HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexual Nightmare
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:21:30 GMT

In article <Petch-171192080213@oboe.gvg.tek.com> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
>Let's stop all this beating around the bush. I completely agree with Mark
>Morrell, in that I do not want my child taught by a homosexual teacher
>either, and I am not afraid to say exactly why.
>I do not want a teacher influencing my child, either directly or
>indirectly, toward a lifestyle that is perverted.
I see. I have repeatedly and consistently had sex outside of marriage.
Moreover, I have had sex with another man's wife. Yahweh disapproves
of this at least as strongly as he does of homosexuals. Should I be
forbidden to teach in public schools?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:19:43 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov15.064219.19630@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
lungtt@gus1.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-141192162324@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >As for defining the ultimate morals, you might ask atheists
> >why they follow the law, instead of acting like barbaric
> >destroyers on the streets. You can't connect religious worshipping
> >directly with a morally correct state.
> 
> Following the law?  I've encountered and read of many atheistic barbaric
> destroyers on the streets.  Which religion did Attila belong to?
> Worshipping or not, morality seems to at least have a quasi-chance
> at quasi-limiting that law of the wild.

Sigh. You are just now dealing with a morally sound man that does not
exactly belong to any of the current religious orders. And I'm not
killing people on the streets. If you still want to map morality
to religion, you should please explain why the Christian church
burned witches in my home town 400 years ago, and why it seems 
Christian missionaries have a keen following to spread out Western
diseases all around the world, killing innocent victims, including
babies.

I still don't see how you could map a religious order to morality,
and even if you did, you might explain the rational behind not
cutting your beard. Note if you don't do this, then you are not
following the moral laws of the OT.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:29:19 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov23.220849.19155@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-221192180051@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >...what do you think are the core issues when moral values
> >break apart amongst God fearing Christians?
> Are moral values ever upheld by God-fearing Christians?
> I don't think this is an issue.  Supposedly, Christians
> are not better people, just better off.  Is the breaking
> of moral values a function of being or not being Christian?

> I've noticed that this issue has been brought up a number of times now.
> I'm really kind of wondering now what Jesus means at the Sermon 
> on the Mount regarding *and all these things shall be added unto you*.
> What things were added unto Paul?  shipwrecks, imprisonment, stonings
> and beheading amongst other things.  Speaking of food and drink,
> another metaphor comes when he says "whoever drinks the water I give
> him will never thirst."  Is there an inconsistency in what he says
> or in what we interpret?

I would otherwise agree, however Gregg Skinner positioned another
view of Christians that will not suffer from lack of food and 
shelter while they look for the kingdom of God. And this is 
another direct view of something providing in the worst case
miracles to keep people from dying while they are true Christians.

Now, we might argue what constitutes a real Christian. And
maybe this is the core issue, real Christians have not panic,
and the bad ones are sorte out. However that does neither sound
orthogonal with the core message of humanity from Jesus.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Jesus' Claim about food and clothes
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:36:13 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov23.210110.17709@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> (This somewhat lengthy post is the first in what will probably become
> a long thread discussing Jesus' claim,
> 
>    Seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and
>    all these things [food and clothes, from the context] will
>    be given you.
> 
> In the end, of course, anyone who wants to investigate whether the
> claim is true must decide for himself what is meant by "kingdom of
> God" (Jesus speaks of it at length) and what constitutes being given
> food and clothes.  To that we apply our own experience and the
> experience of others to reach a conclusion, if possible.

This is really a cheap way to avoid defining the core issue. If 
everyone could decide what the 'Kingdom of God' consists of,
then I could for instance make a claim that I believe in, and hepp
it seems to work quite well because I've always had food and shelter.
The only crux is that my 'kingdom of god' definition states that
the core human mind is the kingdom of God.

So try to counter-show why I'm false now, with the premise that
the decision I made was wrong. However the evidence would point
out that my narrow and gnostic idea of the "kingdom of god"
is actually valid...


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21536 alt.atheism:21657
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just a seasonal observation.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:16:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <adams.722186101@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Just because some people employ secular ideas and stories in addition to
>their religious beliefs does not imply that all do.  And as for God lying,
>that is, by Christian definition, impossible.
	
	*gawd*
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:49:22 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1720@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>Why is there a correlation between knowledge and perfection?  Isn't
>perfection living the best you know how?  If I gain knowledge I can
>only become less perfect or stay the same if I don't change the way I
>live and knowledge about what others do doesn't change my level of
>perfection.

You are describing moral perfection.  There are other perfections.

I suppose that a thing is a perfect thing of its kind if it realizes
all the good a thing of that kind is capable of realizing.  Since
knowledge is a good, a thing that is capable of knowledge becomes more
perfect as its knowledge increases.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:43:17 GMT

In article <11515@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>There are many lesser candidates on this earth who
>>for a much smaller prize (e.g., for his country or belief) would volunteer
>>for death by crucifixion, firing squad, hanging (you simply name it)
>>with all smiles, no complaints.
>Oh boy.  Country or belief?  Why, I would volunteer for temporary
>death (that is, such that I am alive again after two days) for a few
>hundred pounds (assuming that my time does have a value), never mind
>eternal life, Godhood and the like.
Couple hundred pounds...hmm....Well, yeah, for just the temporary
death part, sure. If you want the being nailed to a tree part thrown
into the bargain, I think you'd have to go a bit higher, but I'd
say that 10 K + medical expenses would probably do it.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:03:07 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.









jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:



>God knew that Adam and Eve would cause Original Sin *before* he
>created them, and yet *he* chose to create them.  Either God
>blocked his omniscience in this case allowing for either possibility, 
>or else Adam and Eve didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of avoiding 
>their sin.  By the way, when God created Adam and Eve, what was the
>probability he programmed into them that they would eat the fruit?
>50/50?  Is the misery in the world today the result of a lousy set
>of probabilities programmed into us by God?  Could someone please
>answer these questions for me?


Before? What makes you assume that?  It was only on rare occasions
that God chose to look ahead (read prophesy).  For example, at Gen 22
we see the account where God tests Abraham's faith by asking him to
offer his son Isaac in sacrifice.  God didn't choose to know this 
in advance.  It was only at the point of Abraham about to plunge
the sword into his son that he was stopped and God states "...for
now I do know that you are Godfearing..."

As far as Adam and Eve, their disobedience was inexcusable.  First,
unlike you and I, they were perfect humans.  As such, they are held
to a much higher standard than we are.  By the same token, they had
everything they could possibly want.  Anything they wanted, they had.
God just asked for one little thing in return.  And that simple
piddling little test they failed.


Jack


Keywords: 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Adam and Eve, was Omnicient
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 24 Nov 1992 02:49:38 UTC

In article <5972@balrog.ctron.com> king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King) writes:
>As far as Adam and Eve, their disobedience was inexcusable.

They had no knowledge of good and bad. How can one disobey without
knowledge of good and bad? Does a newborn baby disobey?

>First, unlike you and I, they were perfect humans.

What is a perfect human? And where does it say this in Genesis?

>As such, they are held to a much higher standard than we are. 

What? Were they demi-Gods or something? They had no knowledge of good
and bad. Do you have any idea what it would be like without knowledge of
good and bad?

>By the same token, they had
>everything they could possibly want.  Anything they wanted, they had.

So does a baby in its mother's womb. But, the day comes when the baby is
expelled also. Such is the nature of the human being. Perfection is
death. There is but one constant and that is change.

>God just asked for one little thing in return.  And that simple
>piddling little test they failed.

Read Genesis again. You're missing the metaphors.
And one more thing, Eve did not fail.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:55:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov19.144834.13804@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> bobh@troy.cc.bellcore.com (hettmansperger,robert) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.070028.27622@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>
>>However, the "scientific" view is _also_ a religion: It is based on
>>unproven (and unproveable) articles of faith. 
>
>What Bullshit flame-bait.  Science and religion may both require "faith" in
>something, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.  And it certainly 
>doesn't make a scientific discipline such as biology a "religion."

  I agree, but I will give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Cary and
  assume that what he meant is that science, too, has its axioms.

  This is true, both religion and science are attempts to describe the 
  universe and both proceed from axioms, via certain means and methods,
  to their respective conclusions.    I would argue that what distinguishes
  science from religion is that the axioms and epistemology that science
  employs *work* -- religion is still debating the same basic issues
  they were thousands of years ago, and they are no closer to being able
  to demonstrate any particular conformance of their model with what the
  model attempts to describe.  Nor do they seem any closer to being able
  to settle doctrinal disputes between different religionists, i.e., there
  is no means by which a Christian can convince a Moslem of the correctness
  of his position.   Science, on the other hand, can demonstrate that its 
  models grow ever more precise and historically it has been able to 
  resolve disputes and move on.


>You may call this the central "dogma" of the "religion" of science, but science 
>would adapt and respond, and perhaps even change fundamentally if you managed 
>to seriously challenge it.  Try to get a follower of a real religion to 
>admit to that.

  This is an important point.  This is why I keep emphasizing "testability"
  and "falsifiability".


>Follow ups to talk.religion.misc.

  I second that.


---peter
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:11:34 EST
From: <DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
 <1992Nov13.014358.14927@microsoft.com>
 <WIGGINS.92Nov21174510@hurricane.cs.odu.edu>

In article <WIGGINS.92Nov21174510@hurricane.cs.odu.edu>,
wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) says:

>   Actually, no.  The laws contradict each other.  Example:  ther are multiple
>   places in Deuteronomy where God says that he will visit the iniquities of
>   the sinner on his children and his children's children, even to the seventh
>   generation.  The fathers commit the sins, and the children, grandchildren,
>   etc. will continue to pay the price.

>"I do have some."  Language is "slippery" and does not follow logical
>or mathematical precision.

So in other words, no matter how blatently obvious and direct the meaning
of something in the Bible, you can never be sure you really understand it.
The only logical conclusion is that the Christian God _wants_ some of us
to be confused and misinterpret his work (otherwise he would have chosen
a perfect medium of communication). Maybe he doesn't take himself
seriously? Who knows, maybe he's laughing himself to death at how
confused the Christians are...haha..they'll NEVER figure out the real
meaning!! Idiots! :-)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:39:29 GMT





Organization: Apple Computer Inc.
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov19.191422.15393@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> In my last post I noted that I see no need to continue if Mr. Sandvik
> withdraws his claim that he is morally sound.  As Mr. Sandvik has
> asked a question which implies he would like me to continue, I must
> conclude that he has not withdrawn his claim.  Perhaps he would make
> the status of his claim clear for us.

And so on, personal attacks one after each other. Sigh...

> >Let us go back to the discussion, and use email for personal
> >attacks.

> I have reacted to the claim that Kent Sandvik is morally sound, a
> claim made relative to this thread by Mr. Sandvik himself when
> included in an argument, "You are just now dealing with a morally
> sound man...."

Once again, Mr. Skinner, what is your opinion of morale and atheists
that have moral values? Let us use the bandwidth of the Net for
something constructive and progressive discussion, instead of personal
attacks.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 16:25:15 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>In article <1992Nov22.193153.23239@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
>> 
>> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>> 
>> >We either have a situation where
>> >a) Human beings with limited minds don't understand anything at all
>> >concerning the holy trinity
>> >or
>> >b) the trinity concept is clearly understandable as a doctrine for
>> >finite minds
>> 
>> Clearly this is a false dichotomy.  Among the other possibilities is,
>> for example, "Human beings understand a thing or two about the
>> trinity, but not everything."

>Interesting, so if you state this, are you then sure which parts
>human understands, and which ones not?

Do not misunderstand what I have written.  I have no idea to what
extent and with what accuracy humans can understand the trinity.  I
just want to clarify that there are more options that the two
provided.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: 002977k@ace.acadiau.ca (RYAN GARNET KEDDY)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Keywords: mindless,politically-correct,use,your,head
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:13:48 GMT

>
>Why dost thou imply that more than one person wrote the post to which thou
>repliest? The pronoun "you" is plural, "thou" is singular. :-)
>

Wrong! "You" is both a singular and a plural pronoun. Or didn't YOU know 
that.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Biblical errors / contradictions please!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:42:48 GMT

I need a good, complete FAC on Biblical errors / contradictions.
Christian rebuttle would also be nice, but is not required.

Thanks!

J
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 13:39:09 GMT

In article <adams.722381228@spssig>
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
 
(Deletions)
>
>But, if we take the Bible as the basis for the argument, then the statement
>stands.  Man was the only creature created in God's image and with a soul.
>
 
I see. I always knew god does not mind my vivisections. What the animal
shows is just an emulation of pain. Is the emulation one of the tricks
of Lucifer?
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Jesus is the Seed of God was Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<Nov.18.13.59.07.1992.10915@romulus.rutgers.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 1992 01:58:08 UTC

In article <Nov.18.13.59.07.1992.10915@romulus.rutgers.edu> 
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>(which is the Word of God) into the earth.  The objective of the Law
>was to protect godly men from the consequences of sin until the Seed
>to whom the Promise was made should come.
>The Seed finally came in the person of Jesus; he walked on the earth
>as a man, and yet he had authority over the devil -- but on the basis
>of the Promise as outlined in the Old Covenant (and _NOT_ because he
>was the Son of God).  He ultimately paid the price for breaking the
>Promise: _SPIRITUAL_ death.  He kept the Promise even in death while
>being tormented by Satan and was then raised from the dead.  At the
>resurrection, a New Covenant was made -- between God and His firstborn
>Son from the dead.  The New Covenant has no provision for any penalty
>for its being broken as did the Old (which is where the original
>question arose, concerning the apparent different character of God
>between the Old and New), because neither God nor Jesus are going to
>break it.

I wonder if Richard Pitts would care to comment on this since it is his
claim that Jesus is *NOT* the seed of God but the seed of Mary. And I
assume that you would say that God, His Seed and Jesus are all the same
God? Are you sure that God has Seed?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:36:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.213415.1926@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>Hm.  I wonder what if I need a certain human being to make Heaven perfect for
>me, and that human being goes to Hell.  Do I get a robot double?

No. You go to Hell.  :-)

	Sven

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 17:52:35 GMT

Kent Sandvik directs a question to me,

>what do you think are the core issues when moral values
>break apart amongst God fearing Christians?

I have already noted that I am not interested in discussing moral
values and athiests.  Neither am I motivated to discuss moral values
and God-fearing Christians.

> Actually, this will lead back to the core issue
>of Christians provided food and shelter, but more about this later.

I've lost track of how many times I've corrected Mr. Sandvik's
revisions of Jesus' claim.  For the sake of clarity, I'll restate it.

   Seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and
   all these things [food and clothes, from the context] will
   be given you.

I have been promised that the folly in this claim will be made clear
to me.  In that discussion I am interested.  I do hope the discussion
will not again involve the red herring of billions of Chinese who are
well-fed.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:12:08 GMT

In article <adams.722198596@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.
I'm not sure heaven would be so much fun if I can't have Rover.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc