HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "Evidence" of god
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:46:26 GMT

Scott Gibson writes:

>In that case, with a little research I could pose to you an experiment to test
>your hypothesis.  The experiment was actually performed by [Aritosthenes?],
>and involves the use of a straight stick, a ruler, a reliable timepiece, and
>the ability to travel.

Of course, to perform this experiment you need to make a LOT of assumptions
(or prove them....) if you want to prove the assrtion you want.

>I challenge you to describe an experiment similar in its simplicity
>and reliability, which serves to show that the Christian God exists.

Perhaps we should challenge YOU to demonstrate that the proton exists....

>Finally, evidence which is not reliable cannot result in judgment.  When one
>ponders a decision, one discards those pieces of evidence which cannot be
>validated, and which are not therefore reliable.

THIS is, depending upon your point of view, either patently false or
uselessly subjective.  One can and often does, in fact, make decisions on
the basis of "inadequate" or "unreliable" information.  Or if you prefer,
the standards for reliability are highly context-sensitive.  Disputes over
reliability become disputes over standards, which become disputes over
philosophical principles, which lead into religious disputes-- it's all very
circular.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "I bind unto myself today
                  +    the strong name of the Trinnity,
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +      by invocation of the same:
tove!mangoe       +        the Three in One and One in Three."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:12954 sci.physics:11948 sci.astro:8443 sci.philosophy.tech:2901
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Structure of Time (FINAL SUMMARY)
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:05:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

Please, people:

The man is obviously quite mad.  Physicists (and especially
astronomers) have to learn to deal with these folks, as they
quite often walk into a physics department to converse with
the learned about their theories.  Hopefully, his employer
won't just fire him but will try to get him some psychiatric
help.  I think rather than treating him to abuse and harsh 
words, we should try to understand with compassion
that such illnesses happen to people and the things he is
experiencing as coming from his daughter seem as real to
him as any of our experiences are to us. He is reacting to
his reality in an understandable way.  What you are seeing
is not at all uncommon and you really should appreciate the
chance to observe such a phenomenon first hand rather than
getting bent out of joint over it.  Attacking him is like
kicking a cripple.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:28:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.215656.20946@macc.wisc.edu> stmarys@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ted Babcock) writes:
>But, while a homosexual orientation by itself is not a sin (to the 
>extent that it is not under one's control), it _is_ considered a 
>physical defect, and so we may conclude that Jesus was not a 
>homosexual, either in practice or "merely" in orientation.

Having large nail holes through one's wrists is a physical defect, and it is
clear that Jesus was supposed to have had these at least once....
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:19:02 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson) writes:

>In article <1992Jul8.151514.9831@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>
>>If he just waved his hand, where would justice be?

>Where was it before?  How was having Jesus pantomime human suffering
>and death any more complicated or any less trivial than simply waving
>his hand?  Omnipotence, eh?

Jesus didn't pantomime human suffering.  As a human he suffered, died and
was resurected...no phoniness..

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:16:10 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <64770@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> [...]

> The water WITHOUT GUILT did not cause any problem, did it?  So isn't it
> a combination and not just the water?

Well, we don't know, because guilt was judged precisely by whether or not 
there was an effect. Let's just suppose for a moment that an innocent (yuck)
woman was given the potion and miscarried. She was *by* *definition* guilty,
so the whole thing is circular, and you and the clerics get to say that she
was guilty and that the guilt, not the potion, was responsible. Pure, ugly,
vicious, dark-age, superstition.

> [...]

> Or to give a precdure to let the guilt come to the surface - do you
> think the water (with the dust, I believe) actually did something to
> the women?  It didn't without her guilt.

Same comment applies.

> [...]

> No - God provided a way for one's innocence to be publically displayed.
> Today how is this done?  Is it unheard of for a man or a woman to 
> falsely accuse their spouse of unfaithfulness????????

Why did God abandon such a foolproof method?

Why is this method not available and employed today? As far as I'm
aware, even the most zealous (in terms of Torah observance and the
accompanying traditions) Jewish society does not have such a rite.

I'm afraid the whole thing sounds all too similar to "If she admits
heresy, we'll burn her at the stake. If she denies heresy, she's
lying so we'll torture her. If she confesses under torture, she's
telling the truth and we'll burn her at the stake."

> Sincerely,
> Richard Pitts

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.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Playing God (WAS Re: The C word)
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:06:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <1992Jul24.114147.23789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> 
>> There is no reference to cheeseburgers in the Bible.
>
>Dairy and meat together are not kosher.
>
>If you want Leviticus to be your guide, you can't disregard
>the bits that don't appeal to you when it's 11:30 PM, you've
>been on the road for hours, and Mickey D's is the only
>game in town, eh what?

If I want Deuteronomy (not Leviticus) to be my guide I will "not boil a kid
in its mother's milk."  Again, the Bible passage you (and the original poster)
are alluding to says absolutely nothing about cheeseburgers.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 15:23:15 GMT

torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

>   >>you will find a discussion of rhetorical fallacies in Alfred Tarsky's
>   >Tarsky's book, though.  I'll see if we have it.

>  Actually, it is Tarski. That was how this Polish logician's name was
>spelled. I have a suggestion here. Let's forget all about this God business,
>this religion business, all that kind of thing. Let us just reflect on the
>great utterance that is now and will forever be associated with Tarski:

>    "Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white

Unfortunately, knowing what "truth" is does not help us very much.
What we really want to know is "what is the truth."


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:41:38 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Jul29.153107.26021@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>Even if 50% do that still leaves 50% a survival rate of 1% less than
>average will wipe out a gene in a fairly small number of generations.

There is nothing less interesting than someone trying to argue a
point when they're ignorant of the topic.  Stay away from genetics,
Larry, you're not helping things.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs and their blood hypocrisy
Date: 20 Jul 92 17:27:58 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  Only 20 Jews were killed by the Nazis?  I think you need to qualify your
>statement a little here.

        Read, what I write. 

>  A nation?  Define nation.

	nation = group of people with same language and origin. 

>  gun?  No, but the Kurds sure have.

	They're muslim. They wouldn't be threatened, but they're separatists.

>  streets?  Yes, when I handed out pamphlets.  Were you doing this at the time? 
>If not, how did they know you were a JW?

	He had met me in door-door -work and remembered. 

>  calls?  I used to get that in Pbgh because my phone number was "Mary had a
>little lamb" on touchtone phones.  It still happens now sometimes.  How do you
>know it was because you were a JW and not just wrong numbers?  A friend of mine
>used to have a number 1 digit off from a pizza parlor.  People would hang up on
>him all hours of the night.

	Sometimes it IS, I have a number 897429 and a wino got a phone with a 
	number 897_6_429, but they missed in telecom, so they gave him my 
	number instead, as a result I received weird phonecalls at night. 

	HERE, if you pick a wrong number, it goes like this: 

	- )&(/)(%&(%&/&
	- Isn't it in )(/&&)&&/)(( ?
	- No, it isn't. 
	- I'm sorry, picked the wrong number !
	- You're welcome. 



>  Okay, here are some for you:

>  Have you ever been locked in a prison cell and starved until, in desperation
>you ate the insects on the floor?

	No. 

>  Have you ever been shot without trail?

	No.

>  Have you ever been starved to death by the government?

	Almost, but not for religious reasons.

>  Have you ever been forced to change religion by the government?

	Yes. 

>  Have you ever been beaten to death?

	No. 

>  Have you ever . . .

>  I think you get the point.  All these things are going on every day around the
>world.  Can you seriously believe your religion is the "most persecuted"?

	It is happening for Witnesses, in North Korea, in Cuba, in China.
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Jul22.052804.14349@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 	
	<1992Jul22.134214.1319@cs.joensuu.fi> 
	<1992Jul23.002829.2762@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Jul24.122537.7289@cs.joensuu.fi>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 01:55:33 GMT

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

[ about the seven kings mentioned in Revelation 7:10 vs Daniel 2:31-45
  and Daniel 7:1-27 ]
>akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>>Excuse me, but in my translation, both those passages speak about
>>*four* kingdoms, not seven.

>	Yes, the four first kindoms. Three rest are described later. 

But not in the passages you mentioned.  So where are they described?


Keith
(I know I'm going to regret asking this.  In fact, I regret it already.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:02:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In article <4609@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:

>>People read it into the Sodom story, why wouldn't they read it into
>>the Beloved Disciple story?  What you see depends in part on what you
>>want to see.

>I don't remember if the angels are specifically described as men or 
>appearing as men in this story, but they do generally appear as men.  It
>is not unreasonanble to assume that they people did not consider them to
>be angels.

All references to Angels in the Bible appear to be 'male.'  But the real
sin here is injustice and inhospitality...breaking the Noahcide covenant...
(Check out the Midrash for more details)

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:58:38 GMT
Organization: SPS


>> (Steve Adams) writes:
>> I am pro-choice.  I object to abortion on religious grounds, 
>> yet refuse to impose my religion on anyone else. 

>(Muriel Nelson) writes:
>Steve, I applaud your justification for remaining pro-choice
>despite your moral stance on abortion.


Isn't this simply saying:
"I believe this activity is wrong, but I support your right to do it"?

Would you also say:
"I am convinced that polluting is wrong, but I am pro-choice on pollution.
 I will not impose my anti-pollution morality on you." ?
(Maybe a bad example, but you get the point)

Shouldn't one support or oppose an activity based on their moral convictions?
I would think if you are truly convinced an activity is WRONG, that in all good
conscience -- you must oppose it. 


Dave Weaver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: daphne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Amy Kruse)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:43:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.180424.6522@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>> <10068@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) said:
>>>In article <84#x9g@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>><forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>><>From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
>>><>> 
>>><>> Can you list for me 10 merciful, loving,....etc.
>>>
>>>The motives are debatable, because the effect is both that people
>>>benefit from the deeds and that they are amazed by the tricks Jesus
>>>knows, and become or are reconfirmed as his followers.  Was the goal
>>>to feed the hungry/heal the ill and the side effect to impress the
>>>crowd, or was it vice versa?  Here's a difficult question.
>> 
>> Hard to believe an omnipotent being didn't realize the end results of his
>> actions.
 ******I would like to call your attention here******
Jesus knew exactly what power miracles had over people, after all he helped
create them didn't he?  Anyway..In Luke's gospel, chapter four, Satan begins
to tempt Jesus and he tempts him with the easy route to having Jesus declared
Lord by everyone.  See the fifth verse.  Satan says he will give Jesus command
over all of the nations of the earth if he would perform one miracle that
would sweep them off their feet.  This was not Jesus' mission, He could have
had everyone on his side very easily, but he prefers for us to choose the way
of God, not the ways of man and fancy miracles.

 If it was only to benefit the individual at that time and not to
>> gain converts later then I'm sure that this god could have kept these
>> "miracles" out of the bible altogether. 
>> Gordon
>In fact, he did keep most of them out.
>Suzanne.
Thanks for letting me add....Amy 

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Michigan
	<1992Jul27.174443.2701@sdf.lonestar.org>
	<LAURAF.92Jul28114123@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> <ntlt0hg@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:44:51 GMT

In article <ntlt0hg@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
   ---
   lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
   |corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
   |   Ok, Laura, but how do you know the Bible is Jehovah's Word?  Because
   |   the Watchtower told you?  Because you were raised in the "truth" (like
   |   I was)?

   |Creation is evidence enough for me.  I cannot comprehend how 
   |man could just evolve.  Humans today cannot create life or duplicate 
   |the healing process of the body.  Does all this not account for something?

   Argument by incredulity & ignorance is not persuasive argument.
   Your personal inability to comprehend something says nothing one
   way or the other about its truthfulness.  So your argument indeed 
   counts for nothing.

CJ, I was not speaking out of ignorance.  After reading about the theories of
evolution, they do NOT follow a logical, deductive, and concise pattern.

Since you have concluded my argument null.  Tell me, why cannot mankind today
duplicate the healing process of the body or conquer death?  Maybe, just maybe,
these are something God does not want revealed to mankind.  Could this be true?
Or would you rather put faith in mankind who cannot even direct his own steps?

Laura
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Predestination Mr. Adams
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:19:34 GMT


Hello Mr. Adams,

I disagree with the statement that you made to gross@rtp... .  The bible
does indeed say in many places that only the elect will become saved,
because God has foreordained it.  Other than that, many inferences to the
doctrince of predestination exist.

In order to beleive that some are predestined and some not though, you
have to believe in the sovereignty of God.  I am not convinced that you
do.  The doctrine of predestination is actually very comforting and
encouraging to the christian, because it shows unequivacally how much
Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, (three in one) love us.

Gross@rtp...  was definitely NOT way off base in that remark.  If indeed
God is sovereign, then he and he alone has the right to pick and choose
who will and who won't get into heaven.  "Should the clay then rise up to
the potter and say why hast thou made me thus? "  (paraphrase by me)  Many
times in the bible it says that some were given over to whatever sins they
were in at the time, while others were saved. (No matter where in life
they were.)

Once you can admit to God's soveriegnty, then predestination will become a
truly GREAT blessing.  Perhaps if that ever happens, you will find that
homosexuality is indeed wrong, and that all the rest of the silly things
we argue about on this net are wrong.  You might even find that liberality
is not a gift from the Lord, for the enlightening of one's mind, but an
extremely subtle trap for the weak minded.  (No flames for this please, I
already know how most of you feel)

I submit Mr. Adams, that just because you haven't accepted this blessing,
there is no reason to try and make someone else doubt it.  I'm sure you
know all the catchy little verses I would point out here from Paul's
writings. 

You are an extremely educated man Mr. Adams, and I hope that you will look
into this area intellectually as well as emotionally.  You will benefit,
I'm sure.


God Bless,
Steve


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: elwin@gamma.phys.clemson.edu (Lawrence E. Brown)
Subject: Re: Going Back in Time to Meet Jesus Christ -- What Would You See?
Reply-To: elwin@gamma.phys.clemson.edu (Lawrence E. Brown)
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:53:29 GMT


In article <1992Jul26.123447.17713@maths.tcd.ie>, pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:

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

->If you want to know what it was like, watch Monty Python's "Life of Brian".
->The original title was Life Of Jesus, but some people felt that would be
->too realistic. Always look on the bright side of life ...

>Actually, there's a very good Sf short story about package holidays
>to Jerusalem at the time of Jesus to witness his crucifiction. Can 
>anyone remember the title?

If you want a wonderful experience. Check out Moorcock's _Behold
the Man_.  Nice period piece and a fascinating exploration of
the what William James calls the will to believe.

--
Larry Brown                        "Philip K. Dick is dead, alas
elwin@gamma.phys.clemson.edu        Let's all queue up to kick God's ass"
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy      --Michael Bishop in _The Secret Ascension_
Clemson University                  

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:09:40 GMT

In article <sbuckley.712394093@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>I don't understand. HEre again, you imply that the fact that Xianity
>>has not failed to provide peace in your heart is evidence that it is
>>true. This is simply not the case.
>
>  i do not claim to provide rational, empirical proof for the authenticity
>of christianity.  it's been unsuccessfully tried for almost 2000 years.
>i cannot expect to convince anyone of the truth of christianity based on
>an appeal to rational, empirical knowledge.  if that is what it would take
>for someone to believe in jesus, i expect they never will. personal conviction
>and faith play a large part.
Yah.

>  many people in this world [eric you can decide for yourself how much you
>fit this analysis] hold rational logical proof as the only means of anything
>being relevant.  there are more things in heaven and earth than elementary
>formal logic.  [set spiel=off]
When one is deciding matters of existence, I don't see that anything
besides empiricism is relevant.

When one is discussing poetry, different rules hold entirely.

The truth of christianity is one of the former, not the latter.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.