HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:44:28 GMT

In article <BvEwxG.1zo@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.185448.17770@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>I repeat my question, Mr. Harvey:
>>The metaphor:
>>Kent types so fast that he is the keyboard.
>>The cases:
>>1) Kent is a fast typist.
>>2) Kent is a slow typist.
>>Clearly, the metaphor has a different status in cases 1 and 2.
>>Kent seems inclined to say that in case 2 the metaphor is false.
>>You seem to object to this.
>>There should be, however, some words foo and bar such that we can
>>say:
>>In case 1 the metaphor is foo.
>
>... that Kent *IS* a keyboard and therefore keyboards must also type fast.
>
>>In case 2 the metaphor is bar.
>
>... that Kent *IS* a keyboard and therefore keyboards must also type slow 
>or not at all.
>
>>In case 1 the metaphor is not bar.
>
>... that Kent types fast, the metaphor is that Kent *IS* a keyboard, whatever
>that means. Is Kent really a keyboard, or what?
>
>>In case 2 the metaphor is not foo.
>
>... that Kent types slow, the metaphor is that Kent *IS* a keyboard, whatever
>that means. Is Kent really a keyboard, or what?
The metaphor is therefore meaningless.
If it doesn't tell us anything about whether Kent types fast
or not, what meaning does it have?

>>My question to you was that you supply word substitutions for foo
>>and bar. You did not provide them. Hence you did not answer my
>>question.
You STILL didn't answer my question.
All those words, but not an answer.

>One foo is not always the same as another foo.
>The foo that can be named is not the true foo. 
More babble.


-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Subject: Re: Honest Question For Any LDS
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date:  6 OCT 92 00:23:43    

In article <d0Wl02wm24jy01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes...

>In article <16774@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>>In article <51bc025P24NJ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE) writes:
>>>Could an LDS please explain a question that I have had concerning the
>>>Scriptures you accept?  My question is this:
>>>
>>>In the Doctrine and Coventents, Section 135 Verse 3, I read that the
>>>Book Of Mormon "contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel".  This is
>>>also stated in Section 27:5 and a few other places throughout the D&C.
>>>
>>>The definition for "fullness", according to Webster, is: "complete".
>>>The definition for "everlasting", according to Webster, is: "Eternity;
>>>lasting through all time".
>>>
>>No one can answer for everyone, but I think most Mormons would probably
>>say that the BoM contains all the gospel necessary for salvation.
> 
>Your church tells me that I MUST be married "sealed" in a Mormon Temple to
>be with God in Eternity (Celestial Kingdom).  Also, tithing, Word of
>Wisdom, Baptism for the Dead, and other things are important to get there.
>Can you support these things in the Book of Mormon?
> 
>>>3. God has a body of flesh and bones.
>>
>>These doctrines came later than the Book of Mormon, most of
>>them from the Nauvoo period, except for #3, which was quite early.

Well not that early Gordon.  I don't believe this was taught much before 
1841/42 and not openly until the King Follett discourse in 1844.  It was
attributed to the 1820 period but not taught until Nauvoo.

>>>7. Jesus Christ blood is not sufficient for the forgiveness of all
>>>   (certain) sins.
>>
>>This is something Brigham Young said that most Mormons neither
>>know about nor believe.
> 
>I guess most Mormons don't read MORMON DOCTRINE do they?

Well let's hope not.  It would be a good book to remove from publication.
As was previously posted here on t.r.m., the President of the LDS Church
personally declared the book to represent the opinions of the author and
not the Church.  And another Church leader was said to have found in 
excess of 1000 doctrinal errors in it.

>That is funny, the LDS bookstore near me seems to keep ordering stock on it!

No, that is sad.  I can't figure out why so many people want it. Unless they
are all like me and want copies of the origin and revised versions for 
historical purposes.  

>>I would say that those who wish to be in the Celestial Kingdom
>>need to learn to love as God loves.  That is the most important
>>thing.  All of the other ordinances and requirements can be handled
>>(and will be) if a person develops that sort of love.

I agree with Gordon on this point.  If we can learn to love and have charity
towards our fellow humans then everything else will fall into its proper place.

