HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 8 Sep 92 09:50:28 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
> Mathew, I suggest you look at the case of Somalia a little closer.
> Unlike places like Angola, Malawi, the northern part of South Africa, etc,
> (which are suffering from 21 months of drought), the Somalian problem
> is entirely self-induced. Somalia has not been in a drought and used to
> have a strong agricultural sector capable of feeding the country and
> many of its neighbours. The reason they cannot feed themselves has nothing
> to do with being able to feed themselves, and everything to do with
> civil war. If they would stop fighting, they do have the resources
> to feed themselves.

This is at variance with the news reports I've seen and read.  Whilst the
civil war obviously hasn't helped, the weather hasn't either.  But the
precise cause of the mass starvation in Somalia is actually irrelevant to the
point I was making.

Someone said that the earth had finite area, that arable land was decreasing,
and that it was therefore obvious that there was a limit to how many people
the planet could support.

Others countered by saying that that was surmise and hearsay, and that there
was no evidence of any definite limit on the number of people we can feed.

I was merely pointing out that if you don't want to go by surmise and
hearsay, you're forced to face the fact that every day thousands of people
starve.  I'm reluctant to accept the most optimistic position -- that they
could all be fed if it weren't for wars -- until it has been demonstrated as
true.  In short, those complaining about assuming that the earth's resources
are finite are just as guilty of unverified assumptions as those they are
attacking.


mathew
-- 
Bush/Quayle in '92!
God Bless America!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Lesbian Cross-Dressing Lizards!
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:02:34 GMT

In article <86980@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|In article <1992Aug19.031214.23684@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence (Pete Zakel) writes:
|>(I seem to recall some mollusks change sex as they get older, so
|>mollusks at one end of the progression fertilize others that are at
|>the other end in the other state).
|
|I haven't heard of any such mollusks, although some barnacles do it.

Yeah, I think that's what I was remembering.  I frequently forget that
barnacles are crustaceans, not mollusks.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Don't be humble, you're not that great.
		-- Golda Meir
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:28:59 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <adams.715465159@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:

>> The simple, concise answer is that God is perfect while we are not.  It is
>> not possible for God to sin (ie how can he work against his own will or
>> seperate himself from himself)?

>In other words, the supposedly omnipotent God is so perfect that he
>is not able to sin. While humans are so inperfect they could do things
>God can't. Isn't that special!

It is a logical fallacy to suggest that God can work against His will.  As
such, your point fails...since sin is going against God's will and causing
separation, it is illogical to suggest that God can work against His own
purposes...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Krishna                  
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:24:05 GMT

In article <gate.Z76NqB1w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us> kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) writes:
> We would like very much to correspond with individuals who can tell the
> difference between "non-christian" and "atheist."

It all depends on how you define God. I don't believe in an omnipotent
God that created reality. Rather I would say that reality has many of
the attributes assigned to God, so I think it is valid to say that
reality is God. Because reality has produced sentient life which is
part of reality, reality (or the universe) is itself self aware.
I believe evolution will continue to build larger "entities" just as
animals where created out of cells, once the world is connected by
high speed networks, the networks linking billions of minds will themselves
become a mind, and so on.


-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: noitazinagrO
	<adams.716494587@spssig>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:26:32 GMT

In article <adams.716494587@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Sure He could.  But the process He chose (and any other would do as well)
>was a near perfect copy of the OT sin offering...a perfect, sacrifical
>lamb.

Yeah, that's it. This sacrafice thing is something we don't really understand
anymore, which is strange because we still do it. For a King to sacrafice
His only son(sun) is very significant, some cultures even sacraficed the King
on a regular basis, this is mostly because the smallest unit was the tribe,
the concept of individual came only just recently in 12th century Europe. If
you understand the tribal mentality, the idea of the tribe trying to survive
against the barbaric hords, then you can probably make sense of ritual
sacrafice. But, the interesting thing is that we still do sacrafice today.
The woman and children of Iraq, sacraficed for what? The Kurds, sacraficed
for what? The poor of the US and the world, sacraficed for what? Those who 
don't graduate from High School in the US, sacraficed for what? Death penality,
life imprisonment, imprisonment, sacraficed for what? If you can figure this 
out, you can see the symbology of a King or even God sacraficing His only 
Son(sun). Remember that this is patriarchal, in a matriarchy it is the young 
girls, "virgins", who are sacraficed, for the same reasons. It's all the 
ultimate sacrafice. It has to do with the life/death pair of opposites. The 
strange thing is that we call the old ways of sacrafice barbaric, and yet we 
too sacrafice everyday, perhaps without understanding why we do. Personally, 
I'd like to see us get the knowledge to go beyond actual human sacrafice and 
go to a virtual or symbolic sacrafice, but how can we if we don't even know 
what we are doing today? I think "do the right thing" is virtual, not actual 
sacrafice, but it requires that all SEE, doesn't it? Conversion won't do it,
that has been historically proven. All must SEE, on their own terms. To me,
this is the symbology of Jesus, yet another clue, a tool, a light to guide
one onto the way of light, the way of do the right thing.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:40:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <Btwt6C.638@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> >... as for atheist/agnostic thoughs, I do care shit about becoming
> >a God. Does that mean that I'm a Christian? According to your
> >earlier statements, yes. Sigh.
> 
> I doubt that any of my previous statements pidgeon-holed you into the
> Christian mold. If you say you are a Christian, then you are a Christian. It
> is you who is the judge of that.

I didn't save your earlier comment, so apoligies if I misquote your
statement that non-belif in God implies belief in self, and that 
New age and atheist religions believe in humans becoming like God.

Well, I don't believe I will ever become a God, and I don't wont
either. That places me in a very special set of people, one that
does not follow the rules you laid out.

Cheers,
Kent
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:05:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep3.145159.18979@news.cs.brandeis.edu>,
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) wrote:
> In article <ksand-010992182825@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> The conclusion is that a rich man cannot save himself.  But God can still
> do it.  The entire focus is on God saving man.  We are saved by God's grace,
> not by our works.  Read Romans 3 about righteousness from the Law, which
> no one can achieve, verses a righteousness apart from the Law.

If you want to follow Jesus, then "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell
that
thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:
and come and follow me".

This is the mission Jesus stated, and modern Christians want to 
be quiet about.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: What happened to Gavins' kill file
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:49:05 GMT

In article <ksand-050992144548@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>I don't personally think 'ostrich' style advice, such as placing
>people in kill files, it the right solution for open criticism and
>discussion about world views. In my humble opinion it is as bad
>as deliberate censorship.
>
>BTW, I don't use kill files.
Hmmm. I, myself, don't use a kill file, but I don't see that it's as bad
as deliberate censorship. A kill file does nothing to infringe upon
a person's right to speak, only is an exercise of my right not to listen.

The fact of the matter is that the s/n ratio on the net is appallingly
low. A kill file can go quite a way towards improving one's perception
of it. 

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15847 talk.origins:11012
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: JW humor
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:02:06 GMT

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>	I'm just honest and I say what I think.

No you're not, you little toad. If you were honest, you'd have 
insulted Ken in English, rather than attempt to conceal your insult.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:43:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <Bu9wr0.8sL@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> Well K-K-K-K-K-(fish called wonda)Ken, allow me to make it even simpler. Whose 
> definition of Christianity are you using? Makes a big difference, don'tcha 
> think? What makes you think there is not a universal religion based on the 
> meaning of a rock? Isn't it all in the eyes of the beholder? 

Apologies, saw the typo of my answer after I posted it. Sigh, this has
been a rough day.

I ment that we have an understanding about the Newtonian physics,
however we have thousands of Christian splitter groups defining
the doctrine of Christianity.

Sorry, I think I have to go home and sleep (it's been a rough
working day).

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.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:23:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep10.012026.8618@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> The Question:
> 
>      What does Satan, Eve and Shirley MacLaine have in common?
> The Answer:
> 
>      All three believe they can be like God. 

Another thing in common is that they believe in things they 
can't show are valid :-).

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.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:45:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.715476338@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> Sometimes I even wonder if not 
> >Christians are keen to be the 'chosen people' that will end up in heaven.
> >It also implies self-realization, whether you want it or not.
> 
>   it is seriously incorrect to say that christianity implies self-
> realization in the way much of the newage does.  i do not wish, as a
> christian, to live from my self-sufficient, personally-empowered
> store of omniscience.  i wish to know god, not to be god.  newage self-
> realization has nothing to do with an absolute creator/redeemer.

Ok, here' my point, we have a special group of Christians that know
they are right, and by reading and *especially* understanding the message
from various Bible statements (usually words by Paul) they know how
to get to Heaven. While other Christian sects are wrong. It implies
that there's a certain amount of self-oriented activities, where
one's own opinion is right, and other people's opinions are wrong.

You wish to meet Jesus, right? Isn't that part of your own selfish
needs? Or is it something else we don't understand?

Cheers,
Kent
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:04:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <67551@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-010992182825@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> |Here's the full cite from Matthew about rich men and heaven:
> 
> The request I had was for a cite of a person gaining entrance into
> heaven by selling all of his goods.  This cite is a case in point of 
> a man not selling his goods - and Jesus saying with man it is 
> impossible to enter heaven, but with God all things are possible.
> This, I believe, is effectively the statement in Eph 2:8-9 that
> salvation is a gift of God and is by faith NOT WORKS, so NO MAN can boast.

As Jesus said:
|MAT 19:23  Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That
|a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
|MAT 19:24  And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go
through
|the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Isn't it weird that a non-Christian is using Jesus' words against
a Christian???

Cheers,
Kent
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:16216 talk.religion.newage:4368 sci.skeptic:16451
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Conservation of bogosity?
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:00:20 GMT
 <1992Sep12.194815.10818@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1992Sep14.201116.15689@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <1992Sep14.201116.15689@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
> In article <1992Sep12.194815.10818@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes in part:
> |> "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)
> 
> Is bogosity conserved?  Does the total bogosity of the universe always 
> increase?  Can bogosity be converted from potential bogosity to
> kinetic bogosity and vice versa?

  I assume bogosity is represented in the complex form because of its imaginary
component :-)


> 
> -- 
>   Robert E. McGrath
>   Urbana Illinois
>   mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christians at Work in Oregon
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:05:03 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

<SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>In article <adams.715654881@spssig>,
>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>><SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>>
>>>Let's hear it for Jesus: Sig heil!  Sig heil!  Sig heil!
>>
>>1. This is unfair...tarring all Christians with this.  Some of us
>>   reject entirely the ideas that these groups in Oregon have.

>When your voices are heard in the same numbers, or greater, as those
>of the fundagelical fascists I will be convinced.  The hallmark of
>mainstream Christians in the face of the Christian ultras is cowed
>silence and inaction for the most part.
I don't disagree with this, as a general statement...I see this in my own
circles.  All I can tell you is that I'm working on it one person at a time!  

>It is non-Christians and the non-religious who are doing the work
>of saving freedom from your co-religionists.
There are a few freedom-loving Christians who fight this stuff too...and I
hope to convnce more to follow my same path.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JW humor
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:02:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep9.144644.11243@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Anyway, in Finnish naming a person kusi-paa does *not mean* 
> >he's stubborn (itsepainen is the word for stubborn), instead it's a
> >slap-in-the-face grave attack.
> 
> 	It doesn't mean stupid, because I think you are quite smart. It means
> 	stubbornity to the border of foolishness. Kusip{{ is a bit more than 
> 	just a bimbo. 

Antti, you are lying again. Itsepainen is the right word for a
stubborn person. Kusipaa is a rude statement used when one
wants to show how much one detests another person.

I don't call you 'kusipaa', but I would call you very stubborn
even when you know you are wrong. 

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.
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 7 Sep 92 02:51:52 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <ksand-040992185903@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>If you want to follow Jesus, then "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell
>that
>thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:
>and come and follow me".
>
>This is the mission Jesus stated, and modern Christians want to 
>be quiet about.

Don't get me started criticizing Christians (I'll be writing till next week).
I agree that Jesus calls us to give up everything (that's called making Jesus
Lord) and following him.  The passage you quote, however, is primarily focussed
on how it is impossible for man to save himself because no matter how hard
one tries, we will fall at some point.  Only God can save.  The guy wanted to
know what he had to do to be perfect (see the first clause in your above
statement).  Jesus answered, pointing out how the man had made his money too
important.  Are American Christians guilty of this also?  Yes.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15864 alt.atheism:16751
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 8 Sep 1992 17:20:15 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <18gqrjINN57u@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:

>From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)

>I am voting for Clinton. As for the U.S. population, I don't think that
>I am mistaken. There is more to overpopulation than simply the ability
>to grow food.

>Me:
>What is your definition of overpopulation?  Do you honestly believe that the U.S.
>is incapable of supporting her current or future population?

My definition of overpopulation is a population sufficiently large that
it is not sustainable given the resources available. These resources
include such things as food, water, the availability of waste disposal,
clean air, and so forth.

Given this criteria, I do honestly believe that given the world
situation (the environment does not stop at our borders),
trends of current overexploitation of our resources, a noted tendency
of my species towards shortsightedness, and forseeable advances in
technology, the U.S. is incapable of supporting her future population.
As for supporting her current population, it is only being done at
the expense of future generations, so by that token I believe that we
fit the criteria of being overpopulated.

>Jon Newton

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc