HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: troye@cs.mcgill.ca (Troy ENGLISH)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Keywords: mindless,politically-correct,use,your,head
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:19:57 GMT
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <cH1NTB3w165w@cerianthus.pinetree.org> cowan@cerianthus.pinetree.org (Darin Cowan - root) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>
>> >Every now and then some idiot comes along and suggests something like
>> >the above.  Typically, these are people of the same caliber (that is,
>> >pathetic stature) that spell the word "women" as "womyn" as if it
>> >was some sort of impressive symbol.
>> 
>> Every now and then, someone comes along onto the net and calls folks
>> idiots for having harmless and well-intentioned ideas.  Typically, these
>> people of the same caliber (that is, pathetic stature) that believe
>> that languages are entirely static and should be protected from the
>> introduction of new words.
>> 
>
>Expanding a language with new, useful words is a fine idea.  The problem 
>is that politically correct types don't want to add useful words.  They 
>want their own paranoias is self-centred goals to be given a place in 
>history (oops, that's herstory for the politically correct who know 
>nothing of the etymology of the word "history").
> 
>English does NOT need gender neutrality, womYn, and so forth.  What it 
>needs is for people to THINK before they speak or write, and for readers 
>and listeners to THINK while they read or listen, rather than sit back 
>and look for imiginary insults to themselves or others.
> 
>I bet some of these people play records backward looking for sexist 
>messages from Satan.
> 
>
>====
>cowan@cerianthus.pinetree.org
>(Darin Cowan - root)
>
>This beautiful post is the 560th on this system!

I think you're being much too generous, most people just assume that
records played backwards have sexist messages from satan in them. What
people now are looking for is the sexist messages from god (if you have
one) or gods (if you have more than one).

By the way, anyone know wether God and Satan are names or positions? Ie
president vs George Bush.?
-- 
*****************************************************************
--Your naive idiocy makes me very angry -- Job (The Lawnmower man)
"I want to lie Shipwrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice"
--Part of Themesong to Red Dwarf
From: fpl@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Fred LaMaster)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:16:00 GMT
Subject: Re: The Song of Solomon  (VERY LONG, But Very Much Worth Reading)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Ft. Collins, Colorado
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:56:43 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <74162@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> THE MOVEMENT IS FOR A TIME FOR VOLUNTARY PRAYER - you and others swing
> to mandated prayer by someone you don't approve of.  I well 
> understand your concern.  Teach your child how to stand in what he (you)
> believe - I'm going to do the same for my children.

And this is the thing I'm afraid about, the school yard will be full
of preachers, all the way from Satanist worshippers to N amount of 
Eastern religion priests, all keen to make use of the voluntary prayer
sessions. It's really simple, keep public school outside of the religion,
and children could attend any kind of voluntary prayers after 5pm. In
other words we have a working solution, and anything else would just
make the situation worse.

> However, as I've said before, I believe the movement wants to publically
> allow/recognized the IMPORTANCE OF PRAYER in our public institutions.
> To my understanding, the move is for a time or prayer/meditation and not
> a mandated teacher or offically or clergy led prayer.  Again, I think
> it would probably be better to have places for each faith to pray, so 
> that they could pray in groups if so desired. 

And this is the core problem. Yet again, think if you would like to
send your kid to a school where alternate religion preachers are lurking
for possible new candidates under the facade of 'voluntary prayer
sessions'.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: bocmunro@bnr.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:19:37 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs179.bnr.co.uk

In article <kc9uTB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>> >1) What is the soul?
>> 
>> An abstract concept.
>
>Question 1 grade: 0%
>
>The soul is an actually existing living entity whose principal
>characteristic is consciousness and who is part of the Supersoul, or
>God.

Eh? What? Where'd you pick these stupid ideas up from?

>> 
>> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
>> 
>> What you make it.
>> 
>
>Question 2 grade: 0% (indefinite answer)
>
>Overall grade: 0%
>Try again!

Why don't you bugger off Kalki, you arrogant little git.

>      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
>      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
>      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
>      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |

Why should I? The only people that I see that sing this are a bunch of
social inadequates with orange robes and shaved heads, that prance around
Central London getting in everyone elses way.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <B.Munro@bnr.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!bnruk!B.Munro
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. | Note the change
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174   | of e-mail address.
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:28:52 GMT

In article <LEE.92Nov5104927@ace.npac.syr.edu> lee@ace.npac.syr.edu (Lee C. Brink) writes:

>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 92 10:15:54 EST, greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) said:
>
>JSG> In article <Bx7Lpp.Gw2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> chak@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Buckshot Willie) writes:
>
>>  I personally find PC language to be unwieldy, tiresome, unnecessary,
>>and annoying.
>
>JSG> Why do so many of you seem insistent on wrapping the question of using
>JSG> gender-neutral pronouns in a blanket in "PC" positions?
>
>Because the "PC" movement wants to change speech so it resembles "doublespeak"
>from George Orwell's "1984."

Don't evade the question.  Why drag a nonexistent political entity
into the discussion if you can't defend your points yourself?

(And they call *me* paranoid ...)

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormon Bashers Refuted
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:49:03 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
..
>Ah good, then shall we appliy a _pure_ berean test and use _only_ the
>OT and see what the OT would say about a claim that the promised one
>of Isreal is _also_ God.

Isaiah 9:6 is a good place to start.  Concerning the Promised One, it
was prophesied he would be called 'Father of Eternity' and 'Mighty God'.
The only Mighty God anyone knew about was Jehovah, who is the first and
the last -- literally the Father of Eternity.

Mark

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:07:05 GMT

In article <Bx7yzK.79n@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>And, to be fair, I am overgeneralizing to some extent. Most modern English
>translations rely on the Hebrew more often than LXX, but why should they
>use LXX at all in places where the Hebrew translation is clear and yet claim
>to be an exact translation of the Hebrew?

When you say "Hebrew", you are actually talking about the Masoretic
text.  The tradition of relying on the Masoretic text as the basic
OT text in the Christian Bible translations goes back as early as 
Vulgate.  But the Masoretic text is not perfect, and everybody
realizes that.  So it is necessary to consult other text traditions
(LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, ...) in the translation process.  LXX is
indeed a very lousy Greek translation, as I have said many times in
the past.  But it does give some insight into the ancient text
tradition based on which the LXX was translated.  That ancient text
tradition was there in Judea in priestly Judaism long before the
birth of rabbinical Judaism, which eventually gave us the Masoretic
text.  The Masoretic text was probabily derived from an early-1st
century rabbinical revision.  And if you believe some scholarly
speculations, that rabbinical revision was probabily done by Hillel
and/or his disciples.  That rabbinical revision did not achieve
general acceptance, not even in the rabbinical circles, until after
the destruction of the Second Temple and the rabbinical Judaism
became the mainstream by default.  My point is that there were
*written* text traditions before that early-1st century rabbinical
revision.  Even if we assume that those 1st century rabbis did an
excellent job in their effort, it is only sensible, if not necessary,
to consult other ancient text traditions whenever we can during the
Bible translation process.

Hope this answers your question.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:05:55 GMT

bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) writes:
>In article <g28uTB7w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>1) What is the soul?
>
>Mu!
>
>2) What is the purpose of human life?
>
>Mu!

Perfect score!  :-D  I love it!

(Watch Mr. Harry Krishna call you a cow, now... ;)

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
      Nolite te bastardes    Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
        carborundorum.                                           -- Rousseau
From: wiggins@raedwald.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:34:15 GMT

In article <P64wTB10w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

   <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:

   > In response to Sam Wiggins's assertion that Jesus claimed to be God:
   > 
   > There is not a single verse in the so-called canonical gospels where
   > Jesus explicitly stated that he is God or a God-incarnate. Your assertion
   > can only be accepted if one extrapolates the meanings of certain verses,
   > which are too subtle. Those verses are open to interpretation. Trinitarians
   > like to interpret them to prove the divinity of Jesus, others reject it.

   I thought the argument was about Jesus being the Son of God, not God. In
   the Bible, Jesus certainly claims that God is his father. You are
   right that he nowhere claimed to be God. In fact, he directly denies it
   in the verse "...for the Father is greater than I..." (John 14:28)

   Sincerely,
   Kalki Dasa

Not true.  He claims to BE God.  He NEVER claimed to be a PROPHET was my 
original point, though.

Now, where does He claim to be God?  One I can think of now is where He said
"I and the Father are One."  But, this WAS equating Himself with God.  That's
why the Jewish scholars around him got so angry at Him.

Also, John also states in the beginning of his canonical gospel, that Jesus
(The Word) was with God, WAS God, came in human form, etc.  Now, John got
this idea from somewhere, right?  From Jesus, maybe, whom he knew and talked
with?  Likewise, Peter, Paul, and the rest of the NT.

More to come...
  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: 002977k@ace.acadiau.ca (RYAN GARNET KEDDY)
Subject: If a Tree Falls, Is It Due to Gravity
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:58:48 GMT

From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality - genetic?  (was Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare)
Date: 10 Nov 92 11:14:01 GMT

In article <002977k.3.720984512@ace.acadiau.ca> 002977k@ace.acadiau.ca (RYAN
GARNET KEDDY) writes:
>>Not much works all the time.  Gravity doesn't always work.  If the birth
>>
>>
>>                        --  morpheus@entropy.mcds.com --
>>                   Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
>>                                      -qr
>
>Have you gone completely bonkers??? How oven do do see objects arbitrally 
>(sp?) leave the surface of the earth and begin rising in the air??? Or 
>shouldn't I ask?
----------------
Of course gravity doesn't always work. Why I saw my brother fall out
of a twenty foot perch in a tree one time and landed right on his
head. He fell over and then got up and he was fine. No headache, no
nothing. Sometimes, when you're not measuring it, gravity doesn't
work.

    Seems to me that gravity was working alright, he fell from the tree  
    didn't he? If gravity wasn't working than he wouldn't have fallen. 
    As for not being hurt, he must just have a hard head. Not being 
    hurt has nothing to do with the effects of gravity, the effects of
    gravity. Gravity is the force of attraction between two bodies 
    of mass. If you like I could give you the formula used to 
    determine the force of gravity and nowhere in that formula is 
    there a term dealing with the amount of pain felt by someone 
    falling from a 20' tree.

It is provable from the least action principle and Hamilton ananalysis that 
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    You got me here, I will have to find out what these are all about 
    because I have never heard of them before. Then I will study the 
    validity of whatever claims they may make.

the laws of physics are only laws because they are themost probable thing 
that will happen. It doesn't preclude all thetimes when time slowed down and 
you were able to catch a breakableobject that you didn't have a prayer of 
catching or a baby just beforeit was going to fall and crack its head open. 
    
    So now you are telling me that time slows down a speeds up. Does this 
    phenominum occur just for the particular individuals involves or does 
    it occur in for everything in the universe? Are you saying that we as 
    indivuals can control time? If so please tell me how this is done 
    because it seems like a really neat trick and I would like to learn how 
    to do this. Presently the only beings that I know of that can control 
    the time-space continueum are the "Q", and the only exist on Star Trek 
    TNG.

And you don't knowwhat's happening while you are blinking your eyes, now, do 
you?- Steve

    True, and you also don't know how many people in China are taking 
    a bath right now either. So what's your point?
-Ryan
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:22:39 GMT
	<1992Nov12.162456.17316@netcom.com>
Organization: and my doG, she is still barking si? Toto? Is that you?

In article <1992Nov12.162456.17316@netcom.com> 
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>In article <76790001@teecs.UUCP> to@teecs.UUCP (Norman To) writes:
>>>Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?
>>Religion doesn't get one to heaven.  Only knowing Jesus will.
>Aww, shucks, then anybody who lived before 0 A.D. after about 30 A.D.
>has no chance of getting into heaven?
>Doesn't matter to me.  I'm already in heaven -- heaven on Earth!  If
>you want to see what the Christian realization of the "perfect world"
>might be, read _The Handmaid's Tale_ by Margaret Atwood.  Then try to
>tell me that what we have today _isn't_ heaven.

Exactly! We are not separated from Heaven by time nor space. Heaven is
right here right now, only most don't see it for what it is. Hell is not
seeing it for what it is. I say preacher-mon don't tell me, Heaven is not
on the Earth. I know you don't know what life is really worth. You say all
that glitters is gold, half the story have never been told, so now you've
seen the light, you're going to stand up for your right? Trod true the
valley, yet fear no evil mon! Pierce the valley, Perceval. You and your
friend Arthur, the circumpolar bear. It is true what they say: Roma
backwards is amor, agape, chakra 6. And here it -comes!
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20916 alt.atheism:21084
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:01:24 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Nov10.143105.22358@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>: 
>: Your observations are well taken.  I have nothing against public schools as
>: such, or even schools that present a diversity of views.  Unfortunately,
>: public schools do not present a diversity of views.  You will not learn any-
>: thing there about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Quakerism, the Bible,
>: the Koran, or the Tao te Ching.  The only references are of an historical
>: or anthropological point of view.  This is not necessarily a wrong approach
>: for some people, perhaps the majority of them.  But it should not be called
>: diversity.
>
>Believe it or not, there are other types of diversity than just the
>religious kind.
>-- 
If you feel that strongly about it maybe they could teach that "stuff"
in English Lit. class, you know under the category of fiction.
On second thought there is a whole lot of much better fiction available.
So it really is a good thing that we don't have to read inferior and often
poorly written moralistic claptrap.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:56:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.040917.27760@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

> Brian says:
> 
>    Who really cares what Brian says?  

Hmmm no. I'm not going to touch that one with a 40 foot barge pole ;-)

>    Jesus really doesn't give a hoot about intellect.  It doesn't impress
> him.  Why should it?  He himself created the universe . . . Einstein,
> Hawkins, Marilyn Vos Savant and the likes are less than kindergardners compared
> to the intellect of Jesus.  To Jesus, we all have insignficant I.Q.s.
> He has infinite I.Q.  The sum total of ours approaches zero in comparison.

This is most interesting, Brian. Do you have a copy of Yeshua ben Yusef's
IQ test results? If so, I know of a few million palaeographers, historians,
archaeologists and theologians who would most anxious to see it.
Or are you, pray tell, simply blabbering through your arse?
Just wondering

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20848 sci.skeptic:19370 alt.censorship:8751 alt.sex:35643
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Keywords: mindless,politically-correct,use,your,head
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:14:27 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.


Mr. Walz writes lots of nonsense in response to a post of mine indicating
that he either doesn't know how to read, orjust hasn't bothered to do so.

Since all the nonsense he says is addressed by previous posts of mine,
I just refer everybody to them.


-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:41:18 -0500 
From: Jennifer Lynn Urso <ju23+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: READ THIS

this is for all subscribers, regardless of religion and is for a concept
studio project of mine.
i would REALLY REALLY REALLY  appreciate it if as many people as
possible would participate.
you can respond directly to me.

um
these are the questions:

1) what is YOUR definition of atheism or atheists(not a dictionary definition)
and
2) what are your opinions of atheism and/or atheists.

if  you participated,
THANK YOU
I LOVE YOU
YOU ARE HELPING TO FURTHUR THE ARTS.
well, have a cool day, or night, or all nighter.
whichever.
seeya

jennifer urso:  the oh-so bitter woman of utter blahness(but cheerful
undertones)
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:49:35 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.ens.tek.com

In article <74545@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>Before I respond to the original article, let me ask you, Mr. Harvey,
>do you think Paul wrote or directed the writing of all of the NT?
>Do you think he did the same for the OT?

  I for one do not think that Paul directed the writing of ALL of the NT.

  But, there is no doubt in my mind that a large portion of the NT did come 
directly from the hand of Paul. It is because of his influence through his
written words, and the early Church's acceptance of Pauls writings as Holy 
script that I feel Paul did come to play the most important role in setting 
the stage for what the Church would accept as Holy script in the years that 
would follow.

  The text of what was accepted as Holy script and what was not, in the end,
is what defined for the Chruch it doctrines and dogmas.


        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
                                        Thomas Merton


	David Hatcher