HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stieger@cco.caltech.edu (Ronald David Stieger)
Subject: Re: Christians at Work in Oregon
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:02:26 GMT

jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:

>stieger@cco.caltech.edu (Ronald David Stieger) writes:
>>Unfortunately, in this country mainstream views seldom are put forth as
>>loudly as radical opinions, simply because they don't need to be.  After
>>all, they're already mainstream.  So outsiders can easily mistake the views
>>of a vocal minority for those of the silent majority.  However, in this
>>case, I recently heard of a group of moderate Christians beginning a 
>>campaign OPPOSING the gay-discrimination ballot measure.  Of course, this
>>isn't going to be nearly as newsworthy outside of Oregon so don't be
>>too surprised if you don't hear about it. 

>The Newsweek September 14 issue mentions the Oregon ballot starting on
>page 25, so it appears this will be known around the nation.

Of course the ballot measure itself will be, and in fact already is, known
around the nation.  My point was that what most people will hear about
is the fact that it is there and that the Oregon Citizen's Alliance (OCA)
and other ultra-conservative Christians support it, but they may not
know as much about the moderate Christians who are actively opposing it.
After all, extremist positions are so much more fun to write about, and they
get so much more attention from the people.  When was the last time Oprah 
or Geraldo had a show on moderate people who try to follow common sense and
don't do anything to get themselves noticed? :-)  


-- 
--Ron Stieger                    **** JUST VOTE NO. ****
  stieger@cco.caltech.edu
"Hush my darling, be still my darling, the lion's on the phone."
                                               -They Might Be Giants
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:26:08 GMT

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

esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>  You seem top think that the unprovability of an axiom is the same as
>the unverifiability of an axiom.  Of course a fundamental axiom of a
>formal system cannot be proved within that system (that's why it's an
>axiom).  But you seem to think this implies that one set of axioms is
>just as good as another.  But this is simply false.  We can test a set
>of axioms by using the system as a model, and then seeing how well the
>model maps onto what we experience in the world. 

Eric the counter to this is completely obvious, namely how do you know
what the mapping between the real world is and your perceptions of the
real world? You assume that there is some near identity mapping, but this
is an axiom *in* your system, so Jarek's point still holds.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: radha@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (radha)
Subject: Dead Sea Scroll
Reply-To: radhak@ipsalab.ipsa.reuter.COM (radha krishnan)
Organization: I P Sharp Associates, Toronto
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 18:04:25 GMT

is there any group that discuss the issues related to DSS?
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christology 101 [was: There are two years left!]
Summary: Sean is simply oversimplifying
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:11:36 GMT
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.

Hi Sean. Thank you for your posting. I have to take issue with
some of your remarks, even though you've mitigated a few of them 
with smilies. 

In article <1992Sep10.115525.7438@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes,
in response to Chuck Hedrick's posting,

>Are you sure about this? To me, it is your views that sound heretical. 

Mr. Hedrick is, in my experience in reading his postings, one of
the few regulars of t.r.m. that actually could say the Nicene Creed
without crossing his fingers. He can speak for himself, of course; for
part, I've never seen any remarks of his that stray in any meaningful
way from the orthodoxy of Nicea and Chalcedon.

>In fact, it [the English version of the Creed] DOES say that "Jesus Christ" 
>is of the same substance as the Father.

Christology is notoriously difficult to 'get right'. No one I know
could survive (with their orthodoxy unimpugned) an inquisition of the 
style depicted in The_Name_of_the_Rose. 

BTW, whom do you think suffered on the cross? Did the Trinity suffer?
The Father? The Logos? I guess it's like asking 'How could God die on
the cross?' I was just wondering. :-) 

>This emphasis you make would have got you excommunicated as an
>Apollinarian in the fifth century.

Are you criticizing Chuck for not saying everything, or asking him
what he does think? 'Everything' takes a while to say....


Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15829 alt.atheism:16690
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:10:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.220957.28643@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
}
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes: 
}>weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
}>}hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
}>}>If God created the universe, who created God?
}>
}>And what makes you think that the universe in total isn't the same?  Your
}>description appears insufficient.
}
}Insufficient in regard to what?  I am not offering a "proof" for God.

So?  If you can postulate some such entity with the characteristics as
you attribute to "God", what makes you believe that the universe isn't
another uncreated thing?

}By the way, the reason I don't attribute such qualities to the universe
}in total is that in my understanding of general relativity and the big bang,
}the dimensions of the universe do not exhibit transcendence, but rather
}exhibit contingency, with an age of 16 billion +/- a few billion years.

Think hypersphere.  No problem.


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:22:13 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <adams.716399712@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>An explanation of this (and I don't remember which theologian came up with
>>it) is that God is omnipotent, but also limited. ;-)  Here's how is works:
>>Before God creates, He has absolute omnipotence to create exactly as he
>>pleases.  Once He has created, he is self-limited by the rules He has made.
>>In other words, once God constructs the Universe, He limits Himself to
>>follow the rules He Himself has established.

>So why did he make such dumb rules?  Why didn't he instead _start_off_
>by constructing a universe where God only has to wave his hands if he
>should ever want to forgive sin?

The rules are the way they are because God desired free worship from free
moral agents.  Thus, he established the ground rules at creation.  I don't
see that they are necessarily 'dumb'...just perhaps beyond our complete
understanding....

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: A RIDDLE FOR YOU :-)
Keywords: THERE ARE NO KEYWORDS!
Date: 6 Sep 92 22:48:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


This is just a little fun for everyone, especially those who would call me
a non-thinker.  I suppose I don't take as much time as I should in the
response to some of your posts, and therefore you catch me in seemingly
contradictory statements, but I do spend a rather lengthy ammount of time
thinking of things that are fun, and challenge the mind in that fashion.

to:  Steve Adams, Dan O'Connel (sp), Publius, Russel Turpin, and Sean
     Hartigan  mostly.

Everyone else:  You are welcome to give it a try, and see what you know.  I
                promise to everyon who reads this and gives me a reply to
                Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu, or
                Steve.Gross@lambada.unc.edu,    that there really is an 
		answer, and it really does make sense.  If noone gets it, I
		will post it in about two weeks or so with another riddle.
		I think this one is the easiest though.


	MY CENTER IS NOTHING;
	MY FIRST IS MY LAST;
	AND WHEN THE LONG AGES 
	   ARE OVER AND PAST;
	THEN VENGEANCE DIVINE SHALL
	   DEVOUR ME AND MINE.


Good luck everyone who gives this a try.  I hope it will be a welcome
break from the monotony of the arguments that go on here.  It may also
encourage some of you to read a part of the bible you haven't read, and
that will be the best thing.


God bless all,
Steve.Gross
 


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kukkonen@niksula.hut.fi (Sami Kukkonen)
Subject: Re: To lie or not to lie
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
	<1992Sep8.004615.7389@infonode.ingr.com>
	<1992Sep8.151340.11141@cs.joensuu.fi>
	<1992Sep9.205953.21470@infonode.ingr.com>
	<1992Sep11.115326.22102@cs.joensuu.fi>
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:58:03

Antti Siivonen writes:

>	1. Lying. When ?

	Like right now, in this very article I'm quoting.

>	4. Other people would support. Partly yes. Reasons: We don't have 
>	proper scientific libraries here 

	Do you say that the University of Joensuu, where you allegedly
	study, doesn't have a library? If it has a library you can
	use the inter-library service to borrow books from proper
	scientific libraries.

>	Not true. I only said that Kent was stubborn. 

	Now here's a prime example of a lie. You called Kent
	'kusip{{' which can be literally translated as 'pisshead'
	or 'head full of piss'. If that means stubborn your Finnish
	is even worse than your manners...

	I remember you saying that liars end up in a lake of fire.
	Have you packed your asbestos swimsuit?
--
kukkonen@niksula.hut.fi/ Everything in this article is factual, and any
kukkonen@unda.fi      / resemblance to actual persons, places or organizations
    < Ardberg >      / living, dead or drunk, is purely intentional.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15949 alt.atheism:16852
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:22:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <xssnnf@lynx.unm.edu>
jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:

>It makes perfect sense.  Human nature is to question why, look for
>answers, and try to learn.  Theism requires you to accept things that
>are totally irrational and can't be proven.  This means that you must
>actively suppress your human nature.  To do so, you must use all your
>mind's powers.  Therefore, theism is more intellectually demanding
>than atheism.

I disagree with your requirement on theism.  I find science to be an
understanding of what God does.  An active search for knowledge is
required to understand God and part of that search should include a
search for knowledge about the Universe.  Through such a search, we
can better understand God.

Mark
-- 
   Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without
losing your temper or your self-confidence.
   -- Robert Frost
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: danoc@xtrek.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Buddhism and Truth  [Was: A. Johnson thread]
Date: 10 Sep 1992 17:16:59 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: xtrek

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
 ...
 is "the emerging Christian orthodoxy that culminated in the Nicean Creed,
 the Athanasian Creed, etc."  I know that theology continued to develop
 and change after this point, but it seems to me that (aside from a few mystics)
 the basics remain the same.

Unwelcome comments R Us:

Martin Luther, a mystic? 
 
 From a rational point of view, this is nonsense. If form is emptiness, and
 emptiness is form, then form is form, and emptiness is emptiness.
 Nothing has been said, from a logical point of view. Certainly, there is no
 attempt in Buddhism to assert that "nothingness" is an existent. From a
 Buddhist point of view, there ARE no existents. But obviously there are...
 because "emptiness is FORM..."  
 
Perhaps because it really is not "nothingness", but no-thing-ness,
not a "thing": neither being nor non-being.

Dano
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What happened to Gavins' kill file
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:55:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep7.153707.22051@cs.yale.edu>,
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) wrote:
> I certainly don't agree with this. Compare talk.abortion/alt.flame
> where the Kevin Darcy--Rissa/Keegan/rocker flame war still rages.
> Now, Rissa ONLY posts to talk.abortion to flame Darcy.
> What possible reason would I want to have for reading her posts?

Well, we have two opinions, and that's fine for me. My last words
(I don't think this dialogue is worth pursuing in this religion group,
maybe somewhere else), is that there are two ways to attack the
problems with bad postings.

One is to provide tools, more intelligent in future such as intelligent
agents, that will try to sort out the relevant information from the
huge byte stream.

The other way is to make sure that the information generators
understand why it's important to provide knowledge in order to
obtain insight, and not just raw information and meaningless flames.

I'm an idealist, so I support the second approach, even if my
engineering mind tells me that the first one is better with
a 10000 year old hominid society.

Cheers,
Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:58:34 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <adams.716494587@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>>So why did he make such dumb rules?  Why didn't he instead _start_off_
>>>>>by constructing a universe where God only has to wave his hands if he
>>>>>should ever want to forgive sin?
>>>>The rules are the way they are because God desired free worship from free
>>>>moral agents.  Thus, he established the ground rules at creation.  I don't
>>>>see that they are necessarily 'dumb'...just perhaps beyond our complete
>>>>understanding....
>>>...  I am not asking why God cannot create people incapable of sinning
>>>at all, just why he can't create one [world] where the forgiveness process is
>>>different.
>>Sure He could.  But ...
>
>If he could, then my question remains: Why didn't he _do_ it instead of making
>a world with such dumb rules?  (Your answer about having to match the OT
>sacrifices doesn't work; explaining dumb rules as needed to match other dumb
>rules is rather silly.  He could have created a world without OT sacrifices
>just like he could create one without Jesus sacrifices.)

Hmm.  Well, the rules in the OT were not meant to be 'dumb', in my opinoin.
Assume for a moment that God did not hand the rules down to Moses on a
tablet...now, can we think of rational, logical reasons for those laws?
For the most part, I think so...the laws aren't 'dumb' as you put it, but
pretty darn civilized, in comparison to other groups of the time...

 -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,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:23:20 GMT

In article <72235@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>An alternative account of suffering is that it is simply a
>modality of experience that arises from our essential
>inability to grasp and control the content of that
>experience. ...

Perhaps the same is true about "good" things too.
--
"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)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:06:45 GMT

In article <adams.716500714@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>...  I am not asking why God cannot create people incapable of sinning
>>>>at all, just why he can't create one [world] where the forgiveness process
>>>>is different.
>>>Sure He could.  But ...
>>If he could, then my question remains: Why didn't he _do_ it instead of making
>>a world with such dumb rules?  (Your answer about having to match the OT
>>sacrifices doesn't work; explaining dumb rules as needed to match other dumb
>>rules is rather silly.  He could have created a world without OT sacrifices
>>just like he could create one without Jesus sacrifices.)
>Hmm.  Well, the rules in the OT were not meant to be 'dumb', in my opinoin.
>Assume for a moment that God did not hand the rules down to Moses on a
>tablet...now, can we think of rational, logical reasons for those laws?

Sure, I can think of some reasons.

The Old Testament people lived in societies where sacrifices and such were
well-known.  Having sacrifices was necessary to get the people to accept that
sins were forgiven, since that was what they were used to using for forgiving
sins.

This does not mean that God has to have sacrifices in the 20th Century.  Unlike
those Old Testament people, we don't live in a world where everyone else does
sacrifices; therefore, the reason why Old Testament sacrifices were needed no
longer applies.

So why didn't God make a world with the rule "sacrifices in ancient times,
no sacrifices now"?  What he really did, according to you, was make a world
where sacrifices were needed both then and now, and then kludge around the
latter by sending Jesus to get rid of the "now" part.  A rather roundabout
method.  Why didn't he just make the world without it to begin with?
--
"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: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christians at Work in Oregon
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:24:38 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

stieger@cco.caltech.edu (Ronald David Stieger) writes:
>Unfortunately, in this country mainstream views seldom are put forth as
>loudly as radical opinions, simply because they don't need to be.  After
>all, they're already mainstream.  So outsiders can easily mistake the views
>of a vocal minority for those of the silent majority.  However, in this
>case, I recently heard of a group of moderate Christians beginning a 
>campaign OPPOSING the gay-discrimination ballot measure.  Of course, this
>isn't going to be nearly as newsworthy outside of Oregon so don't be
>too surprised if you don't hear about it. 

The Newsweek September 14 issue mentions the Oregon ballot starting on
page 25, so it appears this will be known around the nation.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: JW humor
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:19:42 GMT

tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
> It may be humorous to poke fun at the poor boy, but he seems to know
> almost as much about Christainity as he does about the JW movement.
> Ie only from a distance. One can only suppose that he know as little
> about science and biology as he does about religon or religous belief.


> Please don't think of this boy as representive of either Christanity or
> JWitness. You would be doing either belief system a grave injustice.


	I only wanted to say that you're just digging blood from your nose 
	when having fun with me. I know Kent well enough to say that and I 
	think it is the only language he seems to understand. 

	I'm not a hypocrite, I say what I think and Kent has requested that 
	from me. I don't hesitate to use hard words, when they fit to my 
	meanings. 

	Besides, Kent mistranslated. I didn't say 'shit-head', I said 'piss-
	head'. In our language it means stupidly stubborn person. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [UPI] Report
Date: 9 Sep 1992 16:22:56 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Carl M. Kadie) writes of the UPI article:
 
 	In it, the high court ruled 6-3 that religious beliefs do not protect
 people from the consequences of laws that generally apply to everyone.
 The justices held that Oregon officials lawfully denied unemployment
 benefits for two fired drug counselors who had used small amounts of
 peyote in Native American religious ceremonies.

This hardly seems like a fair example: drug counselors?

 	Neil said most recently, a U.S. District judge in San Francisco
 upheld the city's right to display a Latin cross in lights year-round on
 government property overlooking the city.

 	Another California case involved a government grant to a religion-
 based homeless shelter that forced its clientele to participate in
 religious services.

Survey says: Thumbs Down! If these cases make it to the U.S. Supreme
Court, I hope they will be struck down via the  1st Amendment.

Dano

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage