HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: Christians at Work in Oregon
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 4 Sep 1992 22:14:23 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <adams.715654881@spssig>,
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

><SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>>Let's hear it for Jesus: Sig heil!  Sig heil!  Sig heil!
>
>1. This is unfair...tarring all Christians with this.  Some of us
>   reject entirely the ideas that these groups in Oregon have.

I have come to have as much faith in the "good" Christians as the
Jews learned to have for the "good" Germans.

When your voices are heard in the same numbers, or greater, as those
of the fundagelical fascists I will be convinced.  The hallmark of
mainstream Christians in the face of the Christian ultras is cowed
silence and inaction for the most part.

It is non-Christians and the non-religious who are doing the work
of saving freedom from your co-religionists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jack Carroll      "We would all be Christians were it not for the
<SECBH@CUNYVM>        the Christians."
                                                         Gandhi
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15726 alt.atheism:16600
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:45:51 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
> Having said that, I'd like to point out that there was one thing in
> Eric's article that didn't sound quite right to me.  He said that there
> was enough food to feed everybody if we all went on a grain diet.  He
> also said that there is enough to feed 3.2 billion the diet of an
> average American.  That means that there is only a factor of about
> two improvement from eating grain to feeding the grain to cows and
> then eating hamburgers.  That sounds quite low to me.

Yeah.  Not to mention the fact that the average American diet has far too
much fat, protein and carbohydrate.  I'd have thought the improvement would
be at least a factor of ten or so.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Subject: dawkins/_the selfish
Reply-To: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: talk
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:48:15 EST


In <1992Aug21.144047.29629@anasaz>, scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson) writes:
>I don't care how you're using the term "microevolution", at least not
>for the moment.  I'm a lot more interested in what you mean by "kind".
>I'll bet you can't produce a logically consistent definition of what
>you mean when you say it.  Using undefined terms in argument undermines
>the argument.

You're right, it's an interesting thing to define.  I was asked this by
several people in email already, and here's one possibility I threw
together without too much thought (so I reserve the right to revise or
revoke it without warning the minute I see it's not accurate!):  :-)

    In the complete graph (forest) where each point is a specific
    species and each directed edge joins two species which can mate in
    the given direction (male-female) to produce live offspring, each
    connected tree is a "kind".

I've phrased it in math terms; if I should give definitions let me know.
Again, be warned that this is an attempt, not a rigorous claim (at least,
not at this point!).  :-)

Thanks again for the feedback.  Take care,

Herb

.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Handyman's Guide to Science:                                                |
|     1. If it stinks, it's chemistry.                                        |
|     2. If it's green or it wiggles, it's biology.                           |
|     3. If it doesn't work, it's physics.                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|UUCP:canrem!herb.sutter INTERNET:herb.sutter@canrem.com COMPUSERVE:70312,1233|
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

:DeLuxe2 1.12 #9091 * File not found.  Should I fake it? (Y/N)
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario, Canadas
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Seeing The Light in Bosnia
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:28:18 GMT

lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
:[...]
:
:    My problem with C vs M is that religion has very little to do with the
: conflict. It is Serb vs Croat, Facism vs Freedom. News reports last night
: (3/9/92) showed some "Christian" Serbs fighting for the "Muslim" Croats. What
: we have (from what I can see) is just another despot using religion/nationalism
: to uphold his own meglomania.
: 
:[...]
: 
:   Throughout the centuries, that particular area of Europe (and indeed most
: parts of Europe) have been fighting one another using religion and any other
: excuse to justify their own evil desires. One man's desire vs another's.

Maybe if these people could think for themselves instead of being
raised to let their religions think for them, this kind of horror
could be avoided?

:   Shoot me down in flames of fire if I am wrong (I am sure that if my thoughts
: are flawed I will be told!!) but don't generalise just because somebody comes
: from a particular ethnic/racial group.

I agree that these things happen for political reasons.  Religion
shares the blame though, because it creates a mindset that allows 
it to happen.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.skeptic
From: wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Think of that
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:18:27 GMT
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA

In article <1992Aug31.155444.18537@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) writes:

>	To a smart person simple things are too complicated. 

	To a dumb person complicated things are too simple. 

darin
wilkins@scubed.scubed.com
-------
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.
But that's the way to bet.
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Keywords: blasphemy
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:46:25 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes a blanket condemnation
of liberal Christians as not believing in a personal God, nor in life
after death.

I admit that I have run into the kind of pastors he reported meeting
at the Univ. of Chicago.  Oddly enough, my experience was also with
Methodists.  However, I regularly attend the Presbytery of New
Brunswick.  For various reasons based on Presbyterian polity, we hear
confessions of faith from many of the incoming faculty of the
Princeton Seminary.  I believe this is typical of liberal seminaries.
These folks are far more orthodox than I would have expected.  All
believe that God is personal and active in the world.  The most
detailed conversation I have had on the Resurrection was with a
faculty member of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (another liberal
Presbyterian institution).  I asked him what he thought about the
historical truth of the resurrection.  He said that when he was a
pastor, his first funeral sermon was a rather difficult event.  After
that, he made it his business to read every piece of scholarship he
could find on the subject, to see whether what we customarily tell
grieving relatives is really credible.  His conclusion was that it was
something he could accept as certain.

One of the problems with theology is that it is much easier to see the
mote in someone else's eye than the beam in our own.  Yes, there are
liberal theologians who have gone off the deep end.  There are also
many whose faith in Christ is clear.  Similarly, there are
conservative Christians whose legalism and close-mindedness make a
mockery of Christianity.  But there are also many conservative
Christians who are fine examples of loving, Christ-like people.  As I
try to keep my liberal colleagues from stereotypeing conservative
Christians, I would ask you to refrain from fanning the flames of
conservative paranoia about more liberal Christians.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: I know!  I know!
Organization: University of Alaska
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:42:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.223329.22554@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Sep1.222830.20839@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>>brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>>
>>  >P.S.   What do Satan, Eve and Shirley MacLaine have in common?
>>
>>All of them are mythical characters!!
>>
>>Do I win a prize for providing the first correct answer???
>>
>>darin
>>wilkins@scubed.scubed.com
> 
>     Buzzzzzz.  Wrongo!  I saw Shirley MacLaine dance at John Ascuagua's
> Nugget in Reno (and she's pretty good too!)  As a consulation prize
> for trying, you win a trip to Convergence 3.1415.. .  Wanna try again? 
> Anyone else wanna try?  

You were deceived, for Shirley herself said, "Many will dance in
my name, and say they are Shirley, and will deceive many..."

> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Brian Ceccarelli
> brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
> Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ  85721
> (602) 621-9615
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------


Don
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:06:43 GMT

In article <ksand-140992225609@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Well, I don't agree! If we take the concept 'this generation', it's
>either the one he spoke to, or the one we have today. I don't see
>any other rational explanations,  unless the translation of 'Tthis
>generation' from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English have somehow
>distorted Jesus' words.

How about the idea that since everyone has an immortal soul, the generation he
spoke to back then is still around, so the generation cannot be said to have
passed?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:59:51 GMT

In article <adams.716588518@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>That is EXACTLY the point.  You have to believe...at least that is the
>orthodox position.  The one thing that you can do is trust God and believe
>in Him.  By doing this simple thing, then you gain salvation.  That's it.
>Of course, you don't see it as simple.

But why do we have to believe?  God could have made a world with different
rules for salvation, one where to be saved I would not have to believe in
anything.  Why didn't he?

>At this moment in time, and in your present state, you cannot believe.
>That does not imply that you will NEVER believe...And as for going to hell,
>it isn't for me to say if that's the end result if you live a good life
>even though you are an unbeliever...I suspect that quite a few Christians
>will be surprised at just who does and who doesn't make it into heaven...

It is true that you don't say you _know_ whether or not I will be saved.
On the other hand, you (apparently) do think someone who doesn't believe has a
worse _chance_ of going to heaven than someone who does.  This raises exactly
the same problem, rephrased in terms of chance: If I don't believe, it's less
_likely_ I will stay out of Hell.

>>There are also lots of secondary consequences...
>All well and good.  But while the need to be saved does produce
>proselytizing, neither the need nor the proselytizing requires any of the
>negatives you've listed...

It may not be that Christianity demands those negatives.  But it does
create an environment where they are more likely to occur.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:29:56 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

(Graham Matthews) writes:

>(Mark Christiansen) writes:
>>I disagree with your requirement on theism.  I find science to be an
>>understanding of what God does.  An active search for knowledge is
>>required to understand God and part of that search should include a
>>search for knowledge about the Universe.  Through such a search, we
>>can better understand God.

>And what do you do when science raises more questions about your God
>than it answers Mark?  Consider evolution for example.  Now science
>espouses evolution. You may consider that evolution as an explanation
>of God's work, but in fact accepting evolution like this raises more
>questions that it answers. eg: why did god bother with evolution?

Does God have a choice?  Science espouses natural selection, not
evolution.  Natural selection may be THE way of creation and a big
bang may be THE way of creating a universe.

Mark
-- 
   When I examined myself and my methods of thought I came to the
conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my
talent for absorbing positive knowledge.
   -- Albert Einstein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 23:45:56 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) wrote (in article <68149@hydra.gatech.EDU>):
>In article <1992Sep14.161647.7312@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>>I did it myself.  I'm God.  Didn't you know that?  If you don't agree, I
>>extend to you the same challenge as last year: prove I'm not.
>
>Make the pencil on my office table write your name on the yellow pad
>on top of my printer.  The pad is blank and the pencil is sharp and has 
>an eraser, in case you make a mistake.  You are claiming to be an all
>powerful god, aren't you?

Maybe he doesn't want to; maybe you've gotten on his bad side, or
maybe he'd rather not waste time with trivial physical stuff.  Maybe
you won't be able to experience the full magnificence of his godhood
until you *believe* in him and put your faith above what your eyes
tell you.

Or maybe he's not really a god.

By the way, what was your Christian God's handwriting like when He
wrote His name "YHWH" on that pad?  ;)

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:34:27 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Sep8.195107.8340@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|In article <67831@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|}In article <1992Sep8.172736.1879@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|}>
|}>Bad news.  The end of the world came and went.  NONE of you are worthy!
|}
|}Regardless of whether anyone of us is worthy or not, we would all know it, as
|}Jesus described in the following passage:
|}...
|}   Mat 24:27   For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in
|}      the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
|...
|And you MISSED it!!!!

No.  You didn't read verse 27 very close or so it seems.

    Mat 24:27   For as lightning that comes from the east IS VISIBLE even in
       the west, SO WILL BE the coming of the Son of Man.

It will be visible, just as the lightning is.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: danoc@xtrek.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 10 Sep 1992 19:46:56 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: xtrek

(Paul Harvey) erroneously claims:

 In article <lasfhjINN1mv@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
 danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
 > The sacrifice was that Jesus gave up His deity, assumed the form of a
 > man, lived the life of a man (except without sin), and then gave up what
 > he had -- his life -- in order to offer what was required to redeem man.
 
 Hmm, except without sin? Now this word sin, is that to do evil things like
 murder or is that the separation from the transcendent into the physical
 world of human flesh? Did Jesus have knowledge of good and bad? Was Jesus
 born of woman, through the birth canal, separated at birth? Why is it that
 Adam and Eve were of sin once they ate the fruit of knowledge of good
 and bad and Jesus is without sin? Of course, this is one of the big "problems"
 in Christianity, how to have someone who is both God (transcendent) and
 human (of the flesh) at the same time. Islam solves it by saying that Jesus
 was a mortal prophet. Most other religions solve it by having personifications
 of deity or demi-gods, these are the transcendent taking the form of human
 flesh which results in various human limitations.

Interesting questions, Paul, but I didn't write what you have
attributed to me (this of course won't stop me from offering
an opinion :)

However, even within the christian construct, I wouldn't
think Jesus would "give up" his deity. I think it clear that
according to christian theology, the logos became flesh, i.e.,
Jesus was one of its manifestations, and that Jesus was of
the same essence as god.

Dano
From: dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Date: 7 Sep 92 05:04:49 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <gate.876NqB1w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us> kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) writes:
>Everyone serves someone. God serves His devotees by reciprocating with
>them in loving relationships. God also serves those who don't like Him:
>even atheists depend on God to maintain the universal stability so that
>they can pursue their impossible dream of independence from Him.
>Atheists also serve others, if only to earn a living.
>Nobody anywhere in existence is exempt from servitude. Service is the
>eternal function of all living beings.

	Wrong.

	I am an artist.  I paint what I like.  If people want to pay me for 
something I made, I sometimes let them.
	I constantly avoid allowing things as mundane as my biological functions
to force me to do anything.  I refuse servitude.  All my life I have been my own
person, and do not bow down to anyone or anything.  I am master of all I am.
	I serve no one.  I do not serve the christian concept of god, and it does
not serve me.  I do not love the christian concept of god, and it does not exist,
so it does not love me.  The concept of god serves its devotees by giving them
something to believe in.  This indicates that they have not judged themselves to
be worthy of refusal of servitude, and have chosen that fate.  So be it.  The
universe does not likely need any divine being to keep it stable or running.  The
idea that some intelligence could just decide "I give up" and suddenly 2+2 would not
equal four (in our common numeric system) is absurd and not too likeable.  If
a independence from a god-concept is a dream, then it is a dream come true.  
Atheists do not dream of independence from any god, they merely do not believe in
any god.  That is independence from a concept, and god is a concept, so they have 
already attained that which you accuse them of aspiring to.  I do not serve others,
and I make a living.  I make this living off the byproduct of my pastime, which I 
would do whether it made me a living or not.  The pastime is steeping myself in 
the mental state of art, the byproduct is pretty pictures.  I do not subscribe to
a god-concept, so I guess that would make me an atheist.  I do not serve anyone.
Your statement was too broad and sweeping to be true.  I am exempt from servitude.
Freedom is the eternal function of all living things.

						D
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:36:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <67813@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-040992185731@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Isn't it weird that a non-Christian is using Jesus' words against
> >a Christian???
 
> No, it is not weird - it is expected.  Satan used Scripture with Jesus and
> Jesus responded with an it-is-written response, himself.  I again say that 
> you, Kent, need to read the whole passage and see that God can save the 
> rich man, but man (rich or not) cannot save himself by works.

Then I would suggest that instead of paraphrasing your statement
that God can save rich men, let me know in what part of the scriptures
Jesus clearly says this. I think this would solve the dilemma
immediately, or what. Then you would also use the rules Jesus
and Satan had during their mountain fight.

Cheers,
Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:40:21 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Richard Pitts (rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Sep14.161647.7312@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
: >
: >I did it myself.  I'm God.  Didn't you know that?  If you don't agree, I
: >extend to you the same challenge as last year: prove I'm not.
: 
: Make the pencil on my office table write your name on the yellow pad
: on top of my printer.  The pad is blank and the pencil is sharp and has 
: an eraser, in case you make a mistake.  You are claiming to be an all
: powerful god, aren't you?

Good one. I tried it with Allah... nope Allah ain't God. Yahweh? No joy...
Da Free John? Strike three...

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart