HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 24 Dec 1992 21:15:02 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec24.205827.26678@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
	arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <24DEC199211060189@jane.uh.edu> 
>	lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>>It was the Xtians that changed the meaning of "witch" in the first place.

>Are you trying to tell me that some group called themselves witches first, and
>then some Christians got together and decided to use this word to mean "devil
>worshipper"?

you sorta over state the case, but that's close to what happened.
witch is derived from wicce, wicca, and some other spellings.
wicca is from several older pagan traditions.  wicca as a word
predates 'witch'.

similarly pagan is from paganus meaning of the field.

anyhow, it was roman catholic church which reshaped the connotations of these
words.

btw there can be no devil worship if there is no devil.  devil worship is a
	christian heresy.

peter li'ir key
key@soda.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief (was Luke, Derrida, etc.)
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:48:44 GMT

>In article <1992Dec22.205526.9744@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <adams.725035616@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>Steve Adams writes:

>My uncertainty is total and absolute -- I am even uncertain if I am condemned
>to uncertainty.   Faith, or belief of any kind, is really meaningless,

So in other words you are absolutely certain about the fact
that there can be no certainty? Hmmmmmmm. Aren't you using
what you're disputing?

>...Nevertheless, I hope I've made it clear that
>sincere belief of any kind is silly. In fact, it is always a sign of
>delusion. Someone who has sincere beliefs is subject to the delusion
>that he or she can actually know anything.  

So you are deluded in thinking that you can communicate
with anyone? How can you believe that you can't believe?
This seems logically inconsistent.

Dano
advocatus diaboli
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Carrying On Family Traditions
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:51:35 GMT

lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
] 
] Please forgive my including the whole post....but it triggered a thought.

forgive me for deleting most of it.

Allow me to present a part of the problem.

Once Upon a Time while Growing up, I tutored under
a wise and aged Combat Medic who lacked the Official
Credentials to Be Certified as an MD, but this did 
not preclude those who Knew Him as 'doc' from calling
the Whizzen one by his proper name.

It Came to past, upon my many travels, that i was
sitting the natural science protion of my university
exams, and I was called upon to conjure up an awareness
of useful things in biology, and did Call Out of the
Caldren Of My Grey Matter, many useful things learned
from the whizzened One. Where upon the High PriestHood
of Akadamialand pronouced that it would work... and I
did therein pass the test, but was forever banished from
crossing beneath the lintels that were the Portals to
their Glorious Holy Of Holy.

Still More time passed along, and I was wondering by
a magazine rack, and a copy of Soldier of Fortune
Beckoned unto me, saying: "come hither young drieux...."
{for I was then, not as old as I am now.} And Low,
there in amidst the Pretty Pictures, was an article
by another of the Old Ones listing in some detail the
very same procedures that I had learned by word of mouth.

And I wanted to Cry Out Unto the Heavens!!!!!!

"Documentation! I have Documentation!
I Have Your Fucking Documentation right HERE BUD!"

The Moral of the story:

Oral Traditions are a little different than
mere pedantic playing.

You count your victories in LIVES, not in
SAT, GRE, or GPA.....

ciao
drieux

ps: we return you now to the regular metaphysical speculations.


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: God's Lil' Buddy
Date: 23 Dec 92 05:04:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



/(me)
/|SO:  obviously your statement ("I don't see how they can turn from it")
/|is nonsense.  Here you have another example of disciples that were fully
/|engaged in Christ's ministry, and they also left.

/(rpitts)
/No, it is not nonsense - I know in my own life that the more I've gotten
/to know Jesus the less likely I would be to turn away.  



So at what point will it become impossible for your to turn away?
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God saw that it was good
Summary: It sure was good
Date: 30 Dec 92 08:28:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc c
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

In article <1992Dec23.185055.10125@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>I can't answer 1 and 2, but the way I always teach
>the story, what's significant is the
>sequence "good", "good", ... "*very* good",
>where "very good" is used to describe the creation of man,
>in contrast to everything else, which is simply
>described as "good".
>
>I view this as a poetic way of celebrating
>the human race.
>
>This is a Jewish perspective.  Christians, who
>believe in original sin, probably have a very
>different take on this story.
>
>
>-- 
>Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641

Oh, I don't see it that way, Rob, I think that this Christian agrees
that the progression of evaluation indicates that man was the supreme
creationd I will be happy to claim a Jewish heritage to my Christian
belief.

Shalom,                                           Len Howard
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: World Views: Vedic vs. Western
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 04:23:56 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:

> > Careful research, however, can reveal evidence contrary to the accepted
> > scientific view and in agreement with the Vedic picture. Drutakarma Dasa
> > and I have just completed a 900-page book, Forbidden Archaeology, which
> > gives extensive evidence showing that human beings of the modern type
> > have been living on the earth for many millions of years.[8]
> 
> Oh, great.  Now we have Hindu fundamentalists fighting 
> archeologists and biologists.  You would have thought that
> they would have learned from their Christian analogues.

To bad you have nothing constructive to say. Probably this is because
you are a scientific fundamentalist who hasn't learned from your
"piltdown" counterparts.

By the way, we are not "Hindus" at all, we are Vaishnavas.

> > Sadaputa Dasa (Richard L. Thompson) earned his Ph.D. in 
> > mathematics from Cornell University. ...
> 
> In terms of reinforcing stereotypes, this is as bad as the
> black American college students who recently visited Japan
> on a school trip and were caught in mass shoplifting.  Why
> does mathematics seem plagued by more than its fair share 
> of wackos?

More useless complaining. You want to discuss the issue, or just thumb
your elevated nose at it?

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,alt.pagan
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:54:26 GMT

In article <00965ACA.D5CD65E0@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>I agree with Bill.  Just because a name was redefined by someone else with
>really good PR doesn't mean that the name shouldn't be use.  Case in point:
>Heathen used to mean, quite literally, "of the heath", living on the prarie.
>And, of course, we know what happened--a conquering religion came by and used
>the name to mean "barbarian" and "infidel"(translation from the latin(?) for
>"not of the faith")
>     I like the word "Pagan" and "Heathen" to describe myself.

So if you call yourself a heathen, how shall I interpret it?  Should I
interpret it to mean that you live on a prairie, or should I interpret it to
mean you are not of the (Christian) faith?  I think you mean the latter, and if
so, you are using the redefined word, not the original.
--
"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 (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A deep bit of flame bait
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:19:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, arron@waikato.ac.nz () says:
>
>I will keep you in my prayers.
>
This statement is the epitome of condescension.  I have always felt, even
when I was a christian, that praying for a person should only be done with
that persons consent.  To do otherwise is to make choices for a person that
are not yours to make.  Anyone who has left the church has their reasons
and it is not up to *you* to second guess those reasons.

-- 
All propositions are true in some sense, false in some sense and
meaningless in some sense.  
                               --Hagbard Celine H.M. S.H.
<this is a signature virus, to spread it, just copy into your sig-file>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fWYBWCD@quack.sac.ca.us>
Date: 23 Dec 1992 08:05:49 UTC

>>|>    Isaiah 9:1 (NIV)   Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom 
>>|>    for those who were in distress. IN THE PAST he humbled the land 
>>|>    of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, BUT IN THE FUTURE he will 
>>|>    honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the 
>>|>    Jordan-- 
>Isaiah9:1(KJV): NEVERTHELESS the dimness *shall* not *be* such as *was*
>in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of
>Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievoulsy
>afflict *her by* the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the
>nations.
>>|Isaiah 8:23(JPS): For (o-)if there were to be(-o) any break of day for
>>|that [land] which is in straits, only the former [king] would have
>>|brought abasement to the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali -
>>|while the later one would have brought honor to the Way of the Sea, the
>>|other side of the Jordan, and Galilee of the Nations.(p)
>>|---
>>|o-o: So 1QIs(a); the others have "there is not."
>>|p: Meaning of verse uncertain. The rendering here assumes that "the
>>|former [king]" refers to Pekah (cf. 2Kings15.29) and "the latter" to
>>|Hoshea (ibid. 30). For the construction "lu ... ka'eth," see Judg.13.23.

Just in case it might matter, the above should be Judg. 13-23.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Omniscient
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:39:30 GMT

Sorry I didn't reply to your message myself Lonnie, but I never
saw it on my system.  Thanks to Charles for picking up my
argument for me.

ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
: In article <1992Dec17.183051.19456@ee.gatech.edu>, ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
: |> 
: |> I am sorry if I am repeating, but one of us is confused, and
: |> it may well be me. 
: |> 
: |> We agree that foreknowledge and predestination are not
: |> the same.  That foreknowledge is knowing with 100% certainty
: |> what will happen, and predestination is deciding in advance
: |> what somebody will do.  Am I correct that we agree on this?
: |> 
: |> Given the above, I do not understand how know what someone
: |> will do equates with forcing them to do it.  
: 
: But *knowing (certainty)* what someone will do does imply that
: they *will* do it. There is no condition under which they can *not*
: do it, including their own will. 
: 
: He's not arguing that
:     foreknowledge = predestination
: he's arguing (correctly) that
:     complete foreknowledge => predestination
: (that symbol should be read "implies" ratherthan "greater or equal")

Thankx again Charles for picking up for me.

:
: |> The problem may arise from my misdirection in the
: |> argument.  Is it your argument that because God
: |> knew that if he created man by plan X that they
: |> would perform act Y, that God used foreknowldge to
: |> create plan X so that man would be predestined to
: |> commit act Y.  If so, then I would agree that this
: |> is the same as predestination.
: |> 
: |> However, that is not the way I see it.  But that can
: |> wait until we get clear on this point.

I think you are getting the general idea now.  Let me 
reinsert my version of this from earlier in the thread.

*** Begin reinsertion ****
What were the odds that A&E would commit Original Sin?
God knew with 100% certainty when he created them that they would
Fall.  God would be pretty suprised if A&E avoided the Fall in 
spite of his 100% foreknowledge that they *would* Fall.  Therefore,
in spite of appearances, A&E had 0% possibility of avoiding it.
How can you avoid the conclusion that it wasn't predestined?
*** End reinsertion ***

You say that "this is not the way [you] see it."  But is it
in error simply because you don't see it that way?  I assume
you have seen a fallacy in the argument.  I think it would 
be useful for you to address your rebuttal to my (or Charles')
example in particular so we could see exactly where you are 
missing the point or else what you think the fallacy in the 
argument is.

Again, sorry I didn't reply earlier.

-- 
> Jeff Young <
> Personal   <               I'm not lost, I'm exploring.
> opinions   <
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:46:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.032744.8082@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>>Correctly constructed arguments can be both false and illogical.
>>  1.  Dragons exist and like to eat people
>>  2.  Silver has been blessed by the gods; that is why it shines so bright
>>  3.  Dragons hate the metal silver
>>  4.  SO:  it is good to wear silver
>The argument is illogical because there is no demonstrated cause-and-effect
>between the numbered steps above.  It is as if skinner's argument (and 
>my hypothetical argument) had said:
>1.  The sky is blue
>2.  The grass is green
>3.  Therefore, gravity pulls things downward (assume local reference for
>    the word "downward")
>...
>In other words, skinner's argument, my theoretical one, and the immediate 
>above argument all take the form of:
>	1.  Point 1
>	2.  Point 2
>	3.  Point n . . .
>	4.  Conclusion

In this case, the dragon argument could be converted to a logical, although
false, argument by adding some premises like "if you wear something blessed
by the gods which dragons hate, dragons will be unable to eat you" and
"it is good to do things which cause you not to be eaten".  If these two
premises are added, it is possible to deduce the conclusion via logic, and
thus the conclusion is logical.

Logic in Christianity can work the same way.  It is possible to give premises
and draw conclusions from them; even something as simple as:
1. If you do X, you go to hell.
2. It is not good to do things which get you sent to hell.
3. Therefore, it is not good to do X.
is logical in that the conclusion follows from the premises.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Why People Join A Community of Faith
Keywords: Death, Life, Community, Atheists, The Religious Moment
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:12:32 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <1992Dec20.192617.19426@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>>dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) queries:
>>>Are the only group rituals of significance today religious?
>>Any group ritual that has `ultimate' significance will have an
>>element of the religious.
>
>>>Is this something that atheists are missing?
>>No, because atheists (like anyone else) can have epiphanies, can
>>have religious moments, without a theistic perspective. Religion
>>is not required to have a religious experience.
>
>Atheist/Theist, another pair of opposites.

Quite.

>>As you have correctly noted, Death is one journey we all take alone;
>>however, Life is a journey we all take alone also. There may be
>>other people on the journey with us; and that can help provide
>>a `reality check'; but ultimately there are things only an individual
>>knows.
>
>This "life is a solitary journey" is what you say. I most probably agree
>with what I think you are saying, but I think that you will find that
>the majority of people are not on this solitary journey of life. This is
>Aldous Huxley's Wasteland, the land of authentic people leading inauthentic
>lives. What you have said is, in a sense, a stage of enlightenment, a

Which may be one of the reason's people join a community of faith;
to help get a perspective on leading an `authentic life', n'est-ce pas?

>stage of "realization." There is a lot here in these seemingly simple
>concepts of "journey of life" and "journey of death," in fact they are
>yet one more pair of opposites, but - isn't everything?

Hmmm. Dualism vs. Monism?

Dano
From: sodonnell@UMASSD.EDU (Sandy O'Donnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Choosing a Bible translation
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:51:58 GMT
Reply-To: sodonnell@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.

In article <ksand-211292185632@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.074533.4832@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
>> My own personal conviction is that IF the Bible is REALLY the word of God, He
>> can manage to keep it meaning what He originally meant it to mean.  There is
>> no such thing as absolute meaning even given a perfect translation, as the
>> _real_ meaning is the form it takes in the reader's head.  Enter the Holy
>> Spirit, which will allow a person to believe the truth, even as love would
>> dictate.  Don't ask me what that means, I just typed it in a daze as it is
>> 2am.  
>
>I do think that you rather elegantly -- by mistake -- also described
>why the Christian world today is split into separate doctrines.
>
>My personal opinion is that an omnipotent God would certainly make
>sure that the universal truth is clear and explainable in one single
>way.
>
>Kent

Maybe......God let the bible become unclear and  contradictive so that
when it came time for the age of enlightenment, intelligence would begin
to question the authority of the "written word." Like.. why will all the
people in China go to hell because they don't accept Christ as their
savior. Do you actually think God approved of the Crusades? The bible
needs to be questioned, other religions need to be studied, find your
own path, not one dictated by angry celibate dogmatic men.( I'm talking
about the translators). The bible contains beauty and wisdom but so
do alot of other religions. Maybe one day the best of all religions
can be combined into one. 
                          Love the Lord your God with all your heart
                          and treat your fellow man as you would be
                          treated.
Sandy.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "What does science tell us about God?" (Time Magazine)
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:02:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1hanpkINNfmb@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar
pearlstein) wrote:
>             The essential conflict between science and religion is in 
>        how one arrives at conclusions.  Religion generally is based on 
>        authority: a person, a book, or a set of traditions.  It has 
>        Eternal Truth, coming from authority, which its adherents stick 
>        with regardless of any evidence.  Science is based on reason 
>        and evidence.  It does not recognize absolute authority, 
>        considers "truth" to be relative and tentative, and takes the 
>        attitude: Don't tell me, show me. 

Someone please update me, but I'm sure religions exist that has
the same attitude: "Don't tell me, show me". (Zen) Buddhism is one of the
few action-oriented religions I'm thinking about.

Kent
-------------------
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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:58:27 GMT

In article <24DEC199211060189@jane.uh.edu> lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>It was the Xtians that changed the meaning of "witch" in the first place.

When?

Are you trying to tell me that some group called themselves witches first, and
then some Christians got together and decided to use this word to mean "devil
worshipper"?
--
"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 (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)