HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Free gifts? NOT!
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 14:01:12 GMT

My "last word" will be an apology as well.

daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:

[I wrote]
>> I accused Mr. Butler of missing the point of the discussion.  In fact
>> we were each missing each other entirely as we discussed orthogonal
>> subjects.  It is not a sign of weakness for Mr. Butler to recognize
>> that we were not addressing the same issue.  I ask him to do that.
>					       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Clearly I must make some sort of reply, as silence can be construed to have
>several meanings.

I apologise for including this request.  I had intended to keep my on
one subject.  I failed in that intention.

I recognize that this statement,

>>    As to Dave Butler's other post, I'm going to pretty much ignore it
>>    except for an email note, because many of the things he ascribes to me
>>    are not the things I have been presenting.  

need not have been worded so as to affect the ego.  Further, it was
based on what I now perceive as a misunderstanding between us.  I
apologise.
--
Gregg Skinner  g-skinner@uiuc.edu   I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Did Jesus Claim to be God (Finally?)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:38:50 GMT

In article <MIB.92Jul27140205@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>The Synoptics use a number of suggestive titles, with two being most
>prominent: "Son of God" and "Son of Man".  Son of God is frequently
>used in a sense specific to Jesus.  For example, at his baptism (Matt.
>3:17) he is called God's Son, in a way not normally seen, nor
>applicable to people in general.  The Son of Man was an eschatological
>figure of judgement and completion of humanity, carrying divine
>authority and power.
The "Son of Man" is a reference to the Daniel. "Son of Man" in Aramaic
is simply idiomatic for "human being." And, in fact, Daniel uses
"a figure like a Son of Man" or somesuch wording. The verse seems
to refer to the Messiah, who, being of the lineage of David, would
take on divine qualities. (Kings in the Ancient Near East were frequently
considered to be the adopted son of the deity. Cf. Kirta/Aqhat).

Hence, neither Son of Man nor  Son of God is really a direct claim to be
the deity.
Not that you implied otherwise. Just trying to clear things up a bit.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:05:35 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <ajgmsdf.gordons@netcom.com>  gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> <1992Jul21.180424.6522@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> >From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
> >>
> >> Hard to believe an omnipotent being didn't realize the end results of his
> >> actions.  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.
> >
> >In fact, he did keep most of them out.
>
> What?  He could only keep "most" of them out?  Why couldn't he keep all
> of them out?  Couldn't be because he wanted people to be amazed and
> coerced by these "miracles" could it.
>
> And how do you know he kept most of them out?  I realize that the bible
> doesn't follow every moment of every day of Jesus life, but that by no
> means indicates that *most* of his miracles were not recorded.
>
> That's like saying "the miracles of the Easter Bunny are not recorded."
> I mean, technically it's correct, but what does it prove?

Umm, that the Easter Bunny is more powerful than the god that could only
keep "most" of his miracles from being recorded?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:12669 talk.religion.newage:3494 alt.religion.kibology:3216
From: tobias@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Tobias)
Newsgroups: alt.religion,soc.religion,talk.religion,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: I need to be ordained!
Date: 25 Jul 1992 18:11:12 GMT
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fermi.wustl.edu


Hello!

My cousin is getting married sometime soon, and she and her fiancee
want me to preside at the ceremony.  They claim that to do this, I
must be officially ordained as a minister/priest/shaman in a
religion.  The groom was once ordained in a mail-order religion
in California;  he did this to escape being drafted I think during
Vietnam. :)  Anyway, can anyone tell me a quick, sleazy way I could
be ordained as a priest, or some other way in which I might be
legally allowed to officiate at the wedding?  

Thanks!

scott

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Scott Tobias                 email:  tobias@fermi.wustl.edu    |     
|   Graduate Droogie                                               |
|   Department of Physics        "No ma'am, we're not musicians.   |
|   Washington University         We're physicists."               |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Just Curious
Keywords: Luke 14:26
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:45:55 GMT

In article <12574@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Sure there is.  They contradict.  You can't simultaneously believe A and B
>when A says that B tells untruths and B says that A tells untruths.  You can
>believe large _parts_ of all religions, and you can even pick some parts as
>important and claim to believe all the important parts--but that's not the
>same as _all_.
>This is a matter of playing with words.  If I say "Paul, print out this
>article", I am telling you to print this article out.  The fact that you then
>choose not to print it out doesn't mean that I have not told you to do so;
>that's not what the word "tell" means.  You seem to think that the word "tell"
>means "tell and be obeyed", and it doesn't.
>----
>Yes, it is all a matter of playing with words. And these issues you raise 
>cease to be significant if one is not dogmatic, don't they? Why not "believe 
>large _parts_ of all religions" as you say? Why not interprete for yourself 
>the meaning of the written words. ...

There is nothing wrong with "believing large parts" of religions.  But be sure
you know what you're doing.

When you say that you can believe _all_ of certain religions, rather than just
the significant parts, I'm going to call you on it.  Don't say "all" unless
you mean "all", not "large parts".
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:12731 sci.physics:11716 sci.astro:8361 sci.philosophy.tech:2880
From: wolf@prosun.first.gmd.de (Wolfgang Koehler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Structure of Time (FINAL SUMMARY)
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:31:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: GMD-FIRST, D-1000 Berlin 10

I think someone should stop this nonsens postings !

This serious newsgroup is not the right place for that.

If the author believes in some strange abilities of his daughter, he should
post to alt.spleen or something else.


wolf
From: haefner@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Keywords: Re: absolute truth
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:48:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.153751.3193@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>In article <1992Jul14.233239.29569@linus.mitre.org> tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker) writes:
>>>>>To kill an innocent person in cold blood is wrong.
>>>>>Does anyone disagree that this is not an absolute truth?
>>
>>I (William Tucker) think:
>
>[...]
>
>>How many truly bad people do you know that don't have a reason for
>>being messed up? Isn't it really comic book mentality to not see 
>>the "offending" party as human, probably a scared, brutalized human.
>>How many Rambo movies do you see where you see the bad guys being 
>>kicked around the kitchen by drunken fathers (themselves originally victims)
>>or slapped by frustrated, overworked, mothers. That would probably 
>>change our gleeful shouts as Rambo blows away another slime ball
>>(maybe show an inset where the man as a youngster is lying in a 
>>bed in his own urine, crying because his mother beat him). I've
>>been around enough to not enjoy having people do negative things 
>>to me as much as the next person. However, people always have 
>>reasons for doing whatever they do - as twisted as those reasons
>>may be. Killing in cold blood is an event - taken out of context
>>of the persons life - it's a meaningless event. There are always 
>>multiple points of view, the individuals, societies, and the 
>>victims. Take which ever side you wish - it's still only a 
>>single side - take all sides and it goes back to being an
>>event. Hope you understand this - no dogma please...
>



In Shirley McClain's book, Out On A Limb, she relates a story about
looking at the wreckage of buses that had fallen off a Peruvian
mountain road and pondering the possible meaning of such disasters,
her mentor-friend David says to her: "there's no real death anyway, so 
there are no victims".

Oh what wisdom that is. A victimless society where death is seen as a 
one-way ticket to our "next" adventure on spaceship earth. Dogma would 
seem very appropriate to me. Some people kill out of "love". You 
apparently would accept that as a good reason or simply twisted. If you
think its a twisted reason, then you would be rejecting this person's
act of love toward another human.

I'll stick with dogma, thank you.

Mark


Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:17:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.113802.8533@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.213059.20168@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>[...]
>... The problem:  it was tuned totally off from all the
>> other instruments and if played would cause total musical confusion and
>> dissonance.  You see, in music, an A note is 440Hz and the harmonics of that
>> frequency.  To have order and beauty, everyone must tune to this standard.
>> Otherwise there would be a trainwreck!  While each instrument is different
>> and unique, it must adhere to the absolute standard.
>Wrongo!  This is tyranny, to say that all must adhere to the same standard to
>have order and beauty.  Sounds like Nazism.

Dear friend, I'm only saying that if each instrument tuned to a different
frequency, the resultant music is a badly tuned dissonant sound.  It has
nothing to do with music styles.  Whatever the style, if the instruments
aren't properly tuned, the music is dissonent.  Perhaps you misunderstand
what I was saying.  I used this as an allegory of why it seems reasonable
that there would be an absolute truth.

>GXKambic

God bless richly,

John
-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane)
Subject: Re: God, the Universe, and You (Creation)
Organization: University of Washington, Mathematics, Seattle
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:29:26 GMT

pease@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Phil Pease) writes:

>In the initial post it was stated that we all know about the big-bang; but
>then dropped it and moved on to various religious/metaphysical beliefs.
>
>Remember however that Einstein said that energy and matter are interchangable
>and that energy can not be created or distroyed; but only changed in form.
>If this is true, then there was no real beginning in the sense of something
>being created out of nothing.  The beginning of the universe of matter,
>space, and time was the formation of matter out of the field of energy (the
>big-bang).
>
>Is this scientific view different from the religious/metaphysical view?
>I don't see any difference at all.  I think that science has indeed
>answered the question and the conclusion is that the One or All is eternal.
>The one thing that science has not concluded (yet) is that this All is
>a conscious entity (GOD).
>
>Phil Pease 

The origin of the universe is by no means a "closed book" for the physicists.
Even if we suppose that the latest model for the big bang is true, it still
doesn't tell us what happened at or before the big bang, whatever that means.
All our theories go out the window when pushed back to that initial singularity.
In particular, Einstein's theory or general relativity.  It has its limits,
and is not the last word on reality.  In particular, it is not consistent
with the quantum mechanical nature of the universe.

The origin of the universe is still a mystery, untouched by science and
untouched by religious/metaphysical views as well.  If we someday wrap up
reality in some nice neat package, some grand unified theory or metaphysical
system, there's only one thing we can be sure of:  we're wrong.

The mystery goes deep--it is infinitly more profound than our greatest
scientific and religious ideas.  We will never exhaust the grandeur of reality. 

Regards,
Tom McFarlane

Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3524 alt.alien.visitors:4869 sci.skeptic:13293
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence
Date: 28 Jul 1992 02:27:05 GMT
  <1992Jun15.000927.14468@uwm.edu> <1992Jun15.143917.16445@rhrk.uni-kl.de>
  <1992Jun16.014515.24059@uwm.edu> <62931@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com's message of 27 Jul 92 23:59:04 GMT

In article <62931@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:

   Part 2. J. has two friends that want to get in on this. Their names are 
   Allen and Bill.  Some people may wonder how I'm going to get from one 
   place to another so fast. This Astral Convoy will be traveling at the 
   speed of thought.

Using what stimulants or depressants?

-30-
Bob

``Oh, we've got a great big convoy...''
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz)
Subject: Re: alignment of will, as
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:09:17 GMT

David Hatcher writes:

>  Could you help me with this please? I'm having a very hard time 
>understanding how a spiritual tradition can develop and not have
>either dogma, tradition, or mysticism. With out these things as 
>the common glue to bring people together under a common tradition,
>I get the feeling that the tradition would just fade away into 
>nothingness over time. 

I'll try but they should really speak for themselves.  The Noachides
believe that there are only seven rules that govern man's relationship
with the one G-d.  Six are "don'ts" and one is a "do."

Don'ts:

   1. Idol worship
   2. Incest
   3. Murder
   4. Blasphemy
   5. Theft
   6. Eating flesh cut from a living animal 

Do:

  7. Establish a rule of law via courts and such.

How (or even if) one worships G-d is left to the individual or the
group.  I don't know how the group maintains coherence except via their
common desire to spread the word about their religion.  Maybe that's
enough.
-- 
---

Len Moskowitz
moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (preferred address)
moskowit@panix.com (alternate address)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3485 alt.alien.visitors:4787 sci.skeptic:13201
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 20:12:27 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <62755@cup.portal.com>

Dear Astral Folks: The results of the first weekly Astral Convoy was as
follows the person we called E started his astral journey in good order
hitching up with me (I think) and I got a picture of a male person sort of
handsome, looking out to his left and my right. He is white. We then went
over to Hawaii and woke up a lady whoes first name starts with the letter
K (I think).  She woke up at 3:30 am with E. by her side. Gregg didn't 
make contact as far as he knows. I don't know what happened to Shannon
and I didn't send him a picture of myself yet. I thought Kumar was in
Germany but he was actually in Penn. USA and he couldn't get himself in 
the proper mood to receive me. We now have Linda in England that wants to
get in on this. Remember anybody that wants in, each Wed. 1100 PM  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: theresa@cmatter.physics.indiana.edu (Theresa Vaughan)
Subject: Re: Alignment of will, asking for help!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:34:18 GMT

In article <B2NaoB1w164w@uuisis.isis.org> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes:
>sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>
>> when my friend
>> wanted to not be a christian, it was easy to disregard the bible.  now that
>> he is, it is even easier to see it relevant in his life, thus useful and not
>> something to abandon simply because of historical imperfection, etc.
>
>Christianity is not the Bible. Christians don't generally worship the Bible.
>Only Catholics (among Christians) worship traditions (this may be an
>over-generalization but is generally true).

   Oh really? Gee, I was born and raised a Catholic, and I was 
always taught that we worshipped God, and that God is manifest
through the three aspects of the trinity. Noone ever mentioned
to me that we worship the Bible, nor even (gasp!) tradition.

   Tradition is simply a vehicle for worship, not an object of
worship. One need not worship only in traditional ways in the
Catholic Church either. Any established religion has some form
of "traditional" or customary worship, even if that tradition
does not come equipped with statues, insence, candles, and so
forth. Tradition can also be the Protestant practice of steadfastly
refusing to do anything even remotely Catholic. 

   Where do you get your information on Catholicism? Have you
ever spoken to Catholics about what they worship, or what
place "tradition" has in their spirituality? Have you read
much on Catholicism? If not, I suggest you refrain from
uninformed generalizations which some, like myself in this
instance, find offensive. I found the rest of your posting
quite interesting, by the way, and agree with you in large
part. Perhaps that's why the above statement was so distressing
to me.

                                        -Theresa


>Christians worship God, and Christ. (well, again, you will find exceptions).
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:27:02 EST

In article <1992Jul27.221921.12518@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.101906.8532@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul9.185030.9988@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>>> To kill an innocent person in cold blood is wrong.
>>> Does anyone disagree that this is not an absolute truth?
>>Please define innocent.  If you choose to do so, why do you have the right to
>>do so?  What is cold blood?  What if the person committing the act is "insane?" 
>>Who judges?
> Is there anyone out there that feels it would not be wrong for you
> to shoot and kill any random person just for the sake of killing?
Hypothetical situation.

Someone might feel that it is wrong for you to do it.  However maybe this
person feels that it is ok for a third person to do it.  Why?  We don't know
the context.  Do you know enough about the internals of the person's mind to be
able to judge?  Will  you judge?  What if it happens during wartime?  IS  that
justifiable?  Is it a sign of insanity to want to kill a random person?  If the
potential killer is insane, do they know right from wrong?

Dunno, John.  Interesting question, tho.....

GXKambic
standard slightly cynical disclaimer
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3407 alt.alien.visitors:4656 sci.skeptic:13032
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 18:50:43 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <62477@cup.portal.com> <1992Jul20.233307.21535@hobbes.kzoo.edu>

Dear Everybody: I'll put some information down that was sent to me by
the Antahkarana organization who started this collection. I'll cut out
part of the religious parts. ASHTAR COMMUNIQUE. I Ashtar, of the 
Confederation of Planets of this local universe, greet you one and all
in the name of ------. We of the Councils would like to take this 
opportunity to inform you of a project of cooperation between the 
Intersteller Commands, the Hierarchy, and Antahkarana.  We have directed 
those of Antahkarana to assist man on Earth in examining his own heart
and mind. This will entail the cooperation, the interlinking of energies
of the third and higher dimensions, extending to the Creator ---.
End of Part 1. John Winston.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng)
Subject: Re: New Thread, an impersonal God
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:46:05 GMT

In article <3927@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> jethro@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us (Firewalking Tantrika) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.181101.1347@tc.fluke.COM>, nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
>> 
>> Honest question.  Why do you believe God is All?  All can equally 
>> not be God.  And there is no real difference.  The belief that
>> everything is God is equivalent to athiesm, that everything is
>> not God, or there is no God.  To fully know that everything is
>> God you cannot be God which then is a self defeating belief.
>
>Arnold, it's an _experiential_ knowing. 

The difficulty I have with experience is that experience is not a 
measure truthfulness, or falsity.  It is something you have.  Truth or
lack of truth thereof, is something you have expressed about the experience.

I still submit, All being God is impossible to affirm.  God is just
a handy term that you have applied to All.  All suffices.  All is All.
>
>Namaste,
>Jeffery
>
>-- 
>======================================================================
>Jeffery Tye                             cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us!jethro
>Beyond Your Limits                                      (408) 688-6712
>======================================================================

-Arnold 
-- 
_______________________
-Arnold Nordeng           
 nordenga@tc.fluke.COM

"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill 
 Him a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord
 and God.  But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense 
 about His being a great human teacher.  He has not left that 
 open to us.  He did not intend to."
                                        -C.S. Lewis.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage