HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: How evil are the Republicans?
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:53:42 GMT

I don't kno2 about anyone else, but the Republican convention has
frightened me.  We hear how all our country's problems are because of
someone else and how if only President Bush could do whatever he wanted the
country would be okay.  We hear how all the good things that have happened
in the world are because of President Bush.  We hear how a return to a
narrow definition of "family" will improve our economy and help our
country.  Now, of course, the Republicans offer no reasons or evidence for
any of these statements.  But what else is new.  

However, this particular Republican convention reminds me of another time. 
A leader who claimed that if you followed him without question, even if you
disliked a couple of things he stood for, he would improve the economy and
make his country powerful again.  He would make certain that those that did
not represent his definition of "good", and who he blamed for the country's
woes, would be kept carefully in check.  He talked of forcing religion,
albeit just his view of religion, back into the lives over every citizen,
especially the captive audience of unsuspecting children.  He had the
support of many of the fundamentalist Christian religions.  Who am I
talking about?  If you haven't figured it out by now, it's Hitler.  And
while there are some differences between Bush and Hitler, the similarities
are infinitely more frightening.  The Nazis even went so far as to attack a
group which Quayle has had no end of enjoyment in attacking:  the media and
entertainment "elite."  Bush speaks out of both sides of his mouth on
abortion.  And his attitude towards the rights of gays and lesbians reeks
heavily of a fascist attempt to repress a minority; there is little
difference between Republican attacks on my sexuality than Hitler's attacks
on the "evil" of the Jews in pre-Nazi Germany.  He claims he represents the
'majority', but did that make the Nazis (who also represented the
'majority) _RIGHT_?  Fascism, unfortunately, is very seductive, and Bush
has seduced many of the moderates of the Republican party.  Let us hope
that the American people are not as easily seduced, for the world does not
need another demagogue with too much power.


   _______________________                             _________________
   \        \            /  Michael Lax                |    ACT UP!    |
    \        \          /  12514 Esplanade St., #B     |  FIGHT BACK!  |
     \        \        /  Austin, Texas 78727-4409     |  FIGHT AIDS!  |
      \      / \      /  U.S.A.                        =================
       \    /   \    /  512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax) 
        \  /     \  /  email:  lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Please,  \/       \/    
do not    \       /   "If the opposite sex is *supposedly* so much fun, 
feed or    \     /     than why does everyone MASTURBATE?" 
tease the   \   /    
straight     \ /      "Never let the bastards get you down"  
people.       V                      (or is that GO DOWN?)  

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:24:13 GMT

Scott Gibson writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>  i grant that non-jesus spiritual experiences exist, but that they
>>are not with other deities. God(tm) is one god and all those other
>>non-jesus things are certainly spiritual entities with spiritual power
>>but they are not the creator/healer/saviour/etc.

>In other words, Eric is right:  You are engaging in special pleading?

  well no.  let me explain it in other words.  i grant the reality of 
spiritual experiences with or without jesus.  they are all real.  thus
i am not doing special pleading.  what i am saying is that i believe
from my experience, study, reflection and prayer that non-jesus experiences
are not rooted in the God(tm), the one creator god.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 20 Aug 92 08:15:48 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <adams.714256780@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Well, my point for putting up three translations was to try to remove 
>questions about translations into English.  Whether or not the Masoretic
>text is accurate or not is a matter of conjecture...
>
>If one accepts the Scriptural witness, then this is the conclusion.  All
>means all.  If you want a good discussion of why the flood couldn't have
>been local, try "The Genesis Flood"...it goes into the Hebrew words and
>meanings.  You don't have to buy their theories about the flood, just that
>the plain meaning of the text is that the flood was worldwide.
>
>Finally, the question is did it really happen?  I can't tell you from
>evidence.  All I can say is that the symbolism and message are more
>important, IMHO, than the actual events.
>
> -Steve
>

Well Steve, you got me there!  The real issue in studying the Bible is
the message it brings to you and I.  I don't believe that the text is
completely accurate in presenting the original thoughts of the
authors, especially for the Old Testament.  So I suppose we must rely
on some form of personal revelation from God to verify the message
that we believe is contained in the things we read.  And along this
same line, we should be able to find out the accuracy of anything in
the Bible (James 1:5,6).

--
Good-day!

Mark

-- 
Good-day!

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:32:31 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714033633@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>  yeah, this road was travelled down a few weeks ago with santa instead
>>of the great pumpkin.  without rehashing it all, i'll state my final
>>conclusion which is that god is not a hypothetical abstract thing that
>>has no bearing on individual lives.

>That's just begging the question. That is PRECISELY what I am
>suggesting that God is. Or rather, I am suggesting that
>there is no reason to suggest that God is any less hypothetically
>abstract than the GP.(or Santa.)

  and you're free to suggest that as i am free to suggest that from
my experience god lives and jesus exists.

>> if he were, it would be a pretty
>>pathetic creation.  the value of a philosophy/spirituality is derived by
>>its successful workings in the actual lives of people

>This is utterly irrelevant to the truth of the philosophy, as I
>tried to explain to you before.
>I see no reason to accept the premise that a lie cannot make
>you happier than the truth.

  and i do not offer empirical proof of jesus existence.  what i am saying
is that there is more relevant data than what is bounded by empirical
parameters.  but you can just conclude that i'm dancing around the issue.

>> [and i can give
>>long testimony to the life of jesus in me].

>And I can, I am sure, find you several people who can give
>testimony to the effect of Allah in their lives.

>>  what separates a hypothetical
>>from reality is whether there is a great pumpkin as bearer of a covenant
>>between god and humanity.  show me one and i'll realistically consider
>>it as i do jesus, but until then it's all a somantic/mind game with words
>>that do not really affect any of our lives.

>Show me a Jesus who is the bearer of a covenant between God and
>humanity. I don't see one. What I do see is a bunch of ancient
>writings[albeit some of them quite impressive, some not so impressive]
>and a bunch of people who believe those writings. I don't see
>a single shred of evidence that those writings have any
>relation to the real existence of any sort of god, any more than
>I see evidence that the somewhat smaller corpus of writings about
>the Great Pumpkin bears any relation to the real existence of
>the GP.

>What separates a hypothetical from reality, Mr. Buckley, is evidence
>indicating that it is more than hypothetical. Funny that you should
>present none.

  i'm asserting that the empirical data set is smaller than the data
set i'm acknowledging as relevant.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:15:36 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Huh?  Last I checked, water (along with wind) was a major cause of erosion
>and weathering, which causes mountains to be LOWER!  The older a mountain,
>the more rounded and low it is.

	Yes, but never there has been dealt with such huge amount of water, so 
	we don't know how it affects to plate tectonics. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: st1ns@rosie.uh.edu (Ault, Russell W.)
Subject: Re: God (was: Agnostics and Athiests
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:49:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.190615.26115@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes...
>In article <1992Aug12.170505.20237@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org () writes:
>}In article <1992Aug12.153055.20120@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}>}In article <1992Aug10.183411.13270@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org writes:
>}>}>}>  [King James and NIV versions of same verse deleted]
>}>}
>}>}Given that the King James Version was transcribed in 1611, while
>}>}my version (The New International) was transcribed in 1975... I
>}>}don't suppose you'd wish to concede that there may have been some
>}>}changes in English usage in the 364 years between versions?
>}>}Obviously, there is nothing left but to check it out in the
>}>}original.
>}>
>}>Given that there is a few thousand years since "the original",
>}>perhaps the entire thing is OBE.
>}>
>}>Must be nice to be able to refer to something unavailable and think it
>}>is authoratitave...
>}				     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>}>
>}From this statement, you seem to be saying that the King James version
>}is *not* a translation of earlier documents from which the NIV was
>}also prepared.
>}
>}Is it then your position that the NIV is a translation of the King James
>}or do you maintain that the King James version simply sprang up with
>}no precedents?
> 
>Neither, obviously.  Those "originals" that were suggested to going back
>to are not available.  There are copies of copies of copies of translations
>of claims of copies ....  and at no layer past the original transcript
>could you not raise exactly the same arguments as you did for the KJV with the
>same resolution.
> 
> 
>This may shock you, but I HAVE studied the mess.

Excuse me, but has anyone been studying the newsgroup lists that this mess has been
hitting?  I've had to build a killfile to filter it out of rec.humor and I'm sure
that I'm not the only one who has done likewise....

Pontificate all you want to, but please make it humorous if you're going to dump it
into rec.humor, OK?  (This is just a friendly request from a powerless user of no
particular consequence, whose opinions are certain to be ignored.)
From: guth@unixg.ubc.ca (Geoff Guth)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 03:07:41 GMT

In article <h2#nrz=.noring@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>
>
>A slightly different way to look at the 2nd Law (tm) is it's statement that
>for any *irreversible* process, the entropy of the *universe* must necessarily
>increase.  It is possible to look at any finite volume (but not isolated)
>and possibly observe a decrease of entropy in that volume because of some
>process, but the entropy of the rest of the universe outside of that volume
>will necessarily increase at an even greater extent with the final result that
>the entropy of the *whole* universe will increase.

If I may draw a parallel here, if you clean a room in your house, that would
be a local decrease of entropy (ie the room becomes more organized)  However,
this is balanced by the energy that has to be put in to clean the room, and
the corresponding increase in entropy that brings (eg carbohydrates in the
body are "burned" and turned into H2O and CO2, oil and gas is burned to
make the electricity that runs the vacuum cleaner, etc.)

Actually, the way I see it, the 2nd law actually _favors_ evolution.  After
all, mutations are errors in the duplication of genetic code, which likely
would not occur if the overall entropy tended to decrease or remain constant
(think what a bizzarre universe THAT would be!).  Also remember that most
mutations are unfavorable to the species, only the odd one will actually be
an improvement.

Geoff.

-- 

|Geoff Guth                          |Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni |
|Richard Britnell de Salisbury (sca) |     in rebus latinis alacribus et      |
|guth@unixg.ubc.ca                   |        fructuosis potiri potes!        |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Cain's & Abel's Wives [was: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently]
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:57:56 GMT

ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:

>phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>  [Standard discussion and solutions about where Cain and Abel 
>>   --and for that matter Seth-- got wives.]

>Personally, I tend to lean toward the Subgenius answer to this question, as
>expounded in the following family-tree:

>          ADAM-+-EVE         PROTO-HUMAN HOMONID ANCESTORS
>               |                         |
>               |                         |
>               |                         |
>               |                         |
>             CAIN                    MRS CAIN
>                \                       /
>                 \                     /
>                  \                   /
>                   \                 /
>                    -------+---------
>                           |
>                           |
>                           |
>                           v
>                  FIRST "REAL" HUMANS


>... that way, everybody's happy.

	No, when Adam + Eve had daughters. 

	Sorry, no bonus. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:12:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.171307.8600@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>This is a wonderful justification for henotheism, but the claim that
>Christianity is a monotheistic religion is still unsupported other 
>than the assertion that God is the "one true god", whatever that means.

I have my doubts.

Even atheists believe in the existence of things powerful than they are; an
airplane can fly me to Europe.  I can't fly to Europe on my own, no matter
how hard I try.  But an airplane isn't a god.

The definition of "gods" seems to be that "gods" have some sort of power which
is different from that of people.  Which _really_ means that whether or not
something is a god depends on where you draw the line for what kind of power
counts.  You draw the line somewhere between airplanes and angels, and I draw
the line somewhere between angels and creator-deities.

(And if you reply "well, the line gets drawn between supernatural and
non-supernatural beings", I will point out that one could argue that if angels
exist they must certainly not be supernatural since the laws of the universe
obviously permit their existence.  I will also note that you really haven't
given me any reason to think your concept of gods fits most people's concept
of gods.)
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An open question...
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:57:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug18.203407.26408@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> : In article <1992Aug16.031219.28723@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
> : > 
[...]
> :
> : I hope my little testimony didn't sound like I was gloating, although
> : I am really happy. Everyone's story is different, we can't all have the
> : same exact experiences. I believe in the great diversity of God(tm) to
> : deal with everyone individually.
> 
> Do you believe that God exercises this diverse ability with 
> everyone in the world thus providing them with a chance to be saved?
> If not, am I going to Hell if he doesn't get around to me?

It would be much presumption on my part to say yes or no,cause
I really can't say for sure. 
I do believe the message that God(tm) is just and all of our(human)
judges pale in comparison. I had a situation recently come my way
where I was given a son(by my wife{who wasn't able to have children
according to her doctors}). The social pressure to get him baptized
was mounting. I wasn't convinced he needed baptism, and if he went to
hell if he died without it, I would be determined to go there too.
The reasons given for pro-baptism were limp and unconvincing(mostly,
"why chance it"). I got him baptized in my mother's church just to
keep the peace(which is WELS Lutheran). My in-laws are all RC, but they
didn't care where I got him baptized, just that I do it. I have
known people who died who never committed to the Lord, but I can't 
imagine them going to hell.

> Am I at a disadvantage because I am not impressed by psychological
> crutch arguments?
> 
If you think accepting the Lord into your life is a crutch, then
imo, that's where you are at. To accept otherwise would not be wise.
In otherwords, you wouldn't be true to yourself and would probably
get lost or become hopelessly dependant on others.
Why people feel compelled to preach is beyond me, 'cause I don't feel
that urge. I do at times tell others what happened to me and leave it
at that. I don't hate people who preach and never did, if that's what
they need to do, it's just not where I'm at now.
I don't consider experiencing what I believe to be the Lord in my life
a crutch, but more as a lifelong companion who will not die and leave me,
as people are known to do.
If you are curious about any more, i'll try my best.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:17:50 GMT

i wrote:

>  if you wanna define "gods in every normal sense" as spiritual entities
>with more power than humans then i suppose there are billions of gods.  but
>all gods [according to the bible] were created equal [as it were].  one
>god claims to be the one true creator god above all the rest.  and as i 
>christian, i do not worship the one true god to rationalize out of relevance
>all those other spiritual entities with power.  on the contrary, my 
>experience with spritual powers other than god in part led me to the
>one true god...so it behooves me none to pretend that pagans are wrong
>and there aren't spiritual powers out there, because i KNOW there are, it's
>just that i choose not to have anything to do with all the lesser "gods".

major type in there:  "all gods ... were created equal"  should have been
"all gods...were NOT created equal."  that's what happens when i try to
get clever.  :)


>---                          
>     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
>     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
>   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
>      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus Would Gag
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:35:07 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Hacker) writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>  because they aren't logically inconsistent.  if both were realistic options
>>for me, the analogy may be better, but there is no gospel of pablo.
>>reality checks often weed out the irrelevant arguments.

>Speaking about scriptures, why the need of the early church to delete
>certain gospels that were not considered to be, eh, relevant?

>I assume that the standard answer is that it was done by the command
>of God. Which leads to the interesting observation that God works
>through standards committees!

  :)   based on the bureaucratic standards committees i've encountered,
i'd say no.  :)

  i don't think god appeared in committee rooms commanding deletions.  i
haven't studied the history of the canonization of the bible, but from
what i have seen from some of the left out stuff, it seems so radically
different from all that is reconcilable in the other books that it
seems likely to be wrong.  just a naive speculation tho.


---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: The Bones of Ca'iaphas
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:59:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.224339.16515@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
}}In article <1992Aug14.213410.13111@leland.Stanford.EDU>, charlie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel, Jr.) writes:
}}> Did anyone catch the story on NPR today about the discovery of the
}}> bones of Ca'iaphas? (See John 18:13,14)  Facsinating archeological
}>}> facts have come to light.  
}
}I wonder how we would feel if we knew that in a couple of thousand years
}people would dig up our bones, rob our graves, and put the artifacts in
}the museums.

And why should we care?