HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:18:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.004158.9317@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
|> [...]
|> Furthermore, I, personally, don't really care to much whether you use
|> gender-neutral language at all.  *I* would just like to be able to write
|> my *own* material in gender-neutral terms when *I* think it is appropriate,
|> and without having to battle with the current, awkward process of doing so.
|> 
|> As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to do as you please.

Finally a note of rationality. It is my own opinion that 
trying to introduce gender neutral generics is distracting
and will maky prose less legible.  But, that's the writer's 
choice.  It is the `political correctness' squad who try 
to tell *others* how to write that bugs me.  Whether there 
will emerge a consensus in favor or against some flavor 
of gender neutral generic is for the users of English to
collectively decide through usage.  In the meantime, the
choice is up to individual authors.  The author must decide
whether to write directly about whatever subject matter is
at hand, or whether it is desired to throw-in distracting 
political content periodically.

Frankly, I think we're in a window of vulnerability here.
A few generations from now, the issue of sexual equality 
will have been settled and no one will care what pronouns
are used in generic constructs.  So the question is whether
the enormous (and merely symbolic) effort required to change
language usage (accompanied with the need to alter and/or
annotate prior laws, literature, etc.) is really worth it.

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Subject: Re: True Gay Christians
Reply-To: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 02:06:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.205659.23814@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <1992Nov4.165253.4006@HQ.Ileaf.COM> raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct30.153527.23351@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> >    Without FAITH this is a legitmate question
> >    but when you ask this to people with FAITH (beleivers)
> >    your answer WILL be people praying for you to understand
> Then it doesn't much matter what the text says, does it now?

    Not to a person, like you, who maintains that the Bible is
    just words

chris
-- 

		Mephistopheles ... ruthless, sleepless, unsmiling,
                concentration on self or humorous, civilised, sensible
                and adaptable
From: lungtt@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:09:10 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <ksand-101192183032@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>...I then wonder why we have in most Christian countries the need
>to teach children since their first day in school about Christian
>doctrines... Note that this is not the case in USA, and it also
>clearly shows that one could become a Christian without the need
>of public schools providing teaching. In other words aren't we
>really dealing with official religious PR instead of something that's
>needed?

I don't know.  But I'm beginning to think there may be some useful
consequences of any kind of doctrine from the first day in school.
Do those other countries have as much rape, murder, drug gangs and extortion 
going on in their public *grammar* schools as we do here in the USA?
Is this a consequence of the *absence* of this kind of education from
the first day in school?  This kind of education seems to do little
if nothing for people *investing* their souls in one doctrine or another.
I wonder if there is a study on this.

Terence
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality - genetic?  (was Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:47:33 GMT


In a previous article, ac617@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Philip C. Roberts) says:

>
>OK, so for the rather large group of physically "normal
>humans who are homosexual, there is no biological reason for it.
>
>That being the case, how would you expect the sexuality of a 
>hermaphrodite to develop?  While hermaphroditism is a rare 
>condition, it is a very real condition, and no matter which way
>a hermaphrodite orients, that person is both a homosexual and
>a heterosexual, unless the person decides he/she is totally
>asexual.
>

Interesting view on the discussion.

I went to high school with a hermaphrodite, and after he "came out", as it 
were (Gym class showers, which he was forced into against his will...),
he (call him Matthew) and I had an earnest discussion on the subject.

He was raised as a male, for the reason that he was first born, and because
his male genitalia was slightly more prominant then his female geneitalia.
As he grew up, however, he, and his parents discovered that his personality
was more female then male, reguardless of the fact that he had always been
treated as a male.  (on this point his parents were dismayed, and felt there
may be something wrong with him, as since he was raised male, his personality
should have been, in fact, male.)  

The problem was further complicated when, at 15, he started developing
secondary female sexual characturistics (breasts, and an irregular
onset of menses)

At any rate, I didn't see him for several years, and when I did next see him,
he was no longer Matthew...he was now Melinda...

At 21 he had had surgery to remove all apparent male genitalia (what of it 
there was), and had had his name legally changed.

As a result, she was disowned by her family, and excommunicated from the 
church.

But she is a happy, fully functioning female (albeit a sterile one) and 
conciders herself not at all asexual.

(all names assumed, of course)


-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //   No God, Know Peace   /\     * 
*                    Kelley L. Miller  //  Know God, No Peace    /P \    *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //                        /____\   *
*****************  James Trafficant for US Senate, 1998  *****************
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:48:35 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <72646@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>
>Jer 1:5   "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you
>      were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to
>      the nations."
>
>The passage talks about God's foreknowledge - and how he had 
>selected Jerimiah BEFORE HE WAS BORN and BEFORE HE FORMED HIM.
>The point is that if God looks upon a person before he was
>born and before he was born as a person to do great works for
>Him, then how can one say the unborn person has NO worth.  God
>had already planned for Jerimiah to do many things.

So Jeremiah was known by God before he was formed, i.e., before 
conception.  So:

	**EITHER**

Jeremiah's conception and his birth were pre-ordained 
and there was no choice for either the sex partners that concieved 
him and for the mother that gave him birth, 

	**OR**

all sexual partners do have a choice to have sex or not and all 
mothers do have a choice whether to give birth or not and the soul 
of Jeremiah was "installed" in the first appropriate (and wanted) 
conception to occur.

Which of these explanations are true?  If the first, this suggests that  
ALL is pre-determined and therefore the current abortions are part of 
God's plan.  If the second, then this suggests that abortions will not 
effect God's plan, for the souls he really wishes to set apart and make 
sure they walk the Earth will still be born regardless.

Another possiblity is that the passage means God knew the future 
before it was going to happen, in which case, God is not saying 
anything about Jeremiah's worth before birth, but merely stating 
that he knew before conception that Jeremiah would be worthy after 
birth, when he became a prophet of the nations.

BOTTOMLINE:
I don't see how the special case of Jeremiah (set apart) advances the 
cause of either side of the abortion debate anymore than a discussion of 
Mary's special case of conception would further the cause of either 
side of the birth-control debate.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:18:15 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>Hi Darren,

>I did not say nor to my knowledge does the movement want GOVERNMENT-RUN 
>PUBLIC PRAYERS.  There is a difference - you take it to an extreme - the 
>request if for a time period for prayer - NOT government-run public prayer.  
>We don't want someone of a different persuasion lead our children in
>pray - we recognize the plurality of religions in America.  If you have
>read my post on this, I suggest that we have a place for each group, so
>that they can have a leader of their choice and so not impose upon another.

Why does it have to be in school?  You refuse to answer this!  The reason,
I assume, is that it doesn't have to be in school, and you're just too
stuck on this idea that the government has to *support* religion rather
than ignoring it and letting it do its own thing.

>Here are my scriptures - the are not all about public pray, but they
>are about prayer - many instances of it.  My favorite is 

>    Matthew 19:13 (NIV)   Then little children were brought to Jesus 
>    for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the 
>    disciples rebuked those who brought them. 

>Jesus was obviously praying in public - people were bringing their
>children to him.  Look who was rebuking them - his disciple - they
>didn't understand.  Jesus points out in another place that the
>purpose of pray is not to be seen by men, but we shouldn't hide 
>either.  Pray is communication with God - not man.  We can do that
>and some people believe it is VERY important to recognize this in
>our institutions - and plurality of religions should be and is recognized.

I hate to point this out to you, but using your religion as "proof" that
religion has a place in society is completely circular logic and hence
invalid.

>You may want to note that the Former Soviet Union tried to push the
>idea of God out of their system - now they are glad to get it.  Are
>we going the other way?  

They tried to shut down religion in the Soviet Union.  The US isn't
trying to oust religion, it's trying not to give it any governmental
support, so that the government takes no direct part in support of
religion.  The USSR and the US had (the US continues to *have*, mind
you! :) ) completely different policies regarding relgion.  The US
tries to maintain secular government.  The USSR tried to maintain
secular *life* for its people, against their will!  There's an
obvious difference here.

>For Christ and His Kingdom,
>Richard Pitts
-- 

Wulf                    |Two men look out through the same bars.
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |One sees mud, and one the stars.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:29:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.100045.9262@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>
>Since each religion must be interpreted, who is to judge?  Is it the religion
>or the person that is distorted?

I think that this is a red herring in this case.  Some people
stand for certain qualities such that if you were aware of that
person, you would know if there was a distortion.  For example, if
I call myself a "Kingite" because I am a follower of Dr. Martin
Luther King, and I then call for execution of all white people in
the legal profession, for their perpetuation of hatred and
discrimination in America, do you think I am following the good
Doctor?  Do you need a panel of experts to tell you that what I
called for is totally and diametrically opposed to Dr. Martin
Luther King's philosphy, assuming that you were knowlegable of Dr.
King?  I would dare say that the non-violent followers of Dr. King
would be extremely distressed. 

>
>> One must be very
>> careful when judging a religion to separate the human members of
>> the religion from the religion itself.  If the founder of the
>> religion has led an exemplary life above criticism, then their
>> fruit (the religion) can be judged on its own merit.  If the
>> founder's ideas and philosophy are above reproach, then again the
>> fruit can be judged on it's own merit.  However, if followers of
>> the religion (even in high places) in that religion do not follow
>> the founder but veer away for their own agenda, then their fruit
>> can be seen.  However, I suggest that their fruit is not the
>> religion itself, but merely their own behaviour. 
>
>I believe that your suggestion is wron, because it is nonfalsifiable, which
>might be the case in any set of circumstances.  The way I read the above
>paragraph is: if the founder is great, I win; if the religion is great, I win;
>if the followers veer away, I win again. All because the answer must fit *my*
>(read your) criteria for a good religion.  Non-falsifiable.  You pose no
>criteria which anyone else can use that is other than subjective.  BTW, this is
>not a flame.  
>
>GXKambic
>sd
>

What I was trying to say is the behaviour of some of the follower's
of a religion should not detract from the merits of the religion
itself.

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality - genetic? (was Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare)
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:29:53 GMT

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:

>At any rate, I didn't see him for several years, and when I did next see him,
>he was no longer Matthew...he was now Melinda...
>At 21 he had had surgery to remove all apparent male genitalia (what of it 
>there was), and had had his name legally changed.
>As a result, she was disowned by her family, and excommunicated from the 
>church.

God, don't stories like this make you want to get the family's heads
and bang them together until their brains start working?

Life, don't mention it.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 03:33:45 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

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

> >1) What is the soul?

> James Brown

Question 1 grade: 0% (joking to cover up ignorance)

> >2) What is the purpose of human life?

> Dharma. (Do the right "Spike Lee" thing)

Question 2 grade: 10% ("Dharma" not the purpose of human life, but this
answer slightly more serious than first)

Overall grade: 5%. Try again!


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:23:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <74551@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> 
> Agreed.  Freedom of religion was one of the big foundational blocks.
> Now it seems people want freedom FROM religion.  They don't want to 
> have to explain to someone why these other people believe or act the
> why they do - maybe it has some impact on this RIGHT to do what one
> wants (i.e., people want to do what they want and don't want any reminder
> that there is a God or for the sake of the argument there are people
> who believe in God and that God has a set of guidelines for morality
> and treatment of others.)  

I do think that the core word is FREEDOM, not freedom of religion,
or the mis-normed freedom from religion. As long as the government
is not involved in telling people what to believe in, they are a step
away from the 1984 big-brother environment both you Richard and I would
hate if this was the case.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:31:22 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes

>Overall grade: 0%. Try again!

>> >1) What is the soul?

3soul n
[ME, fr. MF, fr. L solea sandal, a flatfish]
(14c)
:an animus (family Soleidae) having a small mouth, small or rudimentary
     fins, and small eyes placed close together and including superior
     food animae (as Solea solea of Europe); also: any of various
     mostly market animae of other families 

>> >2) What is the purpose of human life?

                overweigHt as teenagers
                      adUlts, researchers said
                      woMen
             study the HArvard School
   look at growth patterNs
                     chiLdren in the Boston area.
           161 who had dIed
                        Found that
         who were considEred to carry excess


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   uh huh, uh huh              |
      |                           You got the right one, baby |
       -------------------------------------------------------

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:36:03 GMT

In article <1djltmINNfke@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.202912.17497@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>What I was trying to say is the behaviour of some of the follower's
>>of a religion should not detract from the merits of the religion
>>itself.
>
>And what we'veb been trying to say is that the term "Christianity" has,
>historically, been applied to the various churches.  If you're talking about
>something other than that, come up with a new word.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>

My statement was general in nature and wasn't meant specifically
for Christianity.  What are you trying to say?  What does the fact
that there are different denominations to Christianity have to do
with the above statement?

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:01:02 GMT

tt@euler.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:

: Why don't you all just abandon English and start using Finnish instead.
: It has a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun (and no gender-specific
: ones at all -- makes translation interesting at times).

Better yet, lets just borrow the word from Finnish, massacre the
pronounciation, change the spelling a little, and call it English!

That's worked well for the the past couple hundred years.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Kids, don't gross me
Rosemount Inc.                                |off..  ``Adventures with
                                              |MENTAL HYGIENE'' can be
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |carried too FAR!
From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 16:18:42 GMT

In article <Nov.12.03.51.21.1992.17371@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:

>As far as I can find, Paul doesn't claim that Jesus is God.  He says
>things like "he is the image of the invisible God".

The best bets for someone trying to argue that Paul claimed that Jesus is
God are Philippians 2:6, Romans 9:5, and Titus 2:13.  All of these have
disputed translations, however.  The following quotations are from the NIV,
with alternate readings in brackets.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus, who, being in very
nature God [or: in the form of God], did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped.  (Philippians 2:5-6)

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of
Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! [or: Christ, who is over all.
God be forever praised!  or: Christ.  God who is over all be forever
praised!]  Amen.  (Romans 9:5)

...while we wait for the blessed hope---the glorious appearing of our great
God and Savior [or: of the great God and our Savior], Jesus Christ.  (Titus
2:13)

Perhaps someone who knows Greek can comment.  As far as I know, the problem
is not with different Greek versions but with different interpretations of
the same Greek sentence.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949