HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:49:31 GMT

In article <92315.103940RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>In response to Richard Pitts...
>
>        [Pitts'] statements concerning Jesus's claim of Godhood...are based on
>        the New Testament books - all of which are PSEUDOPIGRAPHIC (I have
>        provided, in a separate reply, the references to this proven theory).
                                                               ^^^^^^?????
>        As such, the statements which are attributed to Jesus simply
>        may not be true. Biblical scholars all agree that none of the gospels
                                            ^^^???
>        were written by actual disciples (not even Matthew's and John's), and
>        they were ALL written after the failed Revolt of 66-70 c.e...
                   ^^^?                                   ^^^^^???
         [Rest of story deleted due to its failure of a standard BS test.]

It's too bad for this so-called *proven* theory that fragments of a copy
of the Gospel of Mark have been dated *by scientific methods* as having
been *copied* in *50* a.d.  In other words, the thing was well in
circulation by that time period.  These fragments are in the custody
of Professor Jose O'Callaghan at the Pontifical Biblical Institute
in Rome.  You can go date the fragments yourself.

The existence of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria, Egypt
(founded by John Mark himself well before 60 a.d.) is something 
else you may want to address.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:28:12 GMT
	<73872@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Organization: so swingtime is one up the vo-chords run amuck

In article <73872@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>At least your point wouldn't be weaked, if you made some coherent
>statements - it may not be strengthened, but at least it would seem 
>better.

Who said I had a point? It was you with the point and I only helped you
refine it which you did quite well, IMNSHO. Just here to assist your plank
walking, that's all. It's not just a job, it's an adventure.  ::B^}
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:53:41 GMT
Organization: teacher needs to go back to school! Follow me and be FREE!

In article <yacRTB5w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> >1) What is the soul?
>> James Brown
>Question 1 grade: 0% (joking to cover up ignorance)

That was not a JOKE! Teacher grade: F (no funk)
ta-ta-da! ta-ta-da! ta-ta-da-ta-da-ta-da (funky drummer(Shiva))

>> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
>> Dharma. (Do the right "Spike Lee" thing)
>Question 2 grade: 10% ("Dharma" not the purpose of human life, but this
>answer slightly more serious than first)

Teacher should read or reread Mahabharata. Teacher grade: F (never seen "Do the
Right Thing")

>Overall grade: 5%. Try again!

Teacher grade: F (Nuff said!)

>       -------------------------------------------------------
>      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
>      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
>      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
>      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
>      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
>      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
>       -------------------------------------------------------

And what is true hypocrisy?
The setting up of religious standards for others is true hypocrisy.
Yudhishthira at the Lake of unquenchable thirst, Mahabharata (Hinduism).

Next class: Ska beat! (in the trunk beatin' down the block!)
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:02:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia


brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) says:

>From Jesus's perspective, more times than not, the intellect
>only serves as an inhibitor from entering God's Kingdom.  Not
>because intellect is bad in itself, but it usually breeds
>pride and ego.  Pride and ego yield the I-can-do-it-myself
>attitude.

Do what, exactly?

>From there, the next step is the I-don't-need-God attitude. 

That sword cuts both ways, and I hope you have a few Band-Aids handy:
You're so cock-sure that the god of the Bible exists (though you
can't even demonstrate his existence) that the very notions of doubt
and disbelief are seriously offensive to your ego, because it has a
tremendous amount invested in the objective decorousness of your
belief. Out of pride in your infallible wisdom and knowledge
regarding this, you cannot possibly allow that people come to their
disbelief through sincere questioning, thinking and feeling, and not
out of spite or defiance toward a being whose existence is not at all
apparent. Your implicit proclamation that everyone needs your (idea
of) god is further evidence of haughty pseudo-piety. Check the
bathroom mirror before you begin lecturing on pride and ego. You've
stepped into the you-need-God-whether-you-believe-it-or-not
attitude.     

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:08:39 GMT

Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <adams.720912880@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) says:
>>[...]

[ I deleted the stuff that you or I didn't write]

>>I object to quotas totally.  I object to preferential hiring.  The highest
>>quality, most experienced person should get the job, irrespective of their
>>race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.  The government must defend minorities
>>from discrimination in the areas of work, housing, etc, until the last
>>vestiges of discrimination are eliminated.
>
>Steve - I totally agree with your position about quota laws, etc.  But
>non-discrimination "clauses" are not AA or quota laws.  Non-disc. laws
>are an attempt to give people some legal recourse if they feel they've
>been unjustly denied a job/housing, etc.  An example of such a non-disc
>statement is Penn State's:

[Penn State's statement deleted]

>Now, the University is required to deal with AA policies because of federal
>law.

Unfortunately, courts have generally held that statistical discrepencies
are enough evidence to bring suit, if not win.  So if by some pure chance,
only 2% of an incomming class were black (for example) when there were a
proportionate (to the population) number of applicants, a presumption of
discrimination would likely be found, and the University forced to prove
they didn't discriminate.  This is backwards....basically, if someone feels
discriminated against, they should have to prove the discrimination...and
that's not always the case.

>>BTW, it could be worse.  You could be a straight, white, Christian male.
>>Like me.
>
>Using the above non-disc policy - you're well covered.  As a matter of
>fact, all four "personal aspects" you list are directly covered in the
>above policy.  Until recently "sexual orientation" was not included
>in the above policy.
I'd say I wasn't covered unless I had the same legal recourse as a
minority.  Generally, if there is a statistical aberation that reduces
minority participation, that is a good basis for a lawsuit.  Not generally
so for the reverse.

>A final thought - (not directed just to you, Steve) the push to add
>"sexual orientation" to non-disc policies covers gay, bi, and straight
>people.  I don't see any "special status" in such a policy.
It's not the policy, it's the enforcement....

And I have no problem with the policies...it's the court system and
government that are causing some of the problems...some balance has to be
found between total discrimination and reverse discrimination...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20444 sci.skeptic:19026
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:00:45 EST

In article <1992Nov5.023048.5761@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> In article <1992Nov3.073320.26308@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.042950.26051@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>Perhaps, if you're interested in judging
>>>Christianity not by what it's Founder said and did but by what
>>>it's followers did throughout the ages, ...
>>But all he is doing is looking at the fruits of your religion!  Isn't it
>>written that you should be judged by your fruits and not by what your founder
>>said?
> I believe that given any religion, there will always be cases of
> people who will distort it, sometimes with good intentions,
> thereby twisting the religion's meaning for their own purpose.
> There is no religion or secular organization that is immume from
> this because it is a very *human* trait.  If someone claims to
> belong to a XYZ religion, and then espouses beliefs that are
> contrary to that religion, surely you would not blame that
> religion for that person's beliefs and actions. 

Since each religion must be interpreted, who is to judge?  Is it the religion
or the person that is distorted?

> One must be very
> careful when judging a religion to separate the human members of
> the religion from the religion itself.  If the founder of the
> religion has led an exemplary life above criticism, then their
> fruit (the religion) can be judged on its own merit.  If the
> founder's ideas and philosophy are above reproach, then again the
> fruit can be judged on it's own merit.  However, if followers of
> the religion (even in high places) in that religion do not follow
> the founder but veer away for their own agenda, then their fruit
> can be seen.  However, I suggest that their fruit is not the
> religion itself, but merely their own behaviour. 

I believe that your suggestion is wron, because it is nonfalsifiable, which
might be the case in any set of circumstances.  The way I read the above
paragraph is: if the founder is great, I win; if the religion is great, I win;
if the followers veer away, I win again. All because the answer must fit *my*
(read your) criteria for a good religion.  Non-falsifiable.  You pose no
criteria which anyone else can use that is other than subjective.  BTW, this is
not a flame.  

GXKambic
sd
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Now that the Anti-Mormon Issues are Subsiding
Date: 6 Nov 1992 21:25:49 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual




Now that the anti-Mormon flare is subsiding, here is some food for thought 
for all of us.

2 Peter 1:5-11 
==============
"And beside this, giving all dilligence, add to your faith virtue;
and to virtue knowledge; and to the knowledge temperance; and to 
temperence patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness
brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For these be 
in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor
unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that 
lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath 
forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

Romans 2:6-10
=============
"Who (speaking of God) will render to every man according to his deeds:"

"To them who by patiet continuance in well doing seek glory and honour and 
immortality, eternal life:"

"but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey 
unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,"

"Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew 
first, and also of the Gentile:"

"But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first,
and also of the Gentile:"

"For there is no respect of persons with God."

	Note: Words in apprentices are mine.

3 Nephi 29
==========
"For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is
not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and stirreth
up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another."

May be in "heaven" there will be a place where we can exchange ideas and 
beliefs without running down each other's beliefs. The place where we will have
people who are interested in truth, and will have an open mind, and where the
end won't justify the means. 

I came to the conclusion that the talk.religion.misc is not The place in 
"heaven" :>). I know, I am not realistic, but I won't give up on hope 
(I am an eternal optimist).

With brotherly love,

		Frank
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:30:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov10.002304.20579@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
lungtt@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) wrote:
> 
> >|I agree that a meaningfule universal religion would be understandable
> >|for someone in Borneo as well. This is the reason I don't know why
> >|Christianity needs usually 4-10 years of intensive training 
> >|(speaking about my Lutheran background).
> Correction.  That is probably that specific *Lutheranism* that
> needs usually 4-10 years of intensive training.  i.e.  Lutheranism
> is neither necessary or sufficient for being Christian.

So I then wonder why we have in most Christian countries the need
to teach children since their first day in school about Christian
doctrines... Note that this is not the case in USA, and it also
clearly shows that one could become a Christian without the need
of public schools providing teaching. In other words aren't we
really dealing with official religious PR instead of something that's
needed?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:46:27 GMT

In article <Bx8MvG.MIr@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>I think you mean P(A given B) and P(B given A): "the probability that a
>given child molester is queer" and "that a given queer person is a
>child molester".  You have to posit a very small number of queers
>before Clayton's assertion makes any sense.

No you don't.  Imagine a society with 10% gays but one child molester who by
chance happens to be gay.  The first probability is 100% and the second is
negligibly small, and you can replace the 10% with anything you want and get
the same answer.  The assertion also works if only the number of molesters is
small.
--
"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: news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson)
Subject: Jeff H -- still can't get through
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:21:48 GMT


        Jeff ... if you're out there (which I know you are), I still can't
    get through to you via e-mail, although I tried several variations of
    the paths you sent me.

        Do mind posting a reply here in t.r.m?  I may be able to get a
    pathname to you directly from here.  If you don't want to post, send me
    e-mail again.

                                                                -mark.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:52:24 GMT
	<1992Nov4.153355.17391@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: similac child, running wild

In article <1992Nov4.153355.17391@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <Bx60Br.IGI@inews.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.154840.5290@cs.yale.edu> 
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>"Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son..."
>>>and notes that the Gk. Says "parthenos" which is virgin.
>>The Greek says "parthenos"? A Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures? I
>>wonder what that could be?  :::B^}
>What's your problem, Paul? Should the NRSV not mention the LXX at all?
>It translated the passage correctly, but footnoted what the LXX says.
>Do you have a problem with that?

No, JPS does the same thing. But, it should be clear where the translation
"virgin" comes from. As I've said, "based" on KJV which was "based" on the
Septuagint. Some may prefer to call it "tradition" instead. Note this
particular "error" is significant, since by standard Christian dogma it
prophesizes the coming of Jesus. However as you can see, this does not
come from the Hebrew scriptures. Clearly the translation, "virgin" is
based on something else.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:24:40 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov4.185417.17061@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>	Amoung other things false prophets declare false doctrine, teach
>>	specific dates for the second comming of christ, gee what _other_
>>	things has the watchman on the tower cried wolf about...
>
>	The other things include that they kill, murder, worship idols ...
>>  Gee, after your little foray into talk.origins, did you convince
>>  anybody that you even knew what the questions were. You -did- proclaim
>>  your self, an expert on micro-biology.  Is it your premise, that you
>>  know as much about the religion and practise of the Wittness's of 
>>  Jehovah as you do about any part of Biology?
>
>	I didn't proclaim to be an expert in microbiology, just said that I'm a
>	biologist. And tell me, Kermit, WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT I AM ? Tell 
>	it to me ! Are you a biologist ? If not, then shut up and listen. Are 
>	you a JW ? I think not. Then who are you to tell me who Witnesses are ?
>	Get real, man, if you want to maintain your credibility. 
>-- 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
>	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !


Crediblity?  Kermit?  Man where have you been, he lost that _long_ ago.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20809 sci.skeptic:19310 alt.censorship:8733 alt.sex:35558
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 10 Nov 92 12:11:51 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Nov5.222949.17885@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <Bx77ty.J0q@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu
>(Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>  Once you know that I
>>find your words troublesome, and you continue to use them, you are
>>insulting me with malice aforethought.
>
>When you tell me that you want me to change the language that I speak,
>my decision not to do so may be based on the fact that someone I care
>a lot about wants me to speak the way I do.
>
>Do you consider it insulting that there are people I care more about
>than you?
>
>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
-----------------
Tim Pierce is a young PC-asshole who takes umbrage when anyone
disagrees with him, just tell him to fuck off, that's all he deserves
for that one. You needn't be polite to him, he's beyond that, far.
- Steve Walz

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Lines: 91
From: jeffh@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jeffrey Hopkins)
Subject: Jeff H to Mark S -- posting problems
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:24:07 GMT

Mark:

	I have posted two follow-ups to your posting, but my server sent me
mail saying that the follow-up did not work.  I can see them posted when I
read news, but that may be only locally, not to the whole world.  I do not know
if the server will complain about not being to post this post.  Below is what
I wrote in my follow-ups:


I am sorry about the inconvenience and trouble that you have been having
getting through to me.  Hopefully, the path from this posting will work.  If
you still can not get through to me and your reply is appropriate for posting,
you may want to consider posting it.  Do what you think is best.

                                Jeffrey
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: True Gay Christians
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<73136@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1992Oct30.153527.23351@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:10:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct30.153527.23351@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

   In article <73136@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

   >In article <1992Oct28.005606.18408@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
   >If you haven't seen my post on sexual wisdom, I'll send it to you.
   >It addresses the OVER ALL theme of Scripture as it speaks to 
   >sexual conduct.  It calls for those who call themselves Christian
   >to live above DISPUTES OVER WORDS and live a life worthy of the
   >calling we have been given, as the Bible calls for the same thing.
   >The Scriptural theme is life-long, hetrosexual, monogamous relationships.

   Come now, Richard. The Bible IS words. Disputes over what it says
   are thus naturally disputes over words. How can they be anything
   else? Looks to me like you're just refusing to address the issue
   which is that nowhere in the Bible does it really say clearly
   that being gay is wrong. It does, however, say that you should
   be stoned when you don't obey your parents. Funny thing, that.
   -Ekr

Disputes over what the Bible says are disputes over semantics.  It's a
funny thing that two people can say the same thing, but have totally
opposite meanings.  Or, they can use totally different words, but mean
the exact same thing.  To me, the Bible seems simpler than two people talking;
it says the same thing (meaning) throughout.  From what I get out of
the Bibomosexuality is a sin (Leviticus chapters 18 a 18 and 20, and 
Romans chapters 1 and 2).  Hebrew and Christian tradition support this.  They
must have gotten this idea from somewhere.  Even the laws of nature apply;
if everyone were homosexual, the human race would end.  You say the Bible
does not clearly say that being gay is wrong (must be ignoring Paul).  Please
enlighten us as to what Leviticus and Romans were really saying, then if not
directed at homosex