HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: On similarities between creation accounts...
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:49:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.015134.12558@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>It has been shown that there are many creation accounts that are
>similar to the Genesis account.  I do not think this can be used to
>critique its credibility, however.  If the Genesis account is the one
>handed down to men by God, then the fact that it has influenced other 
>accounts is not suprising.  If it is not, and none is, then all such

Actually the post argued that the Genesis account is dervied
from a previous account, not the other way around as you seem
to imply.

Dano
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: God's Lil' Buddy
Date: 23 Dec 92 04:52:35 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


/(rpitts)
/The term fully know God is my own - 

As evidently much of this theology is.  None of it squares with scripture.



/(rpitts)
/the intent is that once one comes
/to Jesus and persists in living for and with Him and knows that he
/alone is eternal life and the only way to the Father, then I don't
/see how one could turn away.  

And I provided 12 examples of people who prove your theory wrong.  

Anyone who denies Christ is not a Christian, Pitts.  Peter denied Christ.  
He was chicken; he was afraid of being dragged to jail or killed by the 
Roman soldiers.  He denied Christ.  Period.



/(rpitts)
/Oh.  The Apsotles said to Jesus, after the others left, that they were
/not going to leave, for He alone had the words/keys to eternal life
/and there was no one else to turn to, because of that.

They said a lot of nice things.  So what?  So did Peter, or don't 
you remember?

"Who do men say that I am?"  "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
"Blessed art thou, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee".
Yet even Peter denied Christ three times.  

So what have we learned here today, Pitts?  

We have learned that it doesn't make a frigging difference what people
say, or what sweet words they use.  Same for your wonderful apostles.  They 
still left Christ.  Period.
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A deep bit of flame bait
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:13:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, arron@waikato.ac.nz () says:
>
>
>Christianity is real life, not textbook life, and you have to give it a go
>before you can really experience it. I don't want to make anyone a Christian,
>because that could make me proud. I want everyone to look for Christianity
>themselves, then the Holy Spirit (who Christ left to support the Church) can do
>the work of revealing to you all the truth of Christianity. And I am looking
>forward to meeting all of you who seek earnestly for him, in heaven at the end
>of these days.

I have tried your religion and found it to be severely lacking in things
that I find essential for sanity.  I can see no reason to try something,
yet again, that was so damaging to my psyche.  I post responses so that all
will know that although your god may be *an* answer for some, it is not an
answer for all.  In fact, the answer it gives may be damaging.
>
-- 
All propositions are true in some sense, false in some sense and
meaningless in some sense.  
                               --Hagbard Celine H.M. S.H.
<this is a signature virus, to spread it, just copy into your sig-file>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief (was Luke, Derrida, etc.)
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:01:50 GMT

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes to Steve Adams:

> You see, God is not a directly apprehendable thing, the way these characters
...
>There are an infinite number of possible hypothesis to explain any given
>phenomenon -- this means that sincere belief is ALWAYS based on a totally
>unsupportable conclusion.  
>...
>People believe in God because the notion appeals to them
>on a non-rational level -- there can be no rational ground for any belief.

Oh? I think William James, et al would disagree. I think you 
are correct in your assertion that the `will to believe' to 
coin a phrase, requires a non-rational (or trans-rational) assumption
at some point; this does not mean however, that there can be no
rational grounds.

The various `proofs of god' may be useful here; not as proofs
(where they all fail), but as evidence that there >is< rational
(if unprovable) grounds for belief.

Dano
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Catholicism
Date: 1 Jan 93 00:01:46 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

<U56597@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>I was christened and grew up Catholic.  In recent years, my family has been
>attending a non-denominational church.  However, I would like to return to the
>Catholic church.  Would I have to go through a re-confirmation (I did take
>communion and everything, too) or have a confession session or would I just
>go back?

It depends on the church...but likely, you would just go back.  In days of
yore, simply going to a non Roman Catholic Service could be grounds for
excommunication, and receiving the sacraments outside of 'The Church' would
certainly be grounds.  They've mellowed a lot since!

If you feel that you have sinned, then by all means, confess this.  If you
don't feel it to be a sin, don't confess it.   You should, in general, go
to confession before partaking in the Eucharest.

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 03 Jan 93 04:26:18 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa


/(Kelly Martin)
/Kindly refrain from debating the philosophy of logic when you don't
/even know the basic terminology.  


Kelly, kindly suck my dick.

It's not necessary to be an expert on all forms of logic (which I doubt
you are) in order to discuss the subject.  I don't play a piano either; but 
I can for damn sure tell when one is out of tune.  Same thing with bad
arguments.

If you don't want to "waste your time" on the likes of poor ol' ignorant
me, then don't post to anything I say.  It's just that simple.  No one
is forcing you to be the missionary of education to ignorant heathens
like myself.  We got along just fine without you before now; I suspect that 
we'll do quite fine after you're long gone.
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Attack of the CRAZY PEOPLE!!!
Followup-To: alt.sex,soc.singles,alt.mind.eating.alien.space.creatures
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:57:50 GMT

gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller) writes:
] In article <1992Dec28.073708.19003@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com
] (drieux, just drieux) wrote:
] > 
] > ps: when I am in the bush, I am a pagan. When I am home,
] > my housemate complains if I light a fire in the living 
] > room to make dinner.... something about they have these
] > new fangeld rooms with stuff that does it..... 
] > 
] > He also thinks that running outside when it rains is
] > NOT his idea of personal hygene, who ever gene is....
] > 
] > HI! Gene!
] > 
] HI! Drieux! Happy! New! Year!...Gene


Do I like have a sign on my Back that Says:

"Look! Victim Of Silly Name Games!"

Or What?

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: JOKE, Hee hee hee . . . the Bell Ringer
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:13:22 GMT

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

[an old, bad joke]

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

[another old, bad joke]


Show me a newsgroup where people start posting bell jokes for no
apparent reason, and I'll show you a newsgroup where the seriousness
has taken its toll.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: bruce@cortex.dixie.com (R. Bruce Rakes)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Elekta Instruments, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:37:00 GMT

casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass) writes:

>In article <1992Dec27.202836.18230@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>>>folk-magic.  I, who am a Witch, use witch to mean that.  If, however, they 
>>>refer to Wicca as something other than what it is, then I will complain.  Also,
>>
>>Yes, I mostly refer to Wicca as something other than what it is.  Can
>>I hear you complain ?
...

>>Hold it right there, you are using Satanist with a capital S and that grieves 
>>me no end.

>What the heck...most people refer to Christians with a capital C don't they?
>Just two sides of the same coin.

>BB
>Paul

I spell it with a capital X (as in Xtian).

>-- 
>                          * * * * * * *
>"It is possible to join forces, to identify common goals, and to agree on
> common action." - U.N. World Commission on Development and Environment
>		       casspa@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
-- 
R. Bruce Rakes, Software Systems Manager
Elekta Instruments, Inc.  8 Executive Park W, Suite 809, Atlanta, GA 30329
Voice:(404)315-1225 FAX:(404)315-7850 email: bruce@cortex.dixie.com
 
-- 
R. Bruce Rakes, Software Systems Manager
Elekta Instruments, Inc.  8 Executive Park W, Suite 809, Atlanta, GA 30329
Voice:(404)315-1225 FAX:(404)315-7850 email: bruce@cortex.dixie.com
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: The 'wave-collapse' of logical reasoning
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:31:02 GMT

In article <ksand-020193180605@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>The second premise is based on an opinion that some people think is 
>real, some not. As long as we can't collapse this one and declare
>it as universal knowledge the whole logical statement is really 
>another opinion, and can't be defined as a logical true or yes
>declaration.

_What_ are you talking about?

Whether or not something is logical has nothing to do with whether its
premises are universal knowledge, or even whether its premises are true.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24648 alt.pagan:14592
From: mimir@hardy.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 28 Dec 1992 04:11:49 GMT
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <1992Dec27.225426.5119@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <00965ACA.D5CD65E0@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>>I agree with Bill.  Just because a name was redefined by someone else with
>>really good PR doesn't mean that the name shouldn't be use.  Case in point:
>>Heathen used to mean, quite literally, "of the heath", living on the prarie.
>>And, of course, we know what happened--a conquering religion came by and used
>>the name to mean "barbarian" and "infidel"(translation from the latin(?) for
>>"not of the faith")
>>     I like the word "Pagan" and "Heathen" to describe myself.
>
>So if you call yourself a heathen, how shall I interpret it?  Should I
>interpret it to mean that you live on a prairie, or should I interpret it to
>mean you are not of the (Christian) faith?  I think you mean the latter, and if
>so, you are using the redefined word, not the original.

 Actually, Germanic Neo-Pagans (Asatru) largly use the word "Heathen"
instead of "Pagan" to describe themselves because of its germanic, as
opposed to latin, origin. 

Wassail,
Grendel Grettisson


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:47:31 GMT

In article <fWRiIK5@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.030245.9794@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>In article <BzJD0s.9r9@world.std.com> 
>rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>>A "young woman of marriageable age" had better be a virgin or
>>she would be killed.
>
>Questionable. I don't recall Mary, mother of Jesus being killed for
>being with child out of wedlock. 

Yeah, Matthew says that Joseph, being a just man, resolved to
divorce her quietly.  (Of course this was before the Holy Spirit
revealed Jesus' parentage to him.)

>>It is not stretching it to call all such women of this
>>time period virgins, in my opinion.
>
>Then the term means nothing, only young marriageable woman. A virgin is
>*specifically* a person who has not experienced *sex*. If that was the
>intention of the writer, that is what would have been written. Virgin
>was *not* written. Perhaps your Revelation 22:18-19 may be of some assistance
>in this matter?

I know some who say that Rev. 22:18-19 applies only to the prophecies
in the Book of Revelations.  Still, if I were a believer, that 
verse would make me mighty reluctant to monkey around with any
Bible passage. . .

>>Besides, you will never find a
>>translation without such minor errors.  Thats what notes in the border are
>>for, and you would have to burn every translation if you were this strict
>>with all of them.
>
>You call this a MINOR error? Really!
>
>JPS (ISBN:0-8276-0252-9) translates this correctly. I'd be surprised
>that *all* other English translations see virgin here, but given the
>less than stellar history of Christianity, perhaps I shouldn't be. Do
>you really consider this being strict? What does the Christian
>Revelations 22:18-19 say again? Or does this not apply to translations
>of the original Bible languages? Are you really this lax with THE WORD?
>Is this the essence of Christianity? If it's good enough for King James
>it's good enough for me? And what has become of that search for the
>truth? How have you been led astray?

It does seem like a rather casual attitude towards the Word,
doesn't it? 

SD
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose; ANSWERING ------> Willard
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:35:34 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17891@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <adfl02Ef2eHs01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>>However, Kermit, you refuse to even look at the evidence.  Not all
>>Mormons are like that, several have written to me in presonal mail and
>>I have given them info for them to research themselves and make their
>>own decisions.  From this I have seem several Mormons come to know the
>>true Jesus.  So I do think there is point to all this.  Even though
>
>In that case, I'm sure they would be anxious for you to divulge
>their names in support of your cause so we could check you out
>on this, and perhaps add their voices to yours.

Perhaps this would prove nothing except that they would get a million
emails from you guys criticizing them for doubting the "ONE true CHURCH".
I'll let them speak for themselves.  Either way, it proves nothing.

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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,alt.pagan,sci.skeptic
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Speaking of ModernDayIsms
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:19:36 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>] 
>] I was under the impression that despite claims otherwise, 
>] modern-day worshippers that call themselves witches generally 
>] started their religion in modern times, rather than having a 
>] direct connection to ancient worshippers.

there is a certian amount of evidence that much of what is called
paganism / wicca /et al. these days has its roots in turn of
the century Encyclopedia Britanica references on Magic etc.
mixed well with Victorian romanticism and late 20th C new age
syncrytism.

>have you paused long enough to look at that
>from the matter of what folks mean when they
>talk about being 'first century christians'
>and then that they hold to a trinitarian notion?????
 ah but nost of these neo 'new testament churches' are
truely that becasue they only read the NT - the KJV
NT as it was the bible Jesus used.  Never mind that in
1603 it was the 'liberal' churches equivalent that was
using that committeed spawned mistranslation.

>Or Even Read the Bible?????

It's part of being a 1st cent church - most of the congregation
then was illiterate as well.

chus
pyotr

-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
EOF
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
EOF
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: World Views: Vedic vs. Western
Date: 1 Jan 1993 12:53:03 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: Start the New Year with a laugh.

-*----
In article <mHTNwB2w165w@kalki33.uucp> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:

Quoting Sadaputa Dasa, in an article that is an absolute mish-mash,
rivaling the kind of pulp that creationists write:

> Careful research, however, can reveal evidence contrary to the accepted
> scientific view and in agreement with the Vedic picture. Drutakarma Dasa
> and I have just completed a 900-page book, Forbidden Archaeology, which
> gives extensive evidence showing that human beings of the modern type
> have been living on the earth for many millions of years.[8]

Oh, great.  Now we have Hindu fundamentalists fighting 
archeologists and biologists.  You would have thought that
they would have learned from their Christian analogues.

> Sadaputa Dasa (Richard L. Thompson) earned his Ph.D. in 
> mathematics from Cornell University. ...

In terms of reinforcing stereotypes, this is as bad as the
black American college students who recently visited Japan
on a school trip and were caught in mass shoplifting.  Why
does mathematics seem plagued by more than its fair share 
of wackos?

Russell
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: World Views: Vedic vs. Western
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:22:29 GMT

The so-called Kalki D. writes:

>calling the Ramayana a myth are significant. First there is the problem
>of saying that Lord Ramacandra lived in Ayodhya in the Treta-yuga. This
					 ^^^^^^^
I think if you followed the news lately, you'd be tragedy struck that
people would be willing to kill each other (and destroy a whole country)
because of religious sentiments, if you know what I mean.

Now the :-) part,

>is ruled out by the Darwinian theory of evolution, which says that in
>that time period, more than 864,000 years ago, 

I think you are missing a couple of years.  It is really, 864,014 years ago.

> there were no humans of the modern type.

Please count me out.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:49:33 GMT

ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus) writes:
: >: 
: >: No.  But they invented a few.  A fe that sound silly and pompous when they use
: >: them.  Pagan is such a word.  Almost comical in connotation.  I don't mean to
: >: insult you....I don't know what I mean to do.  Yeargh.
: >So, why do you insist on applying labels to everything?
: I don't.  Pagans apparently do, which is why they gave themselves one.

Hardly. The term has been applied to those outside the "accepted power
structure" for over 2000 years. 

It is true that some Pagans like to label everything. I think you will find
however, that the definitions are far looser than many. They tend to act as
general descriptors of loose groupings - rather hand rigid descriptions.

Bill
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:46:53 GMT

In article <ksand-271292163856@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>1. As we are created in the image of God, and we both love and hate
>of various reasons, I don't see the problem of God's hate as something 
>profound. If we are capable of hate, so is he as well.

This argument suggests that God is capable of sinning.
--
"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 (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:19:36 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <1992Dec22.015331.2890@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <BzJsx1.9B7@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) writes:
>>It doesn't matter to me what the word "pagan" connotes to you, and
>>that's the point of this discussion.  It resonates for us as a way to
>>connect to the ancient people, though I have no illusions that we are
>>practicing the same religions they did.  We are interested in self-
>>definition, not PR, when we take this name.
>>Same thing with the word "witch."  ...
>
>But then what happens if someone else uses the word the old way?  If you see a
>movie which shows witches as devil-worshippers, should you complain about it?  

Yup. 

>If you do, you're now complaining that the old use of the name gives you bad
>PR; you're no longer engaging in self-definition.  You can't have it both
>ways--say you didn't pick the name for PR, but complain about the PR you got
>from it anyway.

No, you're complaining about the misuse and misdefinition of the word. Tell
me, should Jews change the name for thier religion, since for 1500-odd years
the Jews were accused (whenever convienient) of killing xian babies?

	mark
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24370 alt.atheism:24131