HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:31:54 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <Bx7DKy.Hrs@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>
>>>What we need is for people to wake up and not read insults into language 
>>>where none is intended.
>>
>>That no insult is consciously intended does not mean that none is
>>present.
>
>Funny, *I* thought that insulting is what you did when you were *trying* to
>offend someone, making it possible to offend someone but only to *seem* to
>insult someone unintentially.

If we're really going to nit-pick the semantics, my dictionary (Webster's
Handy College Dictionary, (C) 1981) defines it:

insult--

v.t. cause to take offense; affront
n. an affront to self-respect


I don't see any explicit or implict requirements that any intention to offend
be involved.


-- 
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?"
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:47:34 GMT
	<1992Nov10.180835.7560@cerritos.edu>
Organization: unlikely

In article <1992Nov10.180835.7560@cerritos.edu> radams@cerritos.edu writes:
>Jesus clearly states "I and my Father are one".

I don't think that's quite how the line goes. But, if Jesus was the son of
God, why didn't he say "My Father"? How do we even know what Jesus said
since he spoke in Aramaic and we have no Aramaic record of what he said?

>We are all children of God

How do you know that we are all children of God?

>but Jesus knew his oneness with God. But he also knew himself as an 
>individualized expression of Spirit and sometimes spoke from that state.

Are you sure it wasn't Paul who later changed the official history of Jesus?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:39:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.070426.20886@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>Many others like him have gone on missions where they knew they were
>>likely to be killed by hostile natives, and they were, but they went anyway
>>because they wanted to share what God had given them.
>Did you ever wonder why the natives are hostile?  Did it ever once
>occur to you that there might be damn good reasons for them not wanting
>to have anything to do with your superstition?  Did it ever occur to
>you that they have a culture of their own, and that by preaching your
>superstition, you only destabilize and destroy it?  Are you absolutely
>positive that your superstition is better than theirs?  Do you
>know what imperialism is?

Actually, this is a bad argument.  How did those natives _get_ the religion
they started out with?

Most likely because one of their ancestors was proselytized to, or maybe
converted by force.

Most such natives' religion is no more their original culture than the
Christianity that missionaries try to replace it with is.
--
"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,talk.origins,alt.atheism
From: tycchow@athena.mit.edu (Timothy Y Chow)
Subject: Re: Should religion be eliminated?
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:27:35 GMT

robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
>Education is the key.  Teach people *how* to think, not *what* to think.

Following this statement you then list a large number of statements that
you think we should teach people to believe (i.e., Feuerbach/Freud-type
views of religion).  Are you not violating your own precept?

>Show them how such religions have impeded scientific knowledge and real
>education.

This is a good example of a statement that, if taught, would be teaching
people *what* to think.  As with any historical claim, the real story
is more complicated.  Christian natural theology, one of the favorite
targets for attacks, provided one of the major motivations for science
in the first place.  In other words, if it weren't for religion, we might
not even have science as we know it today.

Conversely, one of the most remarkable impediments to scientific progress
was the almost reverential awe in which Aristotle was held for a thousand
years.  Should we attack Aristotle for this reason?

>Show them how such religions are propogated, and show them
>that these same techniques were, and still are, used by many cults and
>other fascist movements to control large numbers of people.

Typically the methods of mind control used by cults and fascist movements
are not found in major religions.  I remember reading about a psychiatrist
who said that as soon as he isolated a brainwashed person from other cult
members he was able, with 90% success, to deprogram them with standard
psychiatric techniques.  Clearly this is not possible with the majority of
adherents to more conventional religions.

>Show people how such religions have been used to justify otherwise
>unconscionable (immoral) acts such as hatred and bigotry, and how it is
>still being used today.

Virtually anything can be used to justify immoral acts.  The theory of
natural selection, which has been used to defend social Darwinism, is IMHO
an outstanding example.

>Any religion that can survive *these* rigorous constraints deserves to
>stick around, because they obviously have a *real* value, and should
>not rightly be called a religion in the first place.

Theologians and philosophers of religion have confronted the ideas outlined
in your article but have not all agreed that they are correct.  Karl Barth,
Hans Kung, and Wolfhart Pannenberg do not, for instance, accept your theory
that man created God.  The religion that they defend is practiced by large
numbers of Christians today, falls into the category of the kind of religion
that you claim ought to be eliminated, and has survived your "rigorous
constraints."
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: SPS
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:32:38 GMT


kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>Hmm...let's see.  You imply by this that the only sort of reasonable
>expectation for praise is when it's for a trait that you *did* have
>something to do with, right?

Replace the word 'trait' with 'accomplishment' and I have implied that.

>You run into a real nasty problem here, though.  There is nothing (that
>I'm aware of, excluding pure chance) that a person does that does not, in
>some way, rely on one or more of his built-in (inherited) traits. 

Certainly. But what the gospels do praise is the diligent use of your 
inherited traits. See the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30). The 
point of this teaching is to "use what you got". 

>My problem with the "Gospels" is not that they do not praise intelligence
>itself, but rather that they implicitly discourage the use of what
>intelligence one might have.

I would have to respectfully disagree. I have seen no teaching in the 
gospels that discourages the use of the intellect. But if it's necessary,
you, Kent and Jim can cite passages and we'll end up disagreeing over 
the proper interpretation. 

Dave Weaver                | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |  gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:00:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.221332.6391@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>> >1) What is the soul?
>>Question 1 grade: 50%
>>> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
>>Question 2 grade: 95% (best yet)
>So where do you get the answers from?

Refusal to give source of answers.  Grade 0%.

There's a difference between asking someone what the soul is, and asking them,
say, what the capital of the USA is.  There is no dispute about what the
capital of the USA is, so if you ask someone, and their answer isn't
"Washington, DC", you know they got it wrong, because the question only has
one answer.

But if you ask about souls and the "purpose of human life", you are asking
about something that people _do_ dispute.  You can't grade this one wrong
because someone has an answer that's not the same as yours, because it's not
the same kind of question.  It is sheer arrogance to act as though everyone
else's answer must be wrong because they don't agree with you.  And that's
what you're doing.
--
"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: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: omnicient of God
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:42:09 GMT

In article <16896DF73.HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>I just love all this bantering about God's omnisciences.  The
>big question is:  When was it assumed that God was this way.
> 
>All you big time scholars can whack at this--but IMHO, it wasn't
>until the rise of Greek philosophy.  When in the OT does it
>say He knows absolutely every thing.
> 


 Oh, no, no.  As Glenn Clapp pointed out there are many OT scripture
 of God having all knowledge of what is in a man's heart.

 There is one (count'em one) "scripture" in Psalams which declares that
 it the entire testamony of the OT that God knows everthing about anything
 (see Psalm 147:5)

 You are correct, the concern about God's omnicience is _not_ based
 on scriptural or christian concerns, except to refute the greek
 philosophical claims.  As near as _anyone_ can tell, there has been
 anyone in scripture, who has _that_ as his concern. [Well, there
 was one antti-christ... ]


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:36:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.165656.1525@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>
>ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>
>>So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in
>>praise of intelligence.
>>                -- Bertrand Russell
>
>Why would you expect there to be?
>Intelligence is an inherited trait.  

Right.

>I don't see how you can reasonably 
>take any credit or accept any praise for yours. Expecting praise for
>a characteristic you had nothing to do with is rather arrogant. 

Hmm...let's see.  You imply by this that the only sort of reasonable
expectation for praise is when it's for a trait that you *did* have
something to do with, right?

You run into a real nasty problem here, though.  There is nothing (that
I'm aware of, excluding pure chance) that a person does that does not, in
some way, rely on one or more of his built-in (inherited) traits.  While
inherited traits cannot necessarily account for the entirety of a person's
success, I know of no case (aside from pure chance) where they are entirely
uninvolved.

Knowledge is an example.  Its accmulation requires intelligence.  Is it
then appropriate to praise someone for their great knowledge when they
would not have that knowledge were it not for their intelligence?

My problem with the "Gospels" is not that they do not praise intelligence
itself, but rather that they implicitly discourage the use of what
intelligence one might have.

>Dave Weaver                | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
>weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |  gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:42:48 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

In article <parsons.720992073@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
>
>Someone else writes:
>>>...(I) might agree to organized prayer in a school is if it were done, 
>>>say, at the end of the school day, so children who don't want to
>>>participate could just leave instead.
>
>>This has certain advantages.  It would not be done on school time.
>>Presumably, no teacher would be required to lead an after-school
>>prayer.  (Even though a major concern is the rights of the students,
>>we must remember that teachers have rights too.)  Teachers of any
>>religion could invite students of that religion (and those of other
>>religions who are curious) to stay for an after-school prayer.  This
>>can be done now without any new legislation.  I don't know if this
>>would be considered an establishment of religion or not.
>
>>I predict that the usual suspects will oppose this idea.
>
>After hours use of public school facilities by religious organizations
>or for religious purposes is in dispute in a few areas of this country.
>A church group in (forgot the state) wanted to use their local high 
>school auditorium after hours to show a video on teenagers and sex 
>emphasizing abstinance, that was produced by a religious oriented 
>organization.  The district denied their request to use the facility
>citing separation of church and state.  A suit followed; I believe
>it is still pending.
>
>Most districts, I think, are quite willing to rent out or allow the
>use of the facility during non-school time.  It is done now without
>legislation, but standards differ from community to community. 
>Which is fine; after all, it is a community decision.  However, 
>there are some people who don't want any religious activity on any 
>state property for any reason at any time. 
> 
A while back I am told there was a Supreme Court decision that made it
legal to use schools for a gathering place of religous groups when school
is not in session.  This decision is in theory still active.  I don't know
if the schools are allowed to charge rent or not charge rent, but the 
legality of it actually occuring shouldn't be all that surprising.  How
often do you see meeting houses?  These are frequently used as a local
church, but they are actually part of the local government (at least
all the ones I have seen.)  Besides, as long as the school allows any and
all organizations equal access on some set down system, the school is
not violating the first amendment.  Remember, the first amendment simply
forbids the government recognizing one religion over another, or denying
a person the right to recognize their own religion.  If every organization
is given equal access, then no religion is recognized over another.
:)M^2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rcribb@alfred.carleton.ca (Robert cribb)
Subject: Mormonism
Keywords: Mormon, conversion, defection, committment 
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:19:01 GMT

Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada) graduate student in journalism
doing thesis on the basis of acceptance or rejection of the Mormon
message and its impact on individuals and society.
Anyone willing to speak on-the-record about their experiences with
Mormonism -- reasons for joining, leaving, remaining faithful, losing
faith, etc, and/or the impact of the Mormon message on your life,
please contact me (Robb Cribb) through e-mail.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:55:40 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-061192225316@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
|In article <73890@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|Pitts) wrote:
|> Kent, I thought I made it clear - it is not a time for a
|> pray session lead by some leader, although it can be, but it
|> is a time of pray.  If one wants a leader within one's faith
|> to lead those of that faith, then that's fine.  It is not
|> promoted that we are forcing everyone to pray with one person
|> or even in group pray, but individual prayer.
|> 
|> I think you are assuming it is group lead prayer - not I.
|
|So you would not mind if a Satanist cult priest attended the school
|yard and asked interested parties to join in for an officially
|sanctioned prayer, right? There's a reason I'm very sore about this,
|I will soon put my son in pre-school, and I don't want anything like
|this to happen...

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.

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. 

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Dawkins' 1992 Voltaire Lecture (was: Should religion be eliminated?)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:00:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.200201.29934@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>
> On Friday (6 November) I attended the 1992 Voltaire Lecture in London,
> given by Dr. Richard Dawkins and entitled `Religions as Viruses of the
> Mind'. The full text of the lecture is published, and it's too long to
> type in without a scanner even if it were legal w.r.t. copyright (I don't
> know whether it is because I don't have my copy here), but I will post
> the bibliographic details if anyone's interested.

It seems that people are indeed interested. The pamphlet containing
[something resembling] the talk given by Dawkins is entitled (omitting
the `Religions as' of the lecture title)

		_Viruses of the Mind_

and is published on behalf of the Voltaire Trust by:

		British Humanist Association
		14 Lamb's Conduit Passage
		London WC1R 4RH, UK

		Price: two pounds

		ISBN 0 901825 18 7

It seems that Dawkins' talk will form a chapter in a book to be published
next May. To quote from the pamphlet:

	This publication of _Viruses of the Mind_ is a pre-print of a
	chapter in _Dennett And His Critics; Demystifying Mind_ (edited
	by Dr. Bo Dahbom) to be published by Basil Blackwell, May 1993.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven (Handmaid's Tale)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:32:45 GMT

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?
>>
>
>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.
>

 Since the description of the Christian sect in the book, is very
 loosly described, it can not be a perfect match for any of the 
 current sects.

 It would have to be a Fundametalist hard right-wing Group, who hate
 women, love power for power's sake, and feel that they are America's
 only hope. Since by definition, this excludes all real Christians,
 even (fundamentalist Christians), then calling the world of that
 book a Christian realization of the "perfect world" is a bit far-fetched.

 And yes, I could concieve of a gem of a thought where some fundamentalist
 might actually exert/develop sufficent faith unto salvation. There might
 be a few of them saved as Christians..

-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21019 sci.skeptic:19521 alt.censorship:8797 alt.sex:36072