HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_.
Date: 2 Jan 93 18:35:01 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1993Jan2.141138.4972@scorch.apana.org.au>, jimgar@scorch.apana.org.au (Jim Garner) writes:
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
> |In Orwell's novel, the torturer tries to get the protagonist, Winston Smith,
> |to acknowledge the veracity of the equation "2+2=5."  In the final
> |scene of the novel, Smith writes the equation "2+2= " but does not
> |write an answer. 
> 
> I think this action of leaving the question unanswered goes back to
> Winston's thoughts when he began to see 5 fingers, that the reason for
> seeing this was due to some "strange identity between the numbers 4
> and 5". Winston saw both 4 and 5 as the right answer at the same time,
> thus conforming to the Party's ideal of doublethink. Holding 2
> contradictory opinions at the same time.

Right. I re-read the novel since this matter arose, and that's
what's meant by the unfinished equation, I agree.

> But lets bring this back to the matter of Faith and what the effect
> might be on your mind or soul if you deny your faith (in word only) 
> under torture.

Ok...but of course the big issue in _1984_ is that word-only confession
is not enough for the interrogators. At the end of the novel,
Winston Smith _loves_ Big Brother.
 
> Personally, I agree with Roper. Just as professing Faith doesn't mean
> a person has it, denying it with the lips doesn't take it away.
>
> But does anyone really believe that God would want us to
> allow torture to continue, for want of saying a few words that we
> don't really mean?

The whole idea behind Winston Smith's torture is not to make him 
agree to mouth the appropriate words -- he agrees to do that almost
immediately. The Thought Police want to actually make Smith
love Big Brother, which they eventually manage to do.

Imagine a Christian in the hands of the Thought Police, then. The
Christian agrees to deny God, while secretly maintaining faith. This
is not good enough for the Thought Police. They want the Christian
to sincerely _hate_ God. Given enough time and resources, they can do this.
The Christian will eventually repudiate God from the depths of his being.
That is the horror of _1984_.  

What would God's perspective be on that, I wonder?

> Jim Garner B.Math (Newcastle NSW Australia) - jimgar@scorch.apana.org.au

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:37:50 GMT
	<1992Dec21.175006.21374@engage.pko.dec.com> <fWV72jv@quack.sac.ca.us>
Reply-To: ncramer@bbn.com
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: kariba.bbn.com
In-reply-to: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us's message of 22 Dec 92 03:11:01 GMT

In article <fWV72jv@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
   [...] Scriptures that differs from the Masorah has no support from the
   findings at Qumran, which did include a copy of the Septuagint, aka 
   LXX [...]

???

Can you cite some evidence for this?

As far as I am aware the _only_ Greek fragments found at Q'mran were
the 19 or so tiny fragments found in Cave 7.

Certainly nothing like "a copy of the Septuagint" was found.

N
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "What does science tell us about God?"
Date: 24 Dec 1992 01:03:01 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Dec23.221450.21428@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>>Brian Kendig writes

>>>It's entirely possible, I suppose, that some 'prime mover' exists
>>>behind the universe

>>If the universe is the Universe, where is 'behind'? When mover and
>>moved are discerned, they are relegated to membership in a set.
>>Neither can be that set's universe. 

>Yes, but what if the universe is to some multiverse as a house is to a
>city?  Maybe we can't conceive of anything outside our self-contained
>'house', but that doesn't mean there's nothing outside...

Seems to me that we have a word usage problem here. A strict definition
of "universe" implys "all that there is." However, in retrospect I
have always used it to mean "within the limits of time and space." with
the assumption that time and space are limited to our ... err, our ...
universe(?). So what is the correct usage, or do we need to invent
some new words here? Perhaps we can consider the universe to be "everything"
and call the time/space continuum a "STanza (Space/Time stanza, which is
a line in a verse). Then again we we could (as I have) call this space
time continuum the universe and create a new word for that which is
"behind" it; your suggestion of multiverse is a possability, though
I think we are looking at a meta-univere level, not just at a set of
universes.

Hmmm... A poem is the meta system of a verse... Perhaps this is all
just a line in the poetry of the gods?

Anyone have any suggestions as to proper word usage?

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: God's Lil' Buddy
Date: 23 Dec 92 04:25:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



/(me)
/|Again:  explain how the bible can be true when it contradicts the
/|physical universe.

(rpitts)
/Again, do you mean that you completely understand the laws of physics
/and you know that things can't happen except the way they 'normally'
/happen?

