HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:04:32 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <root.726247775@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>There is a difference between regret and repent.  At this time, I regret
>one thing in particular, but there are others that I neither regret nor
>repent....even though I know they are wrong in God's eyes.  Guess I'm in
>serious trouble...

Forgive me if this is getting a bit touchy...I'm not sure how you could
"neither regret nor repent" some actions that another thinks are wrong,
but still insist that this other's moral standards are not, to this
extent, alien.  Are you proud of these actions?  How do you feel about
having done these things?

>This about sums it up, I guess...that's why I removed the stuff above it.
>There really isn't much of a free choice, as I've conceded to Sean
>Hartigan.

I would disagree with both of you on that latter point, actually.  Acceptance
of such a position would contradict my foundation of life/reality.  (No,
that's not intended to "prove" anything.)

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: bast@wam.umd.edu (Jaguar)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:03:39 GMT


As for the jealous god bit, to quote form Pagels book:

...he said.. "I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me."
But by announcing this he indicated to the angels... that another God
does exist; for if there were no other one, of whom would he be
jealous?... Then the mother began to be distressed.

the mother here is a referance to the creator of god. Gnostics called
her wisdom, or sophia.
The above quote is attributed to the sceret book of john. Found in the
book The gnostic gosipels.

Brings up a valid question.
But to me it is rAhther distressing to think of god acting klike a 
spoiled 3 yaear old....
Jaguar
rummaging in the dust
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:33:38 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <a7oq02E82fSW01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>As to the homosexual comment.  I didn't feel it necessary to post "proof"
>to something that is common knowledge around Salt Lake City. Would you
>like the support group number?
>

Do you have any proof?  I suspect you don't.  "Common knowledge" also
goes by the name of "urban legend".  It often, if not usually, turns
out to be false.  I suspect there are no more or less gay Mormons
than among any other group of people.  The percentage seems to be
about the same in all groups studied.



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Subject: Re:  #define fanatic
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:09:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.172713.22704@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D.  
Hampe) writes:
> somewhere in my files is the definition
> A fanatic is a person who redoubles his efforts
> having lost sight of the goal.
> 

I believe that's from George Santanaya. My personal favorite is "A fanatic is  
someone who does what God would do if He had all the facts."  ..bruce..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             | A religion that does not require the sacrifice
CTO, Pages Software Inc      | of all things never has power sufficient to
bwebster@pages.com           | produce the faith necessary unto life and
#import <pages/disclaimer.h> | salvation.  -- Joseph Smith
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How big _is_ Texas?
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:14:33 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan7.214734.11466@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:

> Kelley Miller:

> You see, Kaldis, I neve made the claim that I was a good speller.
                     ^^^^

Of course not.  You can't make that claim.  The plethora of misspelled
words in your posts indicate otherwise.

> You, in flaming me for a misspelling, show that you believe you are.

I do not merely believe I am -- I _KNOW_ that I am.  After all I was
the champion speller in my eighth grade class (when I took part in the
national spelling bee).  (I'm talking about the 8th grade in the whole
school, mind you [about 300 students], not just the 30 or so students
in the same classroom as me.)

> Be nice to bad spellers.  John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald
> were bad spellers.

Hey, don't include me in those ranks.  I have been posting profusely
to USENET for 5 years now, and you can probably count all the
misspelled words I have ever posted during that period on the fingers
of one hand.  What Miller ascribes to misspelling on my part was
actually an error in _TYPING_.
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25816 soc.culture.jewish:24992
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: The 'wave-collapse' of logical reasoning
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 21:30:04 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>I think I'm using the wrong 'philosophical names' for various constructs,
>and that's maybe the problem we are having concerning information exchange.
>Time to go to the library and sort out all the possible namings :-).

Time to go to the library and read about logic.  Happy learning.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:37:34 GMT

In article <12285@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <C0Hr21.6uM@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
><In article <ksiew.726230394@munagin> ksiew@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (steven kok-hsien siew) writes:
><> Death is a result of sin? Gee. I don't know. I've always thought
><> that death is when your heart stops beating or if your head gets chop off.
><
><   There are two types of death.  The first is physical, the second
><spiritual.  Sin eventually results in spiritual death, which is far
><worse than physical death.
>
>Since an atheist doesn't believe in such a thing as "spiritual death",
>you may be sure that when he says "death", he means `physical death'.
>We don't care for the other kind.

   So?  Somebody asked a question.  I answered it.  If someone doesn't
believe in physical death, does that mean he can safely jump off a
bridge?

><> Funny considering that the Catholic Church spend so much time and energy
><>stopping Scientific progress during the time of Galileo. And what does the 
><>church says about using anaesthesia during child birth when it was first
><>introduced? GOD FORBID!! So much for end the suffering of that girl. [...]
><
><   Galileo was not condemned for his scientific theories (which were
><wrong anyway -- the Sun is not the center of the Universe),
>
>So?  Neither is the Earth.  The Sun is at least the centre of the
>Solar system; the Earth is not the centre of anything.  Galileo may
>have been wrong, but he was less wrong than the Church.

   Could you please cite the appropriate Church documents that taught
this?

><   As far as anesthesia, all you've given is innuendo, so I'm not sure
><what exactly you're saying the Catholic Church did with respect to it.
><However, I do remember enough history to say that in the early days of
><anesthesia, quite a few people were killed by it, because the doctors
><using it didn't quite have it perfected yet.  So a condemnation of it
><at that time (which is what you seem to be implying) does not seem all
><that unreasonable.
>
>A condemnation of it on the grounds that it carried an unreasonable
>risk for the patient would have been reasonable.  A condemnation of it
>on the basis of what some old book of drivel says is as unreasonable
>as it can be.

   Now I know you're making this up as you go along.  You have
provided absolutely no evidence as to why the Church condemned this,
but still are attacking the Church based on your fabricated reasons.
Indeed I have yet to see any evidence here as to whether it was even
"condemned" by the Church at all.  I'm not saying it wasn't; I
honestly don't know.  I am saying that you probably know no more about
it than I do, but seem to be claiming to know everything about it.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Daily verse BG 1.19
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 15:27:12 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

                                TEXT 19

                       sa ghoso dhartarastranam
                           hrdayani vyadarayat
                       nabhas ca prthivim caiva
                          tumulo 'bhyanunadayan

  
sah--that; ghosah--vibration; dhartarastranam--of the sons of
Dhrtarastra; hrdayani--hearts; vyadarayat--shattered; nabhah--the sky;
ca--also; prthivim--the surface of the earth; ca--also; eva--certainly;
tumulah--uproarious; abhyanunadayan--resounding.

    
                              TRANSLATION

	The blowing of these different conchshells became uproarious.
Vibrating both in the sky and on the earth, it shattered the hearts of
the sons of Dhrtarastra.

  
                                PURPORT

	When Bhisma and the others on the side of Duryodhana blew their
respective conchshells, there was no heart-breaking on the part of the
Pandavas. Such occurrences are not mentioned, but in this particular
verse it is mentioned that the hearts of the sons of Dhrtarastra were
shattered by the sounds vibrated by the Pandavas' party. This is due to
the Pandavas and their confidence in Lord Krsna. One who takes shelter
of the Supreme Lord has nothing to fear, even in the midst of the
greatest calamity.

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25811 alt.pagan:15236
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 11 Jan 1993 11:26:53 EST
From: <IO20393@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: ankh (you very much?)
 <1993Jan8.185610.28882@radian.uucp> <1993Jan8.192912.29102@radian.uucp>

ankhs are an egyptian hieroglyph meaning fertility taken from the
shape of a sandal strap.....at least, that's teh way i remember
it from my egyptian archeology phase!  take out a book on hieroglyphs
to be sure......but as far as i'm concerned, it's a great goddess-symbol.
hope that helps!
AMY RAE HAWKES     IO20393@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    LET THE SEA BE YOUR MISTRESS AND THE STARS BE YOUR GUIDE
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:46:54 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <0eZm02QL30Y201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>>That is why every person has the responsibility of receiving confirmation
>>directly from God about these things.  This not only applies to utterances
>>of the Mormon prophet, but the Bible.
>
>If this is true, then the person receiving the "confirmation" has a more
>direct connection to God than the person giving the revelation.  Right?
>Therefore, the need for a living prophet ceases.

No, because my authority only extends to confirming whether something
is from God or not.  The prophet is charged with leading the Church.
Being human, the prophet will still make errors.  I also am human
and will make errors.  I may not receive confirmation that what the
prophet says is from God, but I may be wrong.  Thus, were I to
denounce the prophet, I would be exceeding my right.

The problem with you (as well as many Mormons) is that you can't
stand to live with uncertainty.  You have to have it black and white.
True or false, good or evil, saved or damned, etc., etc.
Unfortunately, if you have it that way, you are fooling yourself.
This is part of what I meant by "you don't speak my language."
Since we have fundamentally different mind sets on this question,
unless you understand this about me, it is not going to be possible
for you to see what I am saying.  I recognize that you would
be very uncomfortable with such beliefs.  Mormons who are like
you will say that "God would never let the prophet make a mistake."
Perhaps you had better argue with them about these things.  I
can only argue my own position, and that is that there is no
such thing as infallibility.  Not the Bible, not the Prophet.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:23:36 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>> 	"If the premisses provide adequate grounds for affirming the
>> conclusion, if asserting the premisses to be true warrants asserting
>> the conclusion to be true also, then the reasoning is correct.  Otherwise
>> it is incorrect."
>
>Note the words 'if th epremisses provide *adequate ground for affirming
>the conclusion' -- and this is the point I've tried to hammer on for
>the last two weeks :-).

No Kent, it has nothing to do with whatever point you've been getting at.
The premises that A is B and B is C provide adequate ground for affirming
that A is C.  In other words, IF WE KNOW that A is B, AND WE KNOW that B
is C, THEN WE HAVE adequate ground for affirming that A is C.  Logic has
NOTHING TO DO with whether we know either of those things.

>All of your examples stated premises that we both agree upon, in other
>words no problems. However if we created statements consisting of
>really non-agreeable premises, then we are in deep water once again.

No Kent, obviously you didn't take the time to read through the examples
and understand them before writing this post.  Since I can only assume
that this comes from a deliberate and malicious unwillingness to admit
that you are in error, I must terminate my participation in this thread.

I gave 4 examples.  At least one of them had a false premise and a false
conclusion.  Finding this is left as an exercise for the reader.

"Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time, and it annoys
the pig."  --  R.A.H.

I am no longer giving music lessons to farm animals.

>OK, I have a question, how do you define truth 1), if you know the exact
>definition and agreement on this one, you could use truth in logical
>constructs, if you don't, you are hosed :-).

One last time, then I'm outta here: logic is not based on the truth or
falsehood of its premises.  Logic is an IF/THEN statement at heart.

Truth is what is useful to believe.

"Everything is true; nothing is forbidden." -- Hassan i Sabah

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:28:30 GMT

altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:

>>It is not recorded that Jesus made such a claim explicitly; however, there
>>were some cases where he did so implicitly, such as this one.  The Bible
>>does say, in Colossians 1:20, that he is the only way.
>
>If you take the NT Bible as the literal and infallible Word of God, whether
>as some position of apologetical tutor or in actuality, then there is not
>much point in me continuing.

Ack.  Sorry; most of the people I argue with on this and related topics
do "take the NT Bible as the literal and infallible Word of God."  I do
"in actuality" see your point, and can think of no adequate refutation for
it other than the parts of the NT that are not the Gospels.  I do thank
you for your participation up to this point, however.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
From: 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: March for Life
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:46:38 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

Is anyone goin to DC January 22, 1993 for the March for Life?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Thank you for your responses  : ) 
Summary:  exception
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:18:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.211847.28021@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:

>No, you have been asked not to preach on alt.atheism, not quite the same
>thing.  Intelligent discourse is welcome, unsupported assertions are not.

Except, of course, when the unsupported assertions are made by atheists.
(note -- this is NOT a defense of random [or systematic] abuse of your
group for xtian apologesis.)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up?
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:10:50 GMT

In article 11675@blaze.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> However, it does not seem to be the definition used when I point out something
> some Christian did, and the reply is "they're not a _real_ Christian".
> 
> How can I tell a "real Christian" from someone who's merely a Christian?

The answer is that you can't tell. Nor can I. 

The outward profession of faith in Jesus Christ is an indicator, but is
by no means certain. The apostles warned about frauds. I think behaviour 
is the best indicator of who is genuine. I have a high degree of confidence
that Billy Graham is a genuine Christian. I have little confidence that 
Jimmy Swaggart is genuine. I have absolutely no reason to believe that 
Wesley Allen Dodd is a genuine Christian, but all three have professed 
faith.  Does that help confuse the issue at all?

---
Dave Weaver                   | "He is no fool who gives what
Motorola ASIC / Chandler, AZ  |  he cannot keep to gain what he
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com    |  cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christianity and Logic, take 2
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:52:03 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>OK, let me take the position of a Christian, and suggest that the
>following statement is a logical one, based on the rule if A could do
>B, than A is a A because A needs to do B in order to qualify to belong
>to the set of As:

Mr. Sandvik, your babbling is becoming profuse.  The above "rule" is
nonsensical.

>If this statement is a logical statement, then we have an authentic
>Christian one, and I withdraw my critique about Christianity and logic

An argument against your claim presently stands unrefuted; there is no
need for another.  We await your retraction.



                                Gregg Skinner
Date: Friday, 8 January 1993 11:45:38 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.16R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Critique of Gimbutas "Idyllic Goddess" Claims
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <2B4CBB28.1230@news.service.uci.edu>, cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)  wrote:
# 
# In article <1993Jan7.224225.11815@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
# >	And how does he diagnose "signs of majesty [and] supernatural
# >power"?
# 
# I think that the fact that most female figurines were pregnant or
# lactating is a damned good indicator that something was going on,
# especially since people in Paleolithic-type societies tend to spend a
# lot of their time NOT pregnant.  Lactation is also a tabu time for sex
# (frequently).  This deliberate reproduction of something tabu speaks
# volumes. 

  This is circular.  You're basing your interpretation of the
  physical evidence on presumed curtural characteristics which
  you derive from the artifacts you're interpreting.

  BTW, I'm curious about your assertion on Paleolithic reproduction
  rates.  The data that I've seen, drawn from skeletal remains,
  indicates that early women had a very high rate of pregnancy
  coupled with correspondingly high rates of spontaneous abortion
  and infant mortality.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---