HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:45:14 GMT

In article <mjenkins.721874244@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>In <11516@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>How do you know?  Suppose God has decided to damn all Christians and
>>save everybody else.  Or to save all atheists and damn everybody else.
>Then God would be going directly against his word:
Who's word?
I didn't see God say it. All I know is that a bunch of first century
Jews seemed to think that there was some dude named Jesus who for some
reason they believed to (be God/speak for God/be sent from God)
said such a thing. That's a pretty far cry from me actually knowing
that God said it. Besides, what makes you think that God wasn't just
flat out lying?
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Message to all Born Again Believers
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:56:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov19.144722.8610@cs.cornell.edu>, rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu
(Roderick Moten) writes... 

Note: please try to use carriage returns next time -- The following was about
all my editor would let me extract:

>Next time an
>athesist asks you to provide proof of God's existence, tell him/her to ask God
>to provide the proof.  If some one sincerely wants to know if God is real, they
>will ask God from the de 

This is begging the question.  (Sheesh.  This is the second time I've seen 
this done today.)  If an atheist asks God to provide proof for the existence 
of God, that atheist has to accept God first.  See the problem?


******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 04:35:49 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

> There seem to be a lot of people offering "processes" who say "this is the
> right one.  Pick it." too, so that doesn't help.

Then you are unfortunate. Sorry.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Qur'an recognizes Bible as inspired(was Jesus is a Prophet..etc)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:23:46 GMT

In article <5945@balrog.ctron.com> king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King) writes:
>In article <92318.113622RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> <RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>>No, the Qur'an does not say that the gospels are insprired from God...
>>Siddiqui.

>YES,  the Qur'an does say the gospels are inspired.  At Sura 9:11
>it states,"Such is the true promise which He has made them in the
>Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran." (Also see Sura 5:65). 

	That doesn't stop any of these works from being an uninspired
chronicle.

	Furthermore, according to Muslim tradition, even if not the
Koran, all sacred books but the Koran have become corrupted. Muslim
apologists will even point out several of the contradictions in the
Bible to prove their point.
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Different Mormon God
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:09:15 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Nov17.155449.11947@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
>>The God I worship
>>is engaged in a struggle to prevent such suffering.  Because humans
>>are free to make their own troubles, He isn't entirely successful,
>
>Come now.  This is a simple matter for your God, no?  All he need do is
>rearrange the laws of the universe such that humans are physically
>incapable of suffering.  Unless, of course, you wish to claim that your
>God is incapable of doing this.  Note that such a rearrangement would
>have no effect on (illusory as it is) free will.
>

No.  One of the radical things about Joseph Smith's theology was
a finitistic God, not one who created the laws of the universe
(which were considered eternal and increate).  God is God because of his
harmony with the laws of the universe, and is not capable of
changing the rules to suit Him.  In other words, if humans
could be changed so they were incapable of suffering, by doing so,
something else would be lost that would vitiate that change or make
it an evil thing rather than a good.  Obviously, this is not fully
satisfying, since it is hard to see how the suffering of children
could not be prevented without harming the overall picture, but
we have to admit we are limited in our perspective.  A similar
theology has been expressed by Rabbi Kushner in "Why Bad Things
Happen to Good People."
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:40:30 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

In article <1992Nov16.112709.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> phys224@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
>I've recently read the bible,and am stunned and horrified at the cruety and
>irrationality of the christian god. It is mean,spiteful,selfish,demands
                      ^^^^^^^^^
Hey, this is also the God of the Jews, so give them some credit for all
this horror! The Christians took over later after the horror in the
Bible was over.
>we obey under pain of (eternal!) suffering.i could'nt believe it!why do
>some people believe in this god,and why follow it?
>In the flood,innocent beings of all kinds are killed (