/THE POINT IS THAT YOU (and maybe Sieferman) SEEM TO "KNOW" THAT MIRACLES 
/CANNOT OCCUR AND SO YOU SAY THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.


Wrong-o, Pitts.  What we are saying is:  there is no evidence around us
that the universe operates in any fashion except the observed fashion.

You, however, believe that the universe occasionally operates according
to another set of rules, which you call "miracles".  However, you can
offer no proof, no evidence for this assertion.  Yet you still ask us to 
believe.  All we want is evidence that your claim ("miracles can happen") is 
true.

Provide VERIFIABLE EXAMPLES of incidents where the current laws of
physics stopped working, and another set of laws started working in
their place.  That's all we ask.



/(rpitts)
/I'm saying that the Bible doesn't say that the physcial universe doesn't
/generally function with events like the sun stopping, but when it has
/happened it is recognized as God intervening into the events of mankind.  

Provide proof that it *ever* happened, Pitts.  That's what Sieferman and
I are saying.

You seem to think that just because something *might* be able to happen,
that somehow that possibility constitutes proof that it *did* happen that 
way.  Wrong.

Suppose someone asked me to believe that the Navaho Indian creation
stories were true. I would tell them the same thing:  "But that's not how
the universe works."  

Then they say to me:  "Yes, but miracles are different.  They don't work 
according to natural laws.  Our Navaho gods can make the whole physical 
universe work however they like".

How can I ever test their statements?  Every time I say, "That can't happen  
because gravity (or light waves) don't work that way", all they have to do
is say:  "Well, maybe our Navaho gods temporarily suspended the laws of the
universe so that it *could* work that way".  The endless well of excuses;
every objection has a divine intervention to explain how it could be possible.

SO:  
if I have to believe your miracles without proof, then why shouldn't I 
have to believe the miracles of all other religions without proof?  

I can't believe that you are so blinded by religion not to see how fair
and balanced an approach this is. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: reh@wam.umd.edu (Richard Huddleston)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 02:59:35 GMT

In article <78447@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1gnifaINNsko@cascade.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>Jen Kilmer writes:
>>>Christianity is true.
>>
>>  And so are many other spiritual traditions.	
>
>How do you reconcile Jesus' statement of Himself being the only way to
>the Father?  Jesus said the whole of Scripture points to Himself, yet
>people refuse to come to Him.

Not to speak for David, but I'd imagine it could be justified in the
same way that statements within those belief traditions as to their
exclusivity should or could be reconciled.  The Qu'ran, and the Bhagavad
Gita, both contain phrases saying they've got sole claim to truth.

Maybe the oldest one should win: the Bhagavad Gita.

>
>It is written about Jesus that there is no other name given whereby men 
>must be saved.  How do you reconcile this with these many other spiritual 
>traditions?
>
>I guess I'm asking what do you mean by truth - do you see no contradictions
>between these spiritual traditions among themselves or with Christianity?
>
>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts
>
>-- 
>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
>                          --|--   
>Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
>Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 


-- 
Richard Huddleston   |  Cross-platform computing isn't for sissies.
reh@cs.umd.edu       |
                     |
Personal opinions.   |  Ask me about my Soundscreen.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: God's Lil' Buddy
Date: 23 Dec 92 05:01:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


(me)
|TRUE OR FALSE:  The apostles did in fact leave him.  
|TRUE, they did leave Christ, at the crucifixion.

/(rpitts)
/Did they leave hime or did they just scatter and were wondering what
/was to happen next.  

They RAN.  They CHICKENED OUT.  They DESERTED Christ.  Period.

/(rpitts)
/They all seem to be in one group, except for Thomas, the day of Jesus 
/resurrection.  Mary and some others went to anointed Jesus' body - they 
/didn't seem to have left Him.

They buried a dead body.  That isn't the same as having faith in someone.
Just because you want to see someone get a decent burial doesn't mean
you believe everything that person said while he/she was alive.  They were
fulfilling an obligation to a friend.




(me)
|Either that, or your original statement that they "fully knew" him is
|an erroneous statement.  Which is it, Pitts?

/(rpitts)
/Ok, Sarver, which is it? 

It's _your_ contradiction, Pitts.  Don't ask me to get you out of this
bind you got yourself into.



/(rpitts)
/They did fully know him, for they knew he alone had the words of eternal 
/life, but yet they did scatter at his death.  Is it impossible to you for 
/both of these to not be contradictory?