>Way to avoid the issue Gordon!

To you perhaps this is "the issue", to me it is "The Issue".

Dana
From: gairns@ccrs.emr.ca (Jamie Gairns)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus For President
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:54:39 GMT
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa
	Yes!  Ahhh, a spelling bee ... and I didn't even study!

>"You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will
> not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name."
>                                                    Exodus 20:7
	Ain't MY god, you sheep.  God is supposed to be a nice guy, and
	nice guys don't go  around turning people into pillars of salt
	for looking backwards, now DO THEY??????
							JGG 1:17

>God will not be mocked!
	Gee Pal, looks like it just was!  Arr arr! :-)

Jamie
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:47:54 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Oct1.152042.18300@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>to zero. I'm done with you. 

No problem.  I don't preach myself - rejection of me is rejection of the
Lord, for I preach Jesus as Lord and me his servant.  You can be done 
with me and that's fine, but Jesus is still Lord and His word never 
returns void.

>Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:43:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <38645@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes...
> 
>>	I asked this question earlier in the year, and didn't receive 
>>a reply. I would like to ask it again: What is the definition of a 
>>`false prophet' in the LDS?
> 
>I don't know if there is a definition in the LDS?  What is that
>suppose to mean?  Perhaps if your question made more sense, more
>people would answer it!

	I'm sorry if the question didn't make sense. I thought that I 
was phrasing the question ok.

> 
>I am LDS and I will give you my definition of a 'false prophet'
> 
>False prophet:
> 
>Anyone who says they are a prophet but in God's eyes they are not a
>Prophet.

	Is there any way that we could use a standard to discern if 
they are false? How do *we* know that they are false?

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:29:09 GMT
	<BvCyIv.ACr@inews.Intel.COM> <1992Sep29.212356.5417@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA

In article <1992Sep29.212356.5417@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <BvCyIv.ACr@inews.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <ksand-280992193304@wintermute.apple.com> 
>>1.Kent types so fast that he types at least 75 words per minute.
>>
>>Now that is either true or false, possibly metaphorical but I would call it
>>a rather poor metaphor at best.
>>
>>2. Kent types so fast that he is the keyboard.
>>
>>That is metaphorical. The issue of true/false is largely unimportant to 
>>metaphors. I assume you are not a keyboard, but it doesn't matter.
>Consider:
>Kent is either a slow typist or a fast typist.
>2. Is "foo" if Kent is a fast typist.
>2. Is "bar" if Kent is a slow typist(e.g. two fingers, 2 wpm).
>
>You may not like the words "true" "false" but clearly there are metaphors
>which are accurate and those which are not. Would you like to choose
>words to go in for "foo" and "bar" to substitute for "true" and "false"?

Of what use is an accurate metaphor?  This is better served by fact.
Of what use is an true metaphor?      This is better served by non-fiction.
Of what use is an false metaphor?     This is better served by fiction.
Of what use is an accurate poem?      Poetry transcends accuracy.
Of what use is an accurate myth?      Myth transcends accuracy.
Of what use is accurate beauty?       Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Of what use is an accurate rose?      The entire universe can be seen in a rose.
Of what use is factual fiction?       Fiction is fiction, transcendent of fact.
Of what use is fictional non-fiction? Non-fiction is constrained by fact.

True/False reductionism is of the world of science, and it is good and useful.
BUT, is this the only way to SEE the world?
Clearly the application of religion to science, as in Creationism, is largely
useless, except as propaganda.
Is it possible that science is of little use in the world of religion?
Is there life beyond True/False dogmaticism?
Just the facts mam?
Just cold hard logic?
Does a rose by any other name still smell as sweet?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 26 Sep 92 19:42:21 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <Bv5G5s.LHB@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>"MATH" is not a proposition.  "MATH" does not have a truth-value.
>It doesn't? Are you saying that MATH is false? (not valid)

Don't think of it as math, think of it as mYth, to connect with another
discussion. :-)

>1 + 1 = 2
>Or, do you have blind faith that this is correct? In other words, you KNOW it
>to be TRUE beyond ANY doubt. You see, faith means some doubt, blind faith
>means absolutely NO doubt.

1 and 2, as well as addition, are abstractions.  1+1=2 is true because it was
defined to be true.  We could come up with a system where 1+1 is not 2, just
by defining these things to be something else, so no I have no faith that
1+1=2.

>>"MATH" is not a proposition.  "MATH" does not have a truth-value.
>Why not? I accept it as true because I have faith that mathematicians know
>more about Math than I.

If you accept "math" as true, you don't know what you are doing.

>>Nonsense.  I do not hold it to be beyond doubt that the sun will come
>>up tomorrow, but that doesn't keep me from setting my alarm clock and
>>planning to go to work.
>Then why do you?

Because one can do things without being absolutely certain they will work.

>>By *your* definition of faith (holding a proposition to be true
>>without personally proving it), this statement is true.  By the proper
>>definition of faith (what you call "blind faith"), this statement is
>>false.
>Proper? Are you speaking from authority? Are you asking me to have faith that
>you know what you are talking about?

"Proper", in this context, means "widely used".

>Right, in other words, you have faith that people of greater authority,
>mathematicians, have done this verification for you.

No, mathematicians can make mistakes.  For all I know, a mistake could be
discovered tomorrow.  I use math because when I've used it in the past, it
seems to work fairly well, and nobody's come up with anything better.  That
doesn't mean I do not think it's possible it has mistakes in it.
--
"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: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God is an academic arguement
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:09:00 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

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

>In article <ksand-210992125009@wintermute.apple.com> 
>ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>>You are right that science is the tool for figuring out the truth.
>>It could also be used for figuring out if particular religions are
>>valid or not, speaking from an objective frame.

>I would guess that almost all, if not all, religions are false, by
>the scientific method, unless your religion is physics. Would you
>propose judging poetry or music by the scientific method?

No, but I would judge the construction of the instrument by the
scientific method.  Science cannot give the reason for the creation,
but can show the method.  Science can investigate how God does things,
but not why.

>>As for the concept of abstractions that can't be scientifically
>>verified, yes, that's the realm of the idea world. I don't mind
>>creative people exploring this arena, I am myself a musician turned
>>programmer by need of cash. However, we can't state that ideas are
>>true or not, they exist, they live, mutate, change and disappear.
>>They can't be verified as valid or not, unless they are tangible
>>for scientific verification.

>If you use only science, you will see only what science has to offer.
>You know what happens when one uses the tool of religion to explore
>the world of science, you get Creationism. What do you think happens
>if you use science to explore the world of religion? Learn from
>dogma, but please do not be dogmatic.

You only get "Creationism" if you ignore what you observe of the world
(or what Science discovers).  God did not intend for us to ignore our
senses, otherwise why make them such a dominating part of our lives?

Mark
-- 
   I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
   -- Galileo
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:04:07 GMT
	<ksand-280992193304@wintermute.apple.com>
Organization: noitazinagrO

In article <ksand-280992193304@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Stick to the topic. I still maintain that there 
>are metaphors that are either true or false, but I didn't say that each
>metaphor could be classified as true or false. Meanwhile you could jump
>around on top of the big turtle.

OK, how about this:

1.Kent types so fast that he types at least 75 words per minute.

Now that is either true or false, possibly metaphorical but I would call it
a rather poor metaphor at best.

2. Kent types so fast that he is the keyboard.

That is metaphorical. The issue of true/false is largely unimportant to 
metaphors. I assume you are not a keyboard, but it doesn't matter.

Maybe a better example:

3. When Kent runs, he is an Olympian runner.

I get the metaphor about your running speed, but I don't need to know if this
is true or false. It makes no difference, it is not relevant to the metaphor.

So, what I'm saying is that I am sure that you can find metaphors that are
true or false or neither. Just as I am sure that you can find some true
statements in the works of fiction. So? I am saying that it is of little
importance. The metaphor of the earth being carried on the back of a turtle
is metaphoric. I doubt that you will find it by digging in your back yard.
It is a metaphor, not a statement of fact. However, you may find it,
metaphorically speaking.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17287 alt.atheism:18120
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:24:07 GMT
	<lcd4t6INNhfj@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: noitazinagrO

In article <lcd4t6INNhfj@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) writes:
>The truth of "1+1=2" can be derived solely from the definitions of
>"1", "+", "=", and "2".

Try that on sci.math and see what happens.

>>How do you cope with this possibility of failure?

>By realizing that the possibility of failure increases when one
>refuses to recognize it.

That's good, I like that one.

>>>>>the proper definition of faith (what you call "blind faith") [...]

>>Widely used? Is that not authority?

>No.  It's convention.  If you want to be understood, you use the
>linguistic conventions that your audience understands.

And what would that be? English as used by the Queen? English as used by
Anglo males between the ages of 25 and 35? English as used in NYC? Brooklyn?
Los Angeles? Compton? Chicago? Atlanta? NBC prime time? Dan Quayle? English
as used by Engineering graduates of MIT? English as used by the usenet
community?

>>When the student is ready, the teacher appears. If the teacher says,
>>"Follow me and be free", do you have faith or blind faith?

>Neither.  I say to the teacher "tell me where you're going, and give
>me some evidence that there will be freedom there".

If I were to play the part of the teacher, I would say, "tell me where YOU
are going, and by definition there will of course be freedom there, in time".
What would you say if you played the part of teacher?
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:30:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <69213@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> I over spoke, for I was paraphrasing something I had just read.  I
> posted a more accurate version of the above statement in my summary
> of the book (_Why I Believe_ by Dr. D. James Kennedy.) 
> However, I would like to know which of the predictive prophecies
> of the Hindu writings have been come true.

If we still insist that predictions are examples of miracles,
then a big majority of science fiction writers are speaking the
word of God. Sigh, it life was that easy.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct3.095154.7631@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:34:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.095154.7631@cs.ucla.edu> 
robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
>Faith is neither true nor false.  Only statements of fact (propositions)
>can be true or false.  Faith is an extrapolation of past experience (or
>some other type of belief system not based on experience, senses, or the
>real world), so it can come in many different flavors, some rational,
>most not.

I'll buy that. Yo, KEN and ERIC! You's gots problems with that? Say,
Rob, my man, what do you think about metaphor? Can metaphor be true or
false?

>I'm sorry, but I jumped in late.

Hey, no problem. I was kinda feeling sorry for jumpin' in early.

>Just what *do* *you* think faith is, anyway?

Well, I cain't put it to words right now. I'm still workin' on it.

>I'll tell you what I think it is not.  It is not a substitute
>for reason.

OK, I'll buy that. Reason meaning using your head. Cain't front on that.

>It is not a substitute for rational thought.

Not a substitute, but, of what use is rational thought while reading
poetry? I assume by rational you are refering to true/false
reductionism? So, rational is good, damn good, but, is that all there
is? Are there other tools available? Is there life beyond true/false?

>It is not a substitute for deductive logic.

Right, but same as above. Of what us is deductive logic when reading
poetry or myth? It does have a use, but is it the only valid tool?

>Although *inductive* logic is based
>primarily on faith, regrettably, the converse is not always true. 

Ah, faith based on inductive logic. Now this inductive logic, how
dependent is it on true/false reductionism?

>I believe this was the distinction you (at least I think it was you)
>should have been attempting to make between faith, and blind faith.
>Instead, you concentrated on the degree of conviction of one's faith:
>blind faith = 100% conviction; faith = <100% conviction.  If it was
>*not* you who did this, then it must have been some other idiot, and I
>would apologize to you.

No, it was this idiot, what can I say. But maybe you are right. So, YO,
ERIC and KEN, WAKE UP! What do you guys think about faith based on
inductive logic? Useful or senseless promotional gimick? True or false?
Regular shrimp or jumbo shrimp? YO! What I'm sayin' is what do you's
guys think, OK?

>"Why do so many religions insist on blurring the lines between belief
>and knowledge, between faith and reason, between gospel and truth,
>treating such concepts interchangeably?  Do you really want to know?"

OK, yea, what'sup wit' dat?