HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lungtt@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:13:58 GMT

In article <1dnkb5INNo0c@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU 
(Carl J Lydick) writes:
>... "They aren't *REAL* Christians" bullshit, unless you can also
>specify an operational definition of Christianity that doesn't depend on your
>subjective evaluations.
What a remarkable statement!

Let's see...if the U.S. is a *Christian* nation, then all Americans
must therefore be *Christians*...by and large, most have Christian
names anyway.  Are they all *REAL* Christians?

Terence
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 7 Nov 1992 01:57:51 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: global
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

 Would some prayer-in-school advocate explain directly why he or she thinks 
 that school is the best place for children to pray.  Why not have your 
 kids pray at home before school, with the rest of the family participating?
           ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose - Please respond
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:23:57 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov6.114608.17288@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:
>In article <1b8U022s2adT01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>|The parts I left out were for the purpose of not having to type in the
>|whole page.  Even with the parts you added, it doesn't change the fact
>|that this was a "prophecy".
>
>...
>
>|From the History of the Church Volume set that I bought at the LDS
>|bookstore called "The BeeHive", located in San Jose, CA
>|
>|Really, it doesn't matter where I got it from, if it is true!
>
>
>In other words *you* admit editing out a paragraph that any Mormon would
>have immediately used to counter your accusation. Nice Tony. Really Nice! 
>Up to this point I was ready to count you among the "honestly mistaken"
>that is, you might disagree, but your disagreement was basically honest.
>
>Good-bye Tony. It's obvious that any type of discussion with you is
>ludicrous.
>-- 
>
>              Willard C. Smith
>  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
>   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com


Sorry you feel that way Will.  If you think that the parts I omitted
refutes my intent of what I did use, please elaborate on that issue.  I
do not feel that the words I excluded changed the meaning of what is being
said in text.  If anything, it further enforces my position.  It is not
my intent to disceive anyone, and it I had done what you are accusing me
of, then it would mean that that _was_ what I was attempting.  This is
not the case and you know it.

I think that it is really interesting.  You were saying that this was not
a prophecy about the coming of our Lord and using this tactic to remove
any validity of what I was saying.  Then when I showed you another source
where Joseph was clearly perdicting the same thing at the same time, you
ignored that factual evidence that stressed my original point, and went
once again to character assination.  Why didn't you comment on the other
evidence I presented instead of attacking my character?  Why is it
everything I bring up evidence that you cannot answer, you set off you
missles on my personal character?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20440 sci.skeptic:19021 alt.censorship:8569 alt.sex:34977
From: troye@cs.mcgill.ca (Troy ENGLISH)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Keywords: mindless,politically-correct,use,your,head
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:35:54 GMT
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <Bx5rou.57o@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <cH1NTB3w165w@cerianthus.pinetree.org> cowan@cerianthus.pinetree.org (Darin Cowan - root) writes:
>
>>English does NOT need gender neutrality, womYn, and so forth.
>
>Spoken by someone who could himself use a little gender neutering.
>
>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 

Well as I see it the problem with the respelling of words to make
certain political groups happy is that the complaints are all a metter
of perception. Ie women to womyn, I have heard people say that wo-men is
a bad word because it implies that women are just extensions of men....
By the same token though we could argue that wo-men and men implies that
men are somehow just a sub-case of women. And for those who want to
respell it to disassociate women from men (there aren't many like this
but there are a few, as if somehow being born male is an affront to the
universe) I would like to point out that women and their futur are tied
completely to that of men. 

As far as a gender neutral pronoun, well, I don't really like the idea
of making the manner in which something is said more important than what
is said. Admittedly the manner in which something is said conveys part
of the message.  Truth be told I simply don't want to go out and have to
learn new grammar rules every time the popular politics change.

p.s Tim. What the heck is an inverted black and white triangle mean? I
know the inverted pink one but black and white.... :-)


-- 
*****************************************************************
--Your naive idiocy makes me very angry -- Job (The Lawnmower man)
"I want to lie Shipwrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice"
--Part of Themesong to Red Dwarf
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jeffh@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jeffrey Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Jeff H -- still can't get through
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:54:45 GMT

Mark:

news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:


>        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.

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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:28:06 GMT

In article <Bx9w46.E7x@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>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.
>Your speech patterns depend wholly on the whims of a loved one?  Get
>help.

This no more means his speech patterns depend on the whims of a loved one,
than _acceeding_ to the change means his speech patterns depend on the whims of
a stranger....
--
"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: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:02:15 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>
>> 1) There is no such thing as a soul (why do you think there is?).  But if
>> you are asking what makes us who we are as individuals, then the answer is
>> the combination of the matter of which we are made and the form/order/
>> arrangement of this matter. Don't confuse the form with your concept of
>> the soul -- form is a property of matter and does not exist independently
>> of matter.
>
>Question 1 grade: 0%
>
>Where do you get the information that there is no soul?

He asked you first!  (why do you think there is?)

>If we are a combination of matter and form/order, how did these two come
>to be combined?

That question doesn't make sense.  You don't 'combine' form and
matter, because while it's possible to have formless matter, it's
impossible to have matterless form.

>If form is a property of matter and "dependent" on it,
>then there must be a third thing, a "function" that maps matter onto
>form, so that the two can be distinguished.

Incorrect.  Sand dunes certainly have form, but there is no "function"
that maps this form onto it, unless you count wind as this "function".
Trees grow the way they do because of their genetic material, as do
we.  There is no "function" that this genetic material was created to
fulfill, at least not in the way you believe.

You believe that there is a function, so let me ask you:

>What is this function and what is its origin?


>> 2) Purpose implies design, which is not evident.  So then we are left to 
>> our own devices to give meaning and purpose to our lives.
>
>Question 2 grade: 0%

Are you saying that there _is_ design evident?  Demonstrate, please.

>Overall grade: 0% (pupil in wrong class)

So you're saying he's outclassed you?  ;-)

-- 
_/_/_/  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.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:49:36 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in
>praise of intelligence.
>                -- Bertrand Russell

weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) replies:
> Intelligence is an inherited trait. (...)
> "There is not one word in the Gospels in praise of blue eyes" is a 
> criticism of equal gravity. 

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) replies:
>Eh? I think Russell provided a very clear statement, 

Yes, very clear. However, you seem to regard this as a severe criticism.
I think it would be very odd for the gospels to praise the characteristic
of inherited mental capacity. Praise for effort and endeavor would be 
something to expect from the gospels, but not praise for inherited traits.
My point is that Russell's criticism is of little or no value. 

---
Dave Weaver                | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |  gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with *in*formation)
Date: 13 Nov 1992 06:25:40 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
|>ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
|>> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
|>>>  [...]  Let's
|>>>compare them to the New Testament - 24,633 total MSS and 5338 complete MSS!
|>>> [...]  In addition, these date to within 40-300 years of the autograph. 
|>> Pretty impressive.  At least three major errors in only two sentences.  ;)
|>"Sez you," to quote a truly staggering Bible critic. :+)

Well, "staggering" is the one accurate thing you've said so far.  ;)

|>> 1] The total number of *all* greek manuscripts of the NT --down to the
|>> 18th[!!] century-- is on the order of 5000[*].   [...]

|>NEW TESTAMENT
|> [...]
|>OLD TESTAMENT
|> [...]
|>I believe that justifies the ~25000 total MSS claim.

Actually it does nothing of the sort.  Since we're talking about the New
Testament, the only manuscripts of interest are those in Greek.  The
Syriac, Slavonic, etc. are certainly useful to have at hand, but they don't
advance your argument in any way.

(On the other hand, your claims about the number of Homeric manuscripts
include only very ancient, Greek manuscripts.  Why do you not include all
the translations in his example.)

No, the ~5000 figure is correct.  And of these, only ~2% come from "the
first 300 years" of which you are so fond.

Furthermore, your listing of Old Testament accounts for >40% of your total.
Of what relevance is this?  (You _do_ understand the difference between the
Old and New Testaments, don't you?   ;)

|>  * As I said in my original post, no one disputes the authenticity of
|>     the works of, say, Thucydides - his _History of Thucydides_ is
|>     availible to us from 8 MSS, the earliest of which dates to about
|>     1200 years after his death.  The Bible must be reviewed for its
|>     authenticity just like any other work.  If the classical scholars
|>     can confirm the works of Thucydides, how much more reliable is
|>     the Bible?

I'll let others deal with the gaping holes in your logic, but I only wish
to make the single point that the most of the manuscripts you claim in
support of your assertion come from nearly this long after the writing of
the NT.

|>  [...]

Most of the rest of what you write simple repeats in various forms what
I've already said.

I take it, then, you are acknowledging my point?

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --     "...and they opened their thesaurus and offered 
                            him gold and frankincense and myrrh..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Paul and the Gospels
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:11:38 GMT

In article <lg6an0INNkqn@news.bbn.com> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>
>Here's a question about Paul that's always bothered me:
>*completely* absent from the Gospels?  
>...But this influence or
>thought is not merely played-down; it has utterly vanished.
utterly vanished?  How did you come across it?

Terence
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21079 alt.atheism:21224
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:29:52 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1g3wTB6w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
<keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
<
<> >1) What is the soul?
<> 
<> There isn't one.
<
<Question 1 grade: 0% (isn't one what?)

Soul.  There is no soul.  Rejoinder 1 grade: 0% (meaningless echo question
-- poor communicative skills).

<> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
<> 
<> There isn't one.  Or, <...>
<
<Question 2 grade: 25% (simple "I don't know" would have sufficed)

True, but "There isn't one" is a better answer.  Rejoinder 2 grade: 0%
(fallacious marking).

Overall grade: 0% (teacher in the wrong class).
Don't try that again.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: 00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Paul Neubauer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:38:29 GMT
Organization: Ball State U.

In article <1992Nov5.164249.15835@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, 
 mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
> In article <parsons.720992073@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> 
>  parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>>dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
>>Someone else writes:
>>>>...(I) might agree to organized prayer in a school is if it were done, 
>>>>say, at the end of the school day, so children who don't want to
>>>>participate could just leave instead.
>>
>>>This has certain advantages.  It would not be done on school time.
>>>...
>>>can be done now without any new legislation.  I don't know if this
>>>would be considered an establishment of religion or not.
>>
>>After hours use of public school facilities by religious organizations
>>or for religious purposes is in dispute in a few areas of this country.
>>A church group in (forgot the state) wanted to use their local high 
>>school auditorium after hours to show a video on teenagers and sex 
>>emphasizing abstinance, that was produced by a religious oriented 
>>organization.  The district denied their request to use the facility
>>citing separation of church and state.  A suit followed; I believe
>>it is still pending.
>> 
> A while back I am told there was a Supreme Court decision that made it
> legal to use schools for a gathering place of religous groups when school
> is not in session.  This decision is in theory still active.  I don't know

There was.  I forget the citation details, but it was a couple of
years ago and I think the case was from Missouri or vicinity.  The
upshot of it, though, was that if a school allowed students to form
extra-curricular clubs and use school rooms to meet in (after school)
or other school facilities, then the school could not ban a club
simply because it was religious.  This is, IMHO, eminently reasonable.
More reason and less hysteria strikes me as a good idea in general.

Use of school facilities by non-students or organizations of
non-students ought to follow a similar line of reasoning.  If the
school customarily allows such groups to use facilities, either with
or without charge, then the criteria ought to be the same for
religious and non-religious groups.

Sigh, I know I'm a hopeless optimist and idealist.  :-)

-- 
Paul Neubauer   00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  00prneubauer@bsuvax1.BITNET
                00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP       neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP
From: wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:54:06 GMT
Organization: Red Wolfe @ The Wolves Den
X-Md4-Signature: 153e821860cacdacb36f368236deb39b

In <74181@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>
>No you quibble - I don't advocate goverment-run prayers in the sense that
>others on the net seem to think.  I think government can and should allow
>for a time of organized prayer - not mandated officals leading in prayer.
>There is a difference.

Organized prayer is an official recognition of religious activity.  This
action implies that the government is "establishing religion" as a
preferred activity -- and that is exactly what they are prohibited from
doing in the Constitution of the USA.

It is a classic question of the "slippery slope."  Allowing ANY religion
access to a governmental activity can lead to denying other religions
the same or equal access to that activity.  The only way I can see to
prevent granting a particular religion approval is to not allow any
religion access or approval.

Religious education is a matter for the parents to provide, not for the
government to support.  They should do so at home, and not foist their
lack of responsibility off on the public school systems.
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den, Durham NC	[This site is NOT affiliated  ]
wolfe@wolves.durham.nc.us			[with Duke University! Idiots!]
UUCP: ...!duke!wolves!wolfe      <Standard Disclaimers apply>
    Above All, we celebrate!  --Celebrate the Circle, Statement of Purpose.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:16:47 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Bx9LFB.G8w@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
|In article <73791@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
|rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>Have you ever noticed I don't invoke PR's name, but I do invoke that of 
|>the Lord Jesus the Christ, the God man - Jesus of Nazareth, who I preach 
|
|the God meister, fisher-of-men man, the PR of PR (boys! boys! crazy-boys!), 
|Luke14:26 monger coming to make some copies, boy-toy of Mary Magdelan ...

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.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 00:41:58 EST

In article <1992Nov5.222313.17794@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>
>>>   The example above is flawed in part by the fact that "He went to the
>>>market" is actually appropriate when you know that the perpetrator is male.
>>>It would be very unusual to know who went to the market without knowing
>>>their gender, and using the appropriate gender can hardly be considered
>>>inappropriate in this case.

First off, let me say that I agree that my original example was a poor one.
I think others have constructed much better examples since then.


>>It certainly would.  Their gender has no more effect on the fact of
>>their going to the market than their age, weight or hair color; why do
>>pronouns not distinguish between these highly relevant personal traits
>>as well as gender?
>
>Who are they?  Are we suddenly talking about more than one person?

No--he's trying to express a thought without being forced by language to
impose a gender.

You'll note that using the plural, "they" is a common (but awkward) techinique
used to avoid specifying a particular gender.  One earlier poster even
suggested the use of "they" as a cure-all.


>Pronouns are what they are.  Languages change because people use them
>differently; I will participate in this process when I consider the
>new expression to be superior to the old.  I will not participate in
>this process because some group of people wants me to (however, there
>are certain individuals who can cause me to do so).

For those of you who keep claiming that some participant in this discussion
is trying to *compel* you to use gender-neutral language, please tell us
who that person is.  I have yet to hear *anybody* here advocate compulsory
use of gender-neutral language.


>Finally, do I read you correctly in believing that if I were to say
>"My brother went to the market.  He bought..." you would find that
>objectionable?

I suspect not.

Furthermore, I, personally, don't really care to much whether you use
gender-neutral language at all.  *I* would just like to be able to write
my *own* material in gender-neutral terms when *I* think it is appropriate,
and without having to battle with the current, awkward process of doing so.

As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to do as you please.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20462 sci.skeptic:19044 alt.censorship:8586 alt.sex:35018