It is impossible for YOU to believe this.  It is YOU who said that they did 
not leave because they "fully knew Christ".  It is up to YOU to explain
how they could have deserted him at the Crucifixion.  "Whoso denieth
me before men, him shall I deny before my Father which is in heaven".



/(rpitts)
/The gospels, which were written after the resurrection, often say
/that the disciples did not understand such and such - and this often
/had to do with Jesus' death.  They didn't understand everything at the
/time.

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.  Why did you
bring it up?  We are discussing whether or not they left Christ.

Remember when Sieferman said that it was impossible to discuss things with 
you, because instead of discussion, you ramble on into sermon or bible 
verses instead?  The above is just such an example.
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:53:32 GMT

hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:

>>>		TOP 5 REASONS WHY GOD IS BETTER THAN BEER
>>>
>>>3. You can get Bibles for free in motel rooms.

>>But you can't get a god.  :-)

>Or a goddess...   :-(   :-)

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Usually, when gods want to procreate
(or as the mood may have it, a quick shag) they tend to come as
beams of light, bulls or squid.

Of course, Mary was unluckiest of all - none of the fun, all of the hard work.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24984 alt.pagan:14854
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:22:09 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>From what I have read in the Bible - Jesus did not say this. He is  
>supposed to have said "I am the way". That does not deny others as
>also being valid. He was only claiming that his way was valid.  I
>would expect, if the people who collated the mythology called the
>Bible had meant "only", that they would have written it that way.

I am the way.  Not "I am a way."  I am THE way.  Moreso, "I am the way,
the truth and the life.  No man cometh to the Father but by me."  They
did NOT write: "I am a way, one of many truths and a type of life.  Some
men come to the Father by me, but not all."

-- 
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: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/28/92   God's Promise in 1 John 5:13
Date: 28 Dec 92 03:02:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	These things have I written
	unto you that believe
	on the name of the Son of God;
	that ye may know that ye have eternal life,
	and that ye may believe
	on the name of the Son of God.

	1 John 5:13
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24965 alt.pagan:14840
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 3 Jan 93 02:32:46 GMT

As far as this "I am the way . . . " passage in the Bible is concerned,
if Elaine Pagels is to be believed, it is quite hotly contested and
supposedly was added by an anonymous someone after the fact.

I just think it's neat that this discussion has centered on a Bible
quote that is among the most dubious.

Blessings,
Janis
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_. 
Date: 2 Jan 93 18:46:17 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1993Jan2.044524.6235@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> 
> 	I would tend to agree with this comment.  Orwell, clearly, 
> 	felt that the idea that there wassome holy conciousness
> 	that was seperate from environment, physical experiance,
> 	was wrong.  One of his points in 1984 is that a person
> 	is purely the product of his environment, and when that
> 	environment changes, so will that person.

I think he would acknowledge that individual temperament, which likely
has a genetic basis, are part of a person's make-up, too. For example,
Winston Smith is exceptional in his hatred for Big Brother, although
his environment is much the same as all the other citizens of Oceania.

  
>>The other interesting point is that in actuality, Orwell turns out to
>>be right. Skilled interrogators armed with the latest technology are
>>in fact irresistable, I am assured by a local member of Amnesty 
>>International. The vision of humanity espoused by STTNG turns out
>>to be false. Some people take longer than others to break, but
> 
> 	In the end of theepisode, Picard confesses that he saw five.
> 	(I think--I wasn't really paying attention--I got tired of the
> 	1984-watered-down rip off of a "plot".. Pain aint all there is 
> 	to it..) 

Actually, he never confesses to the Kardassians that he saw five, even though
he did. He remains defiant _even though_ the Kardassians have distorted
his perceptions in a way similar to the way O'Brien renders Winston
Smith unable to tell whether or not he was holding up 4 or 5 fingers.

Agreed, though -- there is more to the whole business than pain. I am
not a STTNG fan, so I wasn't disappointed by the somewhat cheesy
handling of this whole business. Too bad...they could do some
interesting stuff with that show if they'd use their noggins a little.
 
> 	I'm sure, had Orwell lived to see modern drugs and the
        in the novel.

Do you know much about this? I've read about the effects of the 
sensory-deprivation chamber, and a little about modern interrogation
drugs, but I'd be fascinated to hear what you know.

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

This World is not Conclusion.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:50:55 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <1992Dec30.004417.16985@wam.umd.edu> bast@wam.umd.edu (Jaguar) writes:
>
>Ta,mmy, I know an Apple/Orange.
>She is a Pagan Christian.  >That is how she describes herself.
>She feels that christianity is unbalanced, in that it does not recognize the
>feminine and the forces of nature very well.
>She feels that christianity needs to have an acceptance of, and blending with
>the forces of nature.  >The earth honoring traditions are missing.
>She is pagan in that she follows the wheel of the year, and its celebrations.
>She honors the goddes.
>However, she is christian as well, and grew up catholic.
>She places Jesus as the consort of the goddess.  >She sees noconflict in this.
>"in wicca you place what you believe in in the place of god and goddess."
>she had told me.
>To her, jesus is another mainifestation of the male aspect of god.
>To me, this qualifies as a pagan/christian.
>
I dunno, seems to me she's following fine old *pagan* traditions. She seems
to be a pagan, who's borrowing a symbol from another religion. Just like
I sometimes think of the Goddess as Isis, and other times as Athena, or
Bridget... From what you say, she is *certainly* not following xian tradition,
and shouldn't be considered xian. Surely most xians would not consider her one.

	mark

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:25:46 GMT

In article <ksand-221292180748@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> In article <1992Dec22.042547.3908@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) wrote:
> 
> > That's what the word says about him. Rely on him.
> 
> This is the problem in my case. I did never believe in ancient
> Finnish mythologies about nature Gods, even if they are described
> in a book. It's a hard time for me to suddenly start believing
> in a mystery cult inspired Jewish Messiah worshipping instituted

Yes, I remember, you are a native(?) of Finland. I applaud
your independence. I grew up in a Lutheran church in the U.S.
and never bought any of it. I was hit much later though, but
not through the church. My hit was very different.

> 2000 years ago. Maybe you realize my dilemma, I might as well
> start believing in Mitras. Mysteries are mysteries, and sometimes
> they are good reading, but to just have faith in them requires
> something my skeptical mind is not willing to give up.
> 
Many times it is best to remain skeptical than jump in the
water so to speak on someone elses conviction, although there
are people who say that got them started(someone elses conviction
in this case). But some of these people will also say they were
ready at the time.
Let me tell you something about all the confusing Christianity's
running around and how I dealt with that in my jump:-) When I
did jump into reliance on Him(J), the [religion confusion(TM)] was
the farthest thing from my mind. I went into total reliance on
Him and Him only which short-circuited all the confusion. I've
been that way for over ten years. If I am ready, and led to a
group of believers, I'll do that, but it hasn't happened yet.

barry--
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Choosing a Bible translation
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:54:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <Bzq8sJ.G7x@umassd.edu>, sodonnell@UMASSD.EDU (Sandy O'Donnell)
wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-221292181435@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >Hi, that's an interesting idea. However, I'm skeptical about this all.
> >Anyone who's ever written a computer manual or a technical article
> >would adhor the idea to deliberately explain things in a diffuse
> >matter so end users would start trying to test out things and learn
> >about the system. It does not sell software. Neither religions.
> >Bad PR. Bad karma.
> Well the key word here was enlightenment which means: European philoso-
> phical movement characterized by rationalism, an impetus toward learning
> and a spirit of skepticism and empiricism in social and political
> thought. Those who would adhor the idea to deliberatley explain things
> in a diffuse manner, are from the age of enlightenment ( our age).
> The religious dogmatics of the Dark and Middle Ages were only
> interested in control of the masses and self aggrandizement. Not
> in the Love of God and Christ. The Crusaders were not salesmen. But
> no doubt they have bad karma...........Sandy

Hi again, let's see... The issue of a clear and definite answer
compared with a diffuse one is the key issue. And my critique was
directed at the current status where Christianity does not clearly
define certain doctrines, and where various sects don't agree on
certain themese (Holy Mary, trinity, baptism and so on). 

So my point was that an omnipotent being would have certainly anticipated
this turmoil and confusion, and made sure that it would never happen.

As we know today there are no forces that will make sure that we have 
a uniform doctrine. In other words this possible omnipotent being
didn't architecture a fully working religious base.

As we all know NNTP and SMTP are fully described, and we could send
email and newsentries all around the world. A similar design concerning
standards and definitions would have also helped in the case of 
the Christian world today. Someone might say that the Bible is the 
standard, but there's another problem/dilemma, because the definitions
in the Bible are so diffuse so various humans, groups or churches have 
separate views. The only solution is yet again the deux ex machina
Holy Ghost that somehow magically will make things simple. I just hope
I would have something similar when I'm debugging compiler output bugs...


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000