HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:52:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov17.144213.24758@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> In reference to me Kent Sandvik writes:
> 
> >if he wants to be morally correct he should also state that I in my
> >private email conversation with him said that I was wrong in some of
> >my statements concerning logic (but not the actual intent). Note
> >how he's hiding this fact as well, just to do a personal attack that
> >is not even related to the discussion topic.
> 
> I will first note that I have nowhere claimed that I am morally
> correct, despite whatever may be implied above.  It is Mr. Sandvick
> that is making claims about personal morality.

Things like these should be handled by private email, and not wasting
bandwidth to silly flame wars between two individuals. I do think
t.r.m readers would appreciate if we took this offline, and I will 
do so. If Mr. Skinner is prepared to continue with his sneak attacks
on me, instead of dealing with issues, please send me an email. 

This is the reason people stop reading newsgroups, silly flame wars
between people that has nothing to do at all with the subject line.

END-OF-CONVERSATION

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christmas
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:53:20 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1el6sfINNhal@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>af027@yfn.ysu.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>>With Christmas coming up some of my friends and I were wondering
>>how people perceive the bitherth of Jesus Christ>.  Was
>>Christ born of a virgin, did God become man in Christ?

The book of John tells us that Jesus birth came about by the will of
God and not by the will of man.  He was born of a virgin (the seed of
a woman - no male sperm was needed.)  God caused Mary to conceive - that
is the miracle of the birth.  God humbled himself and was found in
the form of a human - he was made flesh.  However, God is more than
just Jesus, for there is the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.

>Everyone celebrates Christmas now.  It is a national holiday, no longer
>purely religious. 

This is true.  But the religious tones are still very strong.  Why do
you think we have this season?  Is it not because of the greatest gift
of all - Jesus the Christ, the Savior of the World?

>                  Oh sure, the Churches try to rake in the money, but

How is it that you understand that "the Churchers try to rake in the money"?

>most people now ignore any religious significance the holiday once had.

Oh.  Why is Christmas and Easter the peak attendance days in the church?
(I wished the ones that only come then would commmit to Jesus and be there
all the time.)

>It seems like most religions have a clebration near the solstice anyway...

The timing is not the big thing - it is the occasion.  Jesus came, we
should celebrate everyday, but we can also celebrate more so on this one day.
Jesus' work is finished and its benefits are available to all.

>How do we perceive Jesus' birth?  Well, one way or another, he succeeded
>in getting quite a few followers, nowadays.  His birth is significant for

Maybe he was a little more than just another man.  I believe he was. :-)

>that reason.  But was the pregnancy or birth supernatural?  Nah...

Why do you say "Nah" - do you discount miracles and so discount before
hand that Jesus was born of a virgin????

>keith

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 18 Nov 92 10:55:16 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <2wRDuB22w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
<iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
<
<> Actually, I don't think any of those who replied to your original
<> article with the questions thought that what they were doing was
<> taking a test, or they wouldn't have done it.  We are here to talk (to
<> lead discussion), not to take tests.  <...>
<
<The post said "Spiritual Intelligence Test" right at the top!

So it did.  That's why I ignored it.  But others reacted as though it
had been an ordinary posting containing ordinary questions, and I
can't say that they were completely unjustified in doing so.

<> >Why not fight, if you know you're right?
<> 
<> Fight?  Fighting takes a serious adversary, and you don't look like one.
<
<I think you're just a chicken, boy!

Not _just_ a chicken, but in general what you say is true, in so far
as both I and a chicken are manifestations of Brahman, also known as
the Ultimate Reality.  The same applies to you, as you should be aware.

I may well have been a chicken in some previous rebirth of mine, just
as you may well be born as 33 amoebae next time.  So what?

<Bwak, Bwak, Bwak!

Does that get you in touch with some god too?

<Kalki "see you on the battlefield" Dasa

Oh, I see.  You feel secure, because you know that I am not allowed
to kill you (according to _The Laws of Manu_, 7:90-93, it would be a
violation of dharma).  So be it.

<      |  Don't forget to chant:

... "Bwak, Bwak, Bwak!"  I know.  But I'll leave that to you.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Soul Food For Thought (was Blues)
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:57:26 GMT


During the "What is the soul?" thread, I sent in my test answers which
included the following:

> By `soul', I mean whatever it is that makes me a unique individual.  It
> may or may not have independent existence.  It makes for some interesting
> philosophical discussions, but beyond that the question seems to me
> utterly pointless.

Peter Nyikos replied:

> Not if we want to deal with the question of whether there is a life after
> death.

Why?

If (as I believe) there is a Very Powerful Bigshot Running The Universe, and
he wants me to continue living after my body dies, then he can probably figure
out some way to arrange it.

If I do not have a `soul' (as traditionally understood) right now, God might
make one and transfer my mind to it.  Or he may just archive me on The
Heavenly Dump Tape, make me a NEW physical body at a later time, and restore
`me' to that body after it is made.  Or he might just patch up THIS body,
replacing the parts that the bugs & worms ate (maybe adding a new set of
eyeballs so I won't need glasses), and then re-activate `me' inside my old
body.  Or he might do something else.

On the other hand, maybe my `soul' does have an independent existence right
now, and when my physical body dies it will separate from my body and, err,
do whatever-it-is that separated souls do.  (Going somewhere is a standard
picture, but that doesn't make much sense if understood literally.)


In any case, I see no reason that life after death necessarily requires that
I have an independently-existing-spiritual-component right now.

Can you please explain why having "literal souls" has some bearing on the
question of life after death?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"It is well to remember, my son, that the entire population of the universe,
 with one trifling exception, is composed of others." -- John Andrew Holmes
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTIONS About God
Keywords:  innocence, blameless, hypocrisy, selfish
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:52:36 GMT

In article <11598@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>>>In the Bible, what zillions of people "are deprived of
>>>>life in a violent fashion" for *no fault* whatsoever?
>>
>>>[various examples of *seemingly* faultless people]  Shall I go on?
>                        *********
I can form my own list of examples.

>Seemingly faultless is the same as faultless.
That is if you deny having a blurred view of the world.  I hope that you
strive to notice more and more as you experience the world.  I suspect
that you will come across surprises all the time.

>Ever heard of presumption
>of innocence?  It is one of the major principles of Roman law.
But is the law flawless?  I mean does it *work*?  I think it fails
often and miserably.  In most places, the more affluent you are
results in less fault charged upon you.  Innocent heh?

Welcome to the civilis [z?] world.

So who's innocent of hypocrisy in this world.  Along the lines of the
C.S.Lewis argument [is it really his?  recall:  there's nothing new
under the sun.--this argument of yours and mine included.], everyone
tends to form their own ideals of morality.  Then for their own 
convenience, they step right over it.  Back to our first example,
has there ever existed anyone who's never been selfish.  It's funny
that the normal concensus tends against selfishness.

Terence

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Jesus' Claim about food and clothes
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:38:56 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 what 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 definition I made was wrong. However the evidence would point
out that my narrow and gnostic idea of the "kingdom of god"
is actually valid...

This is the problem with Logic and Christianity, there's nothing
logical about Christianity. I learned the hard lesson the hard
way, by struggling into logical fallacies. The only way to show
that Christianity lacks logic is to use logic to show Christianity.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:18:13 GMT

In article <waRDuB18w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>
>> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>> Nothing but argument from authority.  If argument from authority 
>> is so important, why does it have such a rotten track record 
>> throughout history?
>
>Tell us, what is this "track record" of which you speak?
>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki "My what a fertile brain you have" Dasa

Some examples:

Aristotlean physics
Ptolemaic model of the universe

These models were accepted for well over a thousand years, in part
because of the authority of Aristotle and Ptolemy.  Yet these models
were wrong.  Do you see what we are getting at here?  You call
yourself a "spiritual scientist," yet your arguments here and in
talk.origins have been nothing but one long argument from authority.

SD
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Who wrote the bible?
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:22:00 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <BxsEx5.3zt@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> jsv@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Julian Visch) writes:
|Considering the fact that the Bible's time period was well over a hundred years
|there can't have been just one person who wrote. In fact the story of Adam & Eve
|was before writing had been developed, therefore the story must have been past
|down my word of mouth. Which must cause changes to occur which leads one to 
|wonder how accurate the story can be, especially as in the time when the bible
|was written only men were able to write and therefore it would have a sexist
|point of view. 

A couple of examples:

Often in the Books of Moses (Gen - Deut) we see where it is recorded that God
told Moses to write that down.

The book of Jeremiah records that Jeremiah dictated to a scribe name Baruch.
In fact the first copy of the scroll was burned by the King and so they
generated a second copy.

|This raises the question of the apostles, were there only 12 or were there in fact
|24 but 12 were female and therefore because of the sexist view at that time they
|weren't mentioned.

Women are mentioned throughout the NT as being actively involved.  In Acts 2-3,
we see that the men and the women (approximately 120 of them) were together
praying in the upper room, while they waited for the Holy Spirit to come.

Jesus first appeared to women.  There was a gang of women that followed Jesus.
Paul spoke to groups of women often and women are often mentioned in Paul's
closing - the women had churches in their houses.

|For anyone to to be able to read the bible properly, one would have to have 
|studied the way language was used in that time. But the problem with that is that
|one can not tell what information was changed or left out and therefore one has
|view the Bible with a great deal of scepticism, to do otherwise would be to
|fooling ones self.

Yes, context is very important.  But trying to find meaning past what is there
is striving in vain.  There is MUCH there that we can learn from and what is
not there is secondary at best.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hsameti@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (Hossein Sameti)
Subject: TALK: Islam and the Year 2000
Keywords: Talk, Islam
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:04:52 GMT


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>									<>
<>			   University of Waterloo			<>
<>			Muslims Students Association			<>
<>			 	 ( M S A )				<>
<>									<>
<>======================================================================<>
<>									<>
<>	Presents:	ISLAM AND THE YEAR 2000 			<>
<>									<>
<>	By:		Dr. SALIM  MANSOUR				<>
<>			Professor of Political Studies			<>
<>			University of Western Ontario			<>
<>									<>
<>	DATE:	Monday November 23rd 					<>
<>	TIME:	6:30 p.m.						<>
<>	PLACE:	Room 2083,PAS Building (Psychology), U of W		<>
<>									<>
<>======================================================================<>
<>									<>
<>			     All Are Welcome				<>
<>			   Refreshments Served				<>
<>									<>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

	Muslim Students Association,
	University of Waterloo
From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<1992Nov16.234344.18993@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<1992Nov17.001359.21834@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:27:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.001359.21834@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

   In article <1992Nov16.234344.18993@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

   >In article <1992Nov16.003030.9401@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
   >>2) The proposition that the disciples gave their lives for the proposition
   >>that Jesus died and was resurrected. Clearly Paul believed this,
   >>but as I say, he was in no position to know. 
   >Certainly he was.  Christ appeared to him.  
   The most you can say is that Paul BELIEVED that Jesus had appeared
   to him. Since the truth of the NT narrative is what we are
   debating here, it is mere begging the question for you to assume it
   to be true.

   Do you have a real argument to propose?
-------
I don't believe you got up this morning.  Prove that you did.  Or, maybe 
you only believe you got up this morning, and this is all a silly dream.
-------
   >>Whether or not Peter
   >>was in fact teaching this is at best debatable.
   >Read I Peter and see for  yourself.
   Whether Peter wrote "1 Peter" is in itself debatable.
   -Ekr
-------
So.  Don't skirt the issue.  Address what I Peter says, regardless of the
fact that Peter did write it. :)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 18:11:45 EST

In article <1992Nov12.212531.18620@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:

>|> [...]
>|> But in any case, saying that someone is "crippled" happens to be very
>|> different from calling someone "a cripple"--at least where I come from.
>|> Where I come from, calling someone "a cripple" is an extremely perjorative
>|> term.  What's more, I have yet to find someplace where it is not.
>
>I have yet to find a place where is *is* considered perjorative
>if it is a true characterisation of someone's physical state.
>I know such people who are *very* angry about the mealy mouthed
>euphemisms that are circulatimg about their conditions.  This
>argument about whether to call someone `crippled' or `something-
>challenged' is obviously an attempt by ignorant people to *appear*
>caring without having to commit any *real* effort to the problems.
>
>Yes, everywhere I go, calling someone "a cripple" whose physical 
>health is normal *IS* considered perjorative.  So what?  In the
>meantime, *real* cripples don't want your empty euphemisms.  Nor
>do they necessarily want your pity - or even, necessarily, your
>help.  What they do want is for you not to discriminate against
>them in any respect which is unconnected with their disability.
>Your euphemisms *DON'T* help in that regard.

Please be careful with your use of the word "your" as in "your euphemisms."

What "euphemisms" have I introduced?

If you go back and read my original post, you will see that I simply noted
a distinction between calling someone "a cripple" and calling someone
"handicapped."  (A previous poster had equated these two.)

As I stated before, in my experience, calling someone "a cripple" (whether
or not they are, in fact, crippled) is perjorative.  In my experience,
the distinction between calling some one "a cripple" and saying that
they are "handicapped" is akin to the difference between calling someone
"a pip-squeak" and saying that they are "short."  (Which is exactly what
I said in my first post on the subject.)

When did making such a comment become a crime?

I did not condemn anybody for using the term "cripple."  I did not even
suggest that people should use one term or the other.  I merely made (what is
to my knowledge) a statement of fact.

Perhaps you missed my original post, and were posting on the basis of
assumptions about what I had said?


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: Christmas
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:09:05 GMT

In article <1el6sfINNhal@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

|> purely religious.  Oh sure, the Churches try to rake in the money, but

The Churches try, but the businesses succeed.



-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:5289 alt.alien.visitors:8323
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: UFOs and Newage
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 17:08:05 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world


Subject: Lone Pine Pyramid. 
Part 3.
  Here is some more information that was sent to me by letter about the 
storehouse; The storehouse is buried under the rocks of the Alabama Hillls 
west of town (probubly about 50 feet of rock cover the building.)
  The is Mrs. Curtis talking; On finding this I was made to know that it is 
for the New Age and not for this greedy, evil generation.  Hence not over a 
half dozen people in this town know of its existence. Over 100 people  have 
stood on the apex of the storehouse.  I have told only the Children of Light 
and of the New Age about it, and it will be a favor to me if you do not 
reveal the fact of its existenc to any but a New Age person. 
  Now then concerning it I was given the revelation about it one night feeling 
the impulse to sit up in bed and write on the pad I kept under my pillow.  I 
was given explicit directions as where to find it, and with a few others who 
were visiting me at the time, did locate it. Power that was invested in its 
building still issues from the apex, or from the level ground that covers 
the apex. It can be felt travel up thru the body and in some cases charges 
the body anew. Not all feel it that strong, but almost all feel it to some 
extent. 
  This is me (John Winston) talking now. After getting the information from 
Mrs. Clurtis I made a telephone call over to their house.  Mr. Curtis said 
that his wife had just died a few days before that time. I prevailed on him 
to show me the site and he told me to come on over. 
  I showed up and went into the back yard to check out the alter that was 
supposed to have energy coming from it.  When I came back to Mr. Curtis I 
told him that his wife's spirit was still in the back yard.  He then agreed 
with me and said that he knew that his wife was still in the area. 
  Mr. Curtis showed me out to the site. I later came back to the area of the 
pyramid and put up some information in a can.  I also put some plastic 
cement (like concrete) on the side of a large rodck showing figures that are 
from Lemuria that were found in a book by Col Churchword or Churchward. 
  I feel that the pyramid will be opened about 2,008 or when ever we progress 
to the point where we won't just take the items inside the storehouse and 
sell them.
  I will be glad to tell or show anyone who is interested in the pyramid where 
it is as long as they can prove to me that they are part of the group that 
built it or they are a Worker of Light.  I'll know if they can be trusted.
John  Winston 
End Part 3. 
that his wife's spirit 3wass cw


2meEE
,
UPA

Vr8PU$,V$ef
9cJK,%x{x3xRx
kxxx_	xExUxcxex
Vr8PU$,V$ef

9cJK,<

0Roman 10cpiconcrete) on thws isde of a large rodckc showing figures that 
are from Lemuria. that were found in a boook by
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:5342 alt.alien.visitors:8409 alt.religion.kibology:4765