HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paulk@advection.engin.umich.edu (paul kominsky)
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 10:31:02 EDT
Organization: Rarely
Originator: paulk@advection.engin.umich.edu


pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
> U55870@uicvm.uic.edu (David James Alexander Hanley) writes:
> >  You know, don't you, that the roman catholic chruch has now conceded
> >that the shroud is a hoax?  This is after speding much time, money and
> >effort promoting it as proof of their faith.  All the supposed authentic
> >details have been shown
> >to be fabrications( he,he ) and distortions.  

I assume you're joking on this one.  As of earlier this year,
the origin of the images was unknown.   But, if you have 
documentation, I'd love to read it.

> >Plus on closer examination
> >it can be discovered that the shroud is painted.  Hehe.

Do you have a reference for this?

> Actually, to give the church leaders who originally discovered the shroud
> _some_ credit, they figured it was a fake too, and displayed it only
> as an _example_ of what the supposed shroud would have looked like.

If you are referring to the "Memorandum of Pierre D'Arcis," it's not
as clear as people think.  It is of uncertain historical credibility,
written 30+ years after the supposed medieval examination of the
Shroud's authenticity, without any official seal or stamp, and connected
to people who had a bias against those who were keeping the Shroud.

Also, I've looked at a replica of the latin text, and it doesn't
seem to me to say what people often claim it says.

pjk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: More on history
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:19:10 GMT

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <adams.713821896@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>No, it is recognized that the date of the year '0' and the date of Jesus'
>>birth do not coincide.  He is said to have been born about 4BC...The
>>persons adopting the calander blew it.

>Now wait a minute, there is another problem. The Romans, those great warrior
>bruts, did not grasp the concept of 0. They didn't have a Roman Numeral to
>represent it. Notice that we call our number system Arabic even though it 
>actually comes from the Persians who may have gotten it from Indus valley. So 
>the year 1 BC, (or B.C.E), was followed by the year 1 AD. And there were a 
>few other problems that showed up later in the Gregorian calender. The Romans 
>actually only had ten months in the year with a break during the begining of 
>the new year, or something silly like that. That is why we have october(8), 
>november(9) and december(10). Anyone care to shed more light on the Roman idea 
>of calender.

Yes, I should have said the '0' point...or starting point, not 'year 0'.
My mistake...but the point still stands...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel)
Subject: Re: A question
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:10:43 GMT

cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>
>To respond to the post concerning my comments on homosexuality.
>
>1) Homosexuality is a choice, consciousness or sub-consciousness. At any rate 
>   can be changed.

How many gay or lesbian people do you know personally?  Of those, how
many do you hear saying that they *want* to be straight?  And of
those, how many have succeeded?  I come to zero by the second
question.

>2) Homosexuality, as far as I've seen, has never been the issue that it is today.
>   Why hasn't homosexuality been such a debated topic throughout history.

Let me throw that back to you: why hasn't feminism (equal rights for
women) been such a debated topic throughout history?  Don't some
ideas flower only under certain social conditions?

In some periods of history, people were run out of town, burned as
"witches", shot, and otherwise silenced for the "loved that dared not
speak its name."  In other periods, homosexuality was either
implicitly accepted (Victorian times) or explicitly accepted (Ancient
Greek times).

We happen to live in a period and place in which gay, lesbian, and
bisexual people have found hope that they might be accepted in
society.  The hope has yet to be realized.  Some of it depends on
the outcome in November.

>3) The Roman Empire was freat and powerful until the extreme moral decay 
>   weakened it.

What do you mean by "moral decay"?

>4) Homosexuals were the firing gun for AIDS.

*Male* homosexuals, in the US.  Not so in other parts of the world,
where heterosexual transmission of the virus was and is the main
mode.  Do you think that makes "heterosexuals" a "problem case"?

>5) Looking at the make up of a man and a woman, it is quite apparent that they
>    were made to go together sexually. Not so with male-male or female-female.

You are right, two men just can't kiss, their mouths aren't made for it.

>6) I do not think that a law should be made against homosexuality b/c I said
>   so or b/c it is in my religion.

Good, that's pretty decent.  Seriously.

>7) I doubt very seriously that all the "prejudice" in the world to homo-
>   sexuals is because of Christianity.

What do you think it is due to?

Cheers,

-- 
Ameet A. Raval                   Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
email: bongo@splash.princeton.edu                Princeton, N.J. 08542
disclaimer: Mine, they're mine, I tell you!        phone: 609-452-6563


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: paulk@engin.umich.edu (Paul J. Kominsky)
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin (was DOES GOD EXIST?)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 11:55:22 EDT
Organization: Rarely

atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>I'm too polite to laugh at this, but the Shroud of Turin has been
>shown to be a fake.

I assume you're referring to the C14 tests?  You know, there
were a lot of problems with those tests (not C14 itself, just
its use on the Shroud.)

The samples were cut from a single place on the Shroud, as 
indicated in the Nature report.  This was from a side-band
which is attached to the Shroud proper, and may be more recent
than the Shroud.  I think the majority of researchers do think
this side-band is part of the original Shroud material, but 
they're not 100% certain.

Furthermore, the size and weights of the samples indicated
in the Nature report are different than the size and weights
reported by the people who actually cut the samples, which 
leaves open the possibility of foul play.

On the other hand, there is much evidence which suggests
authenticity, from as a lack of pigments on the Shroud (so
it's not a painting), to the medical accuracy of the image
(rather beyond the medical knowledge of a 13th century forger).
Computer analysis of the image even found a coin over one of 
the eyes.  The coin was apparently identified as a lepton
minted between 26 AD and 36 AD.

pjk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:07:44 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Aug20.201538.11505@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>
>
>
>I think the whole point of "traditional family values" not including gays
>would be the redefining of the word. As you know, tradional family refers
>to a male-female relationship. With the Liberal approach, tradional family
>would begin to include homosexual relationships which the Republicans (and myself)
>do not want.
>
Chris: What do you mean? Is someone going to force a gay person into your
family? WHy are you so concerned about what other people do? My father
taught me that minding one's own business was an important value....
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 20:44:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.182030.1520@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:

>My God makes the sun rise from the east.  Can you make it rise from the west?

Nah, that's not bloody enough -- it would never make the news.  Tell you
what.  I'll have my God arrange for Mr. Bush to slaughter a bunch of
followers of your God pretty soon (before November).  Then you shall know
that my God is the one true god.  And my God is merciful, wise.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:39:53 GMT
	<1992Aug09.145819.26597@digibd.com>
	<1992Aug12.151711.21180@csrd.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu's message of Wed, 12 Aug 92 15:17:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.151711.21180@csrd.uiuc.edu> skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:

   merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

   >C'mon, it prescribes the death penalty for many things I don't
   >consider crimes, like homosexual acts.  Where's the peace & freedom
   >here?  Or do you ignore that part of the bible?

   In a private exchange, I asked Mr. LeRoy to support for this claim
   (that Christianity prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts).
   He gave me Leviticus.  I countered with Paul ("no longer under the
   law, but under grace") and pointed out that for Christianity the new
   covenant has replaced the old of which Leviticus is a part.  I
   explained that this is straightforward, orthodox Christianity.  He
   countered that Paul, being just a human, had no authority to say that
   about God's law.  I pointed out that if we throw out the authority of
   the apostle Paul, we are no longer talking about Christianity, which
   was essentially founded by Paul.  I asked him to differentiate between
   Christianity and Judaism.  He had nothing more to say.  I await his
   retraction.

All right, then why is it consistently Christian groups that oppose gay
rights (read: basic civil rights for all people irrespective of sexual
orientation), whereas Jewish groups either don't consider it a major
issue or actively support gay rights?  Modulo Matthew Rosenblatt (who
seems to preach a rather harsh brand of Judaism compared to other people
I know, and I have Orthodox people in my family), I have yet to hear
*any* Jewish person openly oppose gay rights.

You might note that while these harsh penalties are prescribed in
theory, the evidential standards that are required (based on rabbinical
rulings) are high indeed, by intent.  An old saying (it may be from the
Talmud) is that one rabbi said that a rabbinical court that executed one
person in seven years was bloodthirsty; another rabbi replied that
execution of one person in seventy years was bloodthirsty.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HAVE YOU READ THIS ?.............
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:33:25 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Aug18.185901.5979@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
}	Antony Rose sez:
}	<quoting others about reading the bible>
}
}	My friend, do you know what the New Testament "as a whole"
}	says?  If you did you wouldn't hold the position that you
}	do.
}
}	Actually.....I have read the WHOLE bible (I am not joking,
}I spent 5 years in a religious school 'system' of sorts and had
}spent a year on the OT and NT apiece). I KNOW what it says, even
}though I do not have the WHOLE BOOK memorized,  am familiar with it
}and know what the NT says "as a whole" ? Guess what, I don't buy it.
}The more I studied it, the less sense the mess made ! We see that the
}statement Mr. Rose said about knowing what the NT says "as a whole"
} is not true, I know it and hold an atheist position.

Guess what?  I've read the whole thing straight through a number of times.
Ibid Book of Mormon, Koran, Pearls of Great <prive, the Satanic Bible, and a
few others.  So?  Want to guess my position?  ;-)
From: kml@cellar.org (Lazlo Hoover Toth)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:14:02 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

> In article <1992Aug11.171843.16382@ccs.QueensU.CA> 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.c
> >OK, here it is.
> >You've been wrong all along.
> >There is no YHWH, Allah, whatever.
> >*I'M* GOD!
> >
> >Yes, you heard right, I'm God.
> >The Supreme Being.
> >The Divine Creator.
> >
> >Now, if there's anyone who'd like to try to prove me wrong....
> >
> >colleen
> 
> 
> Can you walk on water?


Does this mean water-walking insects are God?  What a test!!!!



This message may not be rebroadcast without the express written consent of 
the Baltimore Orioles and Major League Baseball.  Send $2 for transcripts to
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com  - My other account is a Mercedes.
From: stoesser@i31s22.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: 14 Aug 1992 13:26:34 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s22.ira.uka.de

In article <BsxD3t.Luz@apollo.hp.com>, perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
|> In article <BsvKur.5yG@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
|> >Tired of bickering with people, I've decided to try reading the Whole Thing
|> >(TM) in order to get some decent ammunition.  Which translation do you folks
|> >think meets the best combination of scholarly translation and readability?  
|> >
|> >For example, when confronting my parents recently, my mother claimed that 
|> >"Thou shalt not kill" was actually "Thou shalt do no murder" (as if that makes
|> >a large difference).  Is there a translation that is sensitive to subtle 
|> >nuances like this?
|> 
|> I think on that score most everybody agrees that the King James
|> language is just wrong, and "murder" is the correct interpretation. 

Strange that the German translators made the same "mistake." My
(official, catholic, used in school) version says, "Du sollst nicht
toeten" (toeten=kill). I'm pretty sure that Luther's translation says the
same. Now "Die gute Nachricht" (German version of The Good News) comes
up with "Morde nicht" (morde=murder). Big surprise.

Why did the "interpretation" change? Simple. 
- Shooting communists is not murder but defending liberty.
- Electrocution is not murder but penalty (you might have heard that the
  latest catholic teaching says that death penalty is okay).
- Dropping bombs on a village is not murder but war.
- Slaughtering pigs is not murder but the butcher's job.
- Sending witches to the stake is not murder but God's will...
I mean, God didn't say, "Thou shalt not kill," did He[sic!]? He was 
talking about "murder". 

It's just as in Orwells Animal Farm where the commandment "No animal
shall kill another animal" suddenly mutated to "No animal shall
kill an other animal without cause."

I think the best translation of the Bible is the telephone directory --
no atrocities, no obscenities, no contradictions.

 							        Achim
_____________________________________________________________________

I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian.  This does _not_
mean that I'd bomb kings, worship Satan, let soldiers bleed to death,
or eat fish.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:34:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.142438.8656@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
}(Thanks to Mr. Graham for providing me with a copy of his article when
}it did not show up at my site.)
}>I dunno.  What do we do when the teachings of Paul contradict those
}>of Jesus?
}
}We'd have to work out any contradictions, giving precedence to Jesus
}in the final analysis.

And how are we suppose to determine this, given that the writings of Paul are
claimed to be the teachings of Jesus?


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Re: Subject? + Survey = Suspicion
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 18:50:43 GMT


	I say we send ALL of the postings we can too:

	safecrac@west.darkside.com


	Anearlier posting sez this is the real E-mail address....
I think I might fill my workfile space (1 meg) and sent it ! :-)


-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
From: che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?)
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:18:53 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Aug12.164820.19890@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
 yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
> In article <BsvKur.5yG@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
> (Mike Cluff) writes:
> |> For example, when confronting my parents recently, my mother claimed that
> |> "Thou shalt not kill" was actually "Thou shalt do no murder" (as if that makes
> |> a large difference).
>
> In its usual form, there is no indication of what your shouldn't kill.
> Is it any living thing (people, animals, plants, yeast, bacteria)?
> Even, as it is commonly assumed, if killing only refers to people, the
> church and governments have invented "legitimate" forms of killing (war,
> execution of criminals, etc.).  The dictionary definition of murder
> (i.e. *unlawful* killing of a person) would not include these as moral
> wrongs under the latter form.
>
> The continued use of the TSNK form has caused unnecessary suffering.
>
> Other questionable killings include suicide and self-defense.  How
> is the TSNK moral absolute usually interpreted in each of these cases?
>

And, after all that, what about the things Jesus is supposed to have said
as recorded in the gospels Matthew and Luke: that even thinking about
killing someone or holding a grudge against someone is just as bad in
God's eyes as actually putting the [insert favourite deadly implement]
into someone??

Peter D. Thomas
Centre for High Resolution Spectroscopy and Opto-Electronic Technology
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: New newsgroup proposal: alt.athiesm
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 05:20:36 GMT

In article <Bt0708.3z@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> bzthomps@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Zac Thompson) writes:
>In article <Bsyp3w.6rs@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
>> In this case, the purpose is to divert articles from people
>> who can't spell atheism out of alt.atheism.
>		    ^^^^	       ^^^^
>	I beg your pardon?  Out of where?  |-)
>	If you are going to complain about spelling...

Say, Zac, what newsgroup name was in the "Newsgroups" line of your
followup article while you were editing it?  What newsgroup name was in
the "End of newsgroup" message you saw when you reached the end of this
group?
-- 
David Canzi
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:00:38 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <13440.2a93ff35@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, 
kiemschies@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> I did not see the begining of this post, but I disagree with your statement 
> that the burden of proof is on the believer. As at least some religions
> maintain, faith has any removes any BURDEN of proof (Just like M31 with the
> naked eye, you either see it or don't), unless someone is follish enough to 
> try to conclusively prove a religous type belief system (or if someone is 
> equally as foolish as to try to disprove one through purly semantic 
> arguments of religous discriptions). 

That all depends on what is one wishes to assert.  If one is stating "I believe
in YHVH," then they can use any criteria for that belief they choose.  If one
wishes ME to believe in YHVH, there is in fact a BURDEN of proof on their part. 
i.e. it is up to them to prove that there is truth to the belief they wish me
to adopt.

>> As usual, Christians must have their own definitions in order to
>> patch up their Swiss-cheese philosophy.  Example: "The 'kill' in
>> 'Thou shalt not kill' really means 'murder,' so capital
>> punishment and war are OK.  And we don't mean 'murder' in the way
>> you non-Christians define it, for it was not murder for Moses to
>> put to death hundreds of thousands of Midianites" (see Numbers
>> 31).

This much is actually not a Christian logical acrobatic feat, but a
mistranslation of the Hebrew.  "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation of
"Thou shalt do no murder."  The word used in the hebrew is in fact "murder",
and not "kill".

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism