HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Thank you for your responses  : ) 
Summary: negative entropy on the net?
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:55:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.211814.17537@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>> Except, of course, when the unsupported assertions are made by atheists.

>I think this is a tad unfair, Michael. An atheist poster on a.a. spouted
>stuff recently about how, in his experience and judgement, atheists were
>more `intelligent' than Christians. He was rounded upon by the heathen
...
>In my less than rigorous observation, this happens rather regularly on a.a.

I am pleased to hear it; perhaps my remark is more outdated than unfair,
however, as before I stopped reading a.a. (interesting acronym, BTW :-))
when work got hot and heavy a year or so ago, I saw quite a bit of "I said
it so it's true" from the atheist side as well as (expectably) from the
invading evangelists -- and little practice of self-policing from the
regulars.  Perhaps I should have another go at the group, but since I am
not interested in proselytizing it may be mostly a waste of time (for me.)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:23:59 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:

>In article <root.726247775@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>There is a difference between regret and repent.  At this time, I regret
>>one thing in particular, but there are others that I neither regret nor
>>repent....even though I know they are wrong in God's eyes.  Guess I'm in
>>serious trouble...
>
>Forgive me if this is getting a bit touchy...I'm not sure how you could
>"neither regret nor repent" some actions that another thinks are wrong,
>but still insist that this other's moral standards are not, to this
>extent, alien.  Are you proud of these actions?  How do you feel about
>having done these things?

No, it's not that I am proud of them, but I realize that who I was then and
how I though then, I could have not made a different choice.  So where does
that leave me?  I'm realistic about the situations.  Who I am now, and what
I know now, and what I beleive now, tells me that those things are wrong...

It's very confusing at times...

>>This about sums it up, I guess...that's why I removed the stuff above it.
>>There really isn't much of a free choice, as I've conceded to Sean
>>Hartigan.
>
>I would disagree with both of you on that latter point, actually.  Acceptance
>of such a position would contradict my foundation of life/reality.  (No,
>that's not intended to "prove" anything.)

I'll tell you, I was in your position, and after quite a long discussion
with Sean over the net, the question of 'free will' is, well, questionable.
My theology is still based on it, and I haven't abandoned it, but mostly
because I have real problems with predestination...

I'm caught between a rock and a hard place...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,talk.bizarre,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Attack of the CRAZY PEOPLE!!!
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:15:50 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1992Dec30.125750.13946@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller) writes:
>] > HI! Gene!
>] > 
>] HI! Drieux! Happy! New! Year!...Gene

>Do I like have a sign on my Back that Says:
>"Look! Victim Of Silly Name Games!"
>Or What?

No, Gene just has    Hi!drieux!phobia

What a terrible pun........blame the Trappistenbier Trippel

  No Trespassing: 4/17ths of a haiku.     D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk   fax 6040
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:29:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.93Jan5112610@bugs.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-040193165128@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com 
> (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
>    >I would like to know your propositin why agreements on premises
>    >are irrelevant. Note that most of science would fall apart as well :-)
>    >if this was the case.
> 
>   You are babbling again. What has been pointed out to you is that
> agreement on the truth of the premisses of an argument is irrelevant
> to agreement on the validity of the argument.

I posted earlier two cases where this is true (tautologies,
contradictions).
I'm sure some of the set theory constructs works pretty well. However
when we are dealing with assertions that can't be shown valid or not,
a lot of things break apart. I would like to know your point concerning
this very important issue -- and what you think about radical relativism
for instance? As for babbling, let's keep out ad hominem attacks, those
are only used if you don't have things to state.

Kent
Socrates: "I only know that I know nothing".
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:15:51 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17970@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <0eZm02QL30Y201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>>>That is why every person has the responsibility of receiving confirmation
>>>directly from God about these things.  This not only applies to utterances
>>>of the Mormon prophet, but the Bible.
>>
>>If this is true, then the person receiving the "confirmation" has a more
>>direct connection to God than the person giving the revelation.  Right?
>>Therefore, the need for a living prophet ceases.
>
>No, because my authority only extends to confirming whether something
>is from God or not.

That is my point!  The final word comes to YOU!  My point is, when a
prophet makes a revelation, either it is from God or either it isn't!
It can't be up to the individual that hears the revelation from the
Prophet. In Biblical times, when Moses and other prophets gave revelations
it was from God.  The people didn't have to get a confirmation on it.
Because it was from God, or it wasn't.  The truth of wether the revelation
is from God or not, is based on the revelation, not on the people hearing
it.  If you base it on the revelation you can come to one conclusion, and
thus have truth.  If you base it on the individuals hearing it, you get
many different conclusions.  It can't be from God and not from God at the
same time. Have you ever been in a room (or even part of a discussion)
where two Mormons are discussing a certain "prophetic" revelation, and
one of the was "confirmed" and the other wasn't?  It is really interesting
when they draw the conclusion I have illistrated above. One testifies
that it is from God and the other testifies that it isn't.  They both
cannot be right!  One is wrong!  Maybe both?  Can't happen.

>Being human, the prophet will still make errors.

Yes, but not when that are claiming it came from God!

>The problem with you (as well as many Mormons) is that you can't
>stand to live with uncertainty.  You have to have it black and white.
>True or false, good or evil, saved or damned, etc., etc.
>Unfortunately, if you have it that way, you are fooling yourself.

Was John the Baptist fooling himself when we wrote, "These things I have
written that you may KNOW that you have eternal life."...?

>I
>can only argue my own position, and that is that there is no
>such thing as infallibility.  Not the Bible, not the Prophet.

What about God?  Is he infallible?  If so, would that show the falseness
of your statement, "there is no such thing as infallibility?"  Wonder
what else you say is false?

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:35:27 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <9301041638.AA38072@chaos.intercon.com> amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:

>Drake, you should be proud--I don't think I've read a talk.* group in over 
>four years :)...

Oh, I am, I am! ;-)

>For example, some sects do not accept the deuterocanonical books ("The 
>Apocrypha") as part of "The Bible," while others do.

The reason books are in the canon is because they are essential to the
faith and worship of the church.  The deuterocanonical books, while 
some may think they are useful, are not essential.  That's why they
aren't canonical.

>in which translations and historical texts are valid.  Some American 
>evangelical and fundamentalist churches tend to use the KJV as their 
>baseline, while others use the NIV.  Older churches tend to endorse the RSV & 
>NRSV, while the Catholic church sticks with its own translations (such as the 
>NAB).  

Right, but I think it's understood that they are translations and could be
mistaken.  I've found in most Bible studies I've attended that there is
often some time spent discussing or researching the meaning of the original
words.

>There is also the issue of the source documents; traditionally, Christian 
>bibles use the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) instead of the Masoretic 
>texts, which are the version accepted as canonical by most branches of 
>Judaism.  Direct translations of the Masoretic canon have interesting 
>differences from versions which have gone through Greek and Latin on their 
>way to English, ranging from differences in phrasing to rearranged or 
>different verses.  The JPS translation of the Tanakh is a beautiful example.

I've not run across this JPS.  Could you provide a few examples of what
it is that you mean?

>This continues in the New Testament as well; for example, the oldest known 
>text of the Gospel of Mark (The Codex Sinaiticus) ends at the discovery of 
>the empty tomb, and makes no explicit mention of the Resurrection.

Is there a Christian denomination which accepts this Codex as authoritative?


-- 
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: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann, Software)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: BYU
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:38:18 GMT
X-Posted-From: garyf.byu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <C0EAEC.2os@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Dave Ritchie) writes:

>>No, this is not correct.  In Joseph Smith's cosmology, there was
>>never a time when "our Father" did not exist.  In fact, there was
>>never a time when that intelligence we now know as Robert Weiss 
>>did not exist.
>
>Gordon,
>  I am curious about this. Are there finite or infinite numbers of
>these spirit entities in the preexistance (an answer of 'I don't know'
>is also ok)?
>
>1) if infinite, what is the fate of the unborn spirits at the time of
>the second coming (and I admit, this may be meaningless under LDS
>orthodoxy). Or does LDS theology discount the Revelations prophecy?
>
>2) if finite, then it would seem that either a) birth would stop when the 
>supply is exhausted or b) there is a implicit assumption of reincarnation.
>
 I feel like adding my $0.02 to this.
The truest answer is 'I don't know', though I feel I have enough data to 
make some speculation. Since some people will become like God and Christ, 
and create worlds, it is probably safe to say there are an infinite amount 
of spirits. As to Revelations, I would say that it(Rev) only concerns this 
world and since there is an infinite amount of God's creations there are 
plenty of other places these spirits can go.
Enjoy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up?
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:01:29 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
> >> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >> How can I tell a "real Christian" from someone who's merely a Christian?
> >
> >The answer is that you can't tell. Nor can I. 
> 
> OK, then.  If neither of us can tell, why do I get people saying "they
> weren't _real_ Christians"?  _They_ seem to be able to tell....

No one can know with certainty who is genuine, but I can suspect who is...
"By their fruit you will recognize them." --Matt 7:16a. If someone has made 
a profession of faith, but lives their life in open and blatant disobedience 
to the New Testament moral standards, I will be tend to be skeptical that he
has had a genuine conversion. "If we claim to have fellowship with him yet 
walk in the darkness, we lie..." --1 John 1:6.  

It's kind of a waste of time playing the "is he or isn't he" game, as the 
NT warnings seem primarily intended for introspection. But who can resist
a little sport-jerking now and then?  And just to let you know where I'm 
coming from, I'm comfortable saying that the majority of people who call 
themselves Christians aren't (Matt 7:21-23).

---
Dave Weaver                | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |  gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: And over to you Sean... (a mixed bag of subjects)
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:38:46 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <fXC0GzI@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> 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.

Dat Paul Harvey...him crazy, me tink.
   
>>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.

The prosecution rests, my Lord. :)

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Un coup de des jamais n'abolira le Hasard.
- Stephane Mallarme
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<ksand-040193165128@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 10:26:10 GMT

In article <ksand-040193165128@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com 
(Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >I would like to know your propositin why agreements on premises
   >are irrelevant. Note that most of science would fall apart as well :-)
   >if this was the case.

  You are babbling again. What has been pointed out to you is that
agreement on the truth of the premisses of an argument is irrelevant
to agreement on the validity of the argument.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: 1/6/93   God's Promise in Psalm 18:30
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
	<1993Jan6.075834.13404@bsu-ucs>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:36:10 GMT

>> 	[someone else wrote:] Ah, yes, the Lord's way is perfect.

In article <1993Jan6.075834.13404@bsu-ucs> 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
> AMEN

	He was being sarcastic.

> HOW CAN THIS BE?  HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR EXISTENCE?

	Biology, pure & simple.

> WHO CREATED YOU?

	Pete & Susan Meyer.

> WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE?

	My purpose is what I decide it to be.  I need no "higher
authority" to justify my existence.  "My life is my own," as Number 6
once said.  (How many here recognize the allusion?)  Previously, my
purpose was to score high in school, get a good job, and be
comfortable.  My current purpose is to keep my wife safe, warm, dry,
and happy, and occasionally give assistance to her aunt, who has been
put through hell by her sick, hateful pseudo-Christian ex-husband.  I
anticipate in the future my purpose will include giving my children
the best possible upbringing I can give them.  What other purpose can
there be for me?

> I HAVE CONSIDER IT, AS HAS MOST CHRISTIANS, BUT WE CANNOT CONSIDER ANYTHING
> ELSE BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE I AM.

	The one you are?  You are God?  What?  

> THE PEACE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST BE WITH YOU!!

	Thanks, but I already have the peace of freedom from religiosity.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                                       The more you know, the less you believe.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: goff@intruder.navo.navy.mil (Victoria Goff)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-12886]: intruder.navo.navy.mil
Reply-To: goff@pops.navo.navy.mil
Organization: POPS Facility Managment
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:33:33 GMT

In article <C0H8rD.6wI.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
|> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
|> 
|> >> 	"If the premisses provide adequate grounds for affirming the
|> >> conclusion, if asserting the premisses to be true warrants asserting
|> >> the conclusion to be true also, then the reasoning is correct.  Otherwise
|> >> it is incorrect."
|> >
|> >Note the words 'if th epremisses provide *adequate ground for affirming
|> >the conclusion' -- and this is the point I've tried to hammer on for
|> >the last two weeks :-).
|> 
|> No Kent, it has nothing to do with whatever point you've been getting at.
|> The premises that A is B and B is C provide adequate ground for affirming
|> that A is C.  In other words, IF WE KNOW that A is B, AND WE KNOW that B
|> is C, THEN WE HAVE adequate ground for affirming that A is C.  Logic has
|> NOTHING TO DO with whether we know either of those things.

Hey, guys! You will never know God like this. There is no formula that
when expanded reveals God. If you really and truly want to know God.
I mean you really want to know God with all your heart. Then you will
have to humble yourself and pray, asking Him to forgive you, ask
Jesus to come into your heart. Sounds simple. Too simple perhaps?
That's what everybody says right after they pray this prayer - they
say "How can it be that simple but now I know that it is". I always
say, now you have the mission of trying to tell others how simple
it is and wait until you run into the intellectual bunch (scribes),
they are almost as hard hearted as the religious (Pharasees).

It's a miracle. That is exactly what it is. If in your arrogance and
your pride, there is no understanding of the holy and undefiled, then
perhaps, there is no search for righteousness. You have to thirst
for righteousness in order to find and know the true God who
created all there is. 

God loves everybody, even the feeble-minded and uneducated so He
made the path to salvation so very simple, why do we try to complicate
things? Because we are proud and we are self-centered. If we could
only admit that we are and be willing to accept God on His terms,
then we will have the answers. 

Stop this foolishness and quit psueudo-intellectualizing! God loves
you and wants you to get right. 

Jesus- don't leave earth without Him.

-v.goff

If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth, that God hath 
raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart man
believes resulting in righteousness and with the mouth man confesses
resulting in salvation. Romans 10:9,10


Disclaimer: My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:43:16 GMT

In article 1ii275INN5b0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield) writes:
> 
> If this is true, then how come his book says that pi = 3.0?
> 

AAARRRGGGHHHHHH! My t.r.m pet-peeve, again.

The O.T. lists the diameter as 10, the cirumf as 30.
30 and 10 can be significant to either 1 or 2 digits 
depending on the precision. In this case, it is to 1 digit, 
since without a stated precision, trailing zeros are not 
significant. Pi = 3 is correct to one significant digit. 
This is not an error. 

---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       -Paul Davies (on the cosmos)
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An End to All Arguments
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:19:26 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1993Jan6.134204.12312@hsr.no>, barclay@hpa.rf.no writes:
| An End to All Arguments

Hoo, hah.  The Argument to End All Arguments.  Or in 
Usenet terms, the Flamewar to End All Flamewars.  Snore.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"I see no reason to even discuss the medical risks, ramifications, and 
history of illegal abortions anyways.  The issue is the life of the 
preborn." --Edward Simmons, a "pro-lifer", in talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:39:11 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <root.726423512@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>Is this an illusion?  Perhaps.  In which case I have no choice but to
>>believe in free will... ;-)
>
>That's Sean's point, and it describes me, too.  Free will appears to be, at
>least somewhat, of an illusion.  But it's one I'll keep for the moment.

It is my perception that yes, for the most part, for most people, for much of
the time, free will is an illusion.  Have you read any of the works of
Gurdjieff or Ouspensky?  They discuss this matter in depth and come to some
interesting conclusions.  If you've not, read something by Ouspensky; probably
either _The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution_ or _The Fourth Way_ would
be a good starting point.
-- 
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...