matter which way you go, &
&               &        does it?                                        &
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:30:27 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <C0HxI3.JKx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.150848.6190@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>In article <994Y02Jd30Fv01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>   That John is definitely not John the Baptist, but may be John the
>Apostle and/or Evangelist.

Steve:

Thnx for pointing this out. You are correct.  My mistake.  I let my
fingers walk before my brain on this one.

However, the point of my using the verse was not over a discussion of who
was and wasn't John the Baptist.  I agree that he didn't write the
Scriptures as I said.  But my point still stands in that it says that
the Scriptures are written so that we can be certain that we have eternal
life. That was my point and I feel that it is still relevant.  Sorry for
this but of error on my part, it was innocent, not deception. Sorry
kermit.

-tony
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Straight talk on free will. Only for the brave.
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:16:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.153904.10032@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca,
with his pants down, shows us his tattoo:

>So here it is, the Last Word on free will: It doesn't exist! So forget it!
>If you think you have free will, that's your delusion.
> 
>If you want to know why you don't have free will, it's because the "you"
>that you think has free will is an illusory product of a self-referential
>thought trap, like the speaker in "This sentence is false."
>
>A human being is not an _actor_ but an _event_. 
>
>Please note that this is not an argument for any kind of materialistic 
>determinism. I am not trying to deny that people make choices. We do. 
>But the "we" that makes choices is an _event_ that is necessarily
>beyond the reach of our choices. 
>
>In simple terms: _it is impossible to not be spontaneous_. Paul Harvey
>advocates: "Just do it."  Well, it is impossible to _not_ "just do it."
>You just try and not be spontaneous some time!

Please note that the vehemence of your assertion is insufficient
for its proof. You maintain the non-existence of free will and
provide no reason other than a self-referential one, which of course,
is EXACTLY what you offer by way of proof! Egads!

Are you in a box you cannot see out of? Throw off those blinders, those
chains of slavery! Argh, help! I'm being spontaneous!

Human beings ARE actors! (and of course, events too).

Dano
(Sorry, Sean, I couldn't resist :)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Is the Roman "Church" really a church?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:50:34 GMT

In article <C0E1v6.E2w@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>
>   Now the primacy of the Church of Rome comes by virtue of the
>primacy of St. Peter, who was martyred at Rome and whose successor is
>the Bishop of Rome.  There is much in not only Scripture, ...

Where?  Not only the "primacy" of Peter is nowhere to be found in
the Scripture, but also there is no evidence whatsoever that Peter
had ever been in Rome ...

Is the Roman "Church" really a church at all?  Here is what John Calvin
had to say.

	" ... But on the contrary, they (Romanists) disown from their
	 communion all that genuinely profess themselves servants
	 of Christ.  Accordingly, either Christ's promise is vain, or
	 they (Romanists) are not, at least in this regard, churches ..."
	                                           - Institutes 4.2.10

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Critique of Gimbutas "Idyllic Goddess" Claims
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<2B4CBB28.1230@news.service.uci.edu> <765352d4265052t254@witsend.uucp>
Date: 9 Jan 1993 20:12:26 UTC

In article <765352d4265052t254@witsend.uucp> 
"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:
>In <2B4CBB28.1230@news.service.uci.edu>, 
cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)  wrote:
># In article <1993Jan7.224225.11815@s1.gov> 
lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
># >	And how does he diagnose "signs of majesty [and] supernatural
># >power"?
># I think that the fact that most female figurines were pregnant or
># lactating is a damned good indicator that something was going on,
># especially since people in Paleolithic-type societies tend to spend a
># lot of their time NOT pregnant.  Lactation is also a tabu time for sex
># (frequently).  This deliberate reproduction of something tabu speaks
># volumes. 
>  This is circular.  You're basing your interpretation of the
>  physical evidence on presumed curtural characteristics which
>  you derive from the artifacts you're interpreting.
>  BTW, I'm curious about your assertion on Paleolithic reproduction
>  rates.  The data that I've seen, drawn from skeletal remains,
>  indicates that early women had a very high rate of pregnancy
>  coupled with correspondingly high rates of spontaneous abortion
>  and infant mortality.

That's interesting. From what I've read, surviving stone age women 
today have low rates of pregnancy, the theory being because of low body
fat levels. Of course, all surviving stone agers today live on land that
is too marginal for modern post-neolithic humans. But, Native
Californians had the highest population density in North America and
early explorers remarked that they were the first natives they saw that
looked well feed but they also, from what we know, had low rates of
pregnancy. Spontaneous abortion and infant mortality where high as you
note in probably all paleoliths, pregnancy was probably the leading
cause of death for women and trauma the leading cause for men but once
past the high risk infant phase, life expectancy was roughly equal to
the best moderns. Of course, they were free of almost all modern causes
of death, that is until the Europeans landed. Can you say more about the
skeletal data you mention? What people, what regions, what time
periods?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:21:26 GMT


In article <ednclark.726714247@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
|> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <ano.726497533@reading> ano@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Adrian Ogden) writes:
|> 
|>  [ Much deleted here for the sake of brevity ] 
|> 
|> If God were to make it such that everyone beleived in Him and accepted him
|> then we would all still feel as though we had free will (ie we would not
|> know the difference).
The example of the nuclear (sp?) family structure of husband-wife-kids setup is
one that is instilled by cultural beliefs.  They do it that way because it has
always been done that way in their culture.  Christianity is not based on any 
particular culture, hence its acceptance by so many different cultures.  Rather,
it should be a conscious choice as to whether or not an individual decides to be
a Christian.   


|> Just like if we fall off a cliff we will fall and
|> hurt ourselves badly and possibly die, but we accept that this is something
|> we do not have free will to change, it does not make us robots. God did not
|> have to create a species of which the vast majority would choose eternal
|> damnation to gaurantee free will.  If He had manufactured us in such a way
|> that all accepted him, through what we thought was free choice that is all
|> that would matter. We would all be saved, all have apparent free will (as we
|> do now), and we would all live happily ever after.
|> 
And so let me understand what you're trying to say . . . you are asking why God
didn't just program into each and everyone of us the fact that He is God and let
it be at that.  Having this knowledge, we would (most of us anyways) choose not
to sin or else face the wrath of God for having sinned - which is death.  And so,
we are left with this society in which no one will sin because they are afraid of 
being zapped for sinning.  People would not be sinning out of abject obedience to
God.

This is not the way God wants it to be in Heaven.  God does not want a race of 
slaves that obey Him out of fear for punishment.  He wants people who will love
Him and who will stop sinning because they love Him.  The only way to see which
people will obey Him out of love rather than fear of death is to place everyone
on earth where the immediate consequences of sin are not invoked until death.
During this time on earth, we have any number of opportunities to accept Christ
as our personal Lord and Saviour and come to know the love of God.


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25166 alt.pagan:14958
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:44:55 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:

>>I am the way.  Not "I am a way."  I am THE way.  Moreso, "I am the way,
>>the truth and the life.  No man cometh to the Father but by me."  They
>>did NOT write: "I am a way, one of many truths and a type of life.  Some
>>men come to the Father by me, but not all."
>
>Of course, this does assume that Jesus' name was "Jesus", had brown hair
>and blue eyes, white skin, and spoke Jamesian English.

Oh, yeah, I can see right off where you could assume those things from
the quoted text.  NOT!  C'mon Murray...you're babbling here.

>century Palestinian Jews, which included belief in all sorts of devils and
>angels, a pantheon of gods, legitimate and illegitimate, no concept of 

The Jews believing in a pantheon?  I don't think so...remember the Schema (sp)?

>Quibbling over the English semantics of the King James Bible,

It was not about the King James Bible.  Most other versions of the Scripture
have the same point.

>closer to understanding the original sources. It is ironic that many
>fundamentalists reject most modern scholarship, preferring to remain
>loyal to the erronious KJV because its language has become to them the
>language of the Bible.

Right.



-- 
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: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: The Origin of Western Thinking Process
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:58:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.120055.820@hls.com> silatman@hls.com writes:

  >Jesus is a Prophet of God, declares the Holy Quran.

  Yes, but what the Holy Quran declares is not necessarily so. The
Holy Bible and the Holy Quran are not always in complete agreement.
But then, most fortunately, there is the Holy Gnozlog to settle the
matter.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<root.726333839@spssig>
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:37:53 UTC

In article <root.726333839@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>I'm caught between a rock and a hard place...

What better way to learn of the meaning - the meaning of a rock.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:21:48 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu  writes:

> In article <1993Jan8.172612.17505@news.unomaha.edu> 

> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:

> >hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu  writes:
> 
> >> It is said that Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to the 9th month.

> > First of all, the Court last June (I believe) redefined Roe v.
> >      Wade.  Secondly, The Court who determined Roe v. Wade
> >      allowed the state to proscribe abortion in the last
> >      trimester (or last three months of pregnancy) unless
> >      the woman's health was threatened.  Please look up the
> >      decision if you are in doubt.

> But the definition of ``health'' given in Roe v. Wade
> and the companion case Doe v. Bolton is so broad that it
> encompasses emotional and psychological health.  In order
> to perform a constitutionally protected abortion, a physician
> need only determine that an abortion is necessary to preserve
> the woman's emotional or psychological health, which can be
> easily demonstrated for a woman who would otherwise remain
> pregnant against her desires. 

So?

> > Why not a side whereby we let 
> > people make up their own minds, and let God take care of 
> > them in the end?  
> 
> Why not legalize homicide, rape, and robbery, and let God
> take care of them in the end?   Why must you allow your
> religious beliefs to dictate your attitudes towards secular 
> law in some areas, but not others?  If you are to be 
> consistent, you must oppose all secular laws.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.  You've fallen for that same circular trap
     that most pro-lifers fall into-- "why not compare
     fully alive, fully functioning human beings to one
     week old fertilized eggs?".  It's similar to comparing
     apples and oranges-- both are fruits, but that is as 
     far as it goes.
     
By the way, why must I oppose secular laws?  You seem to have
     the answer, so please, inform this ignorant fool of the
     knowledge he so lacks. 

> Doug Holtsinger

SRM
-- 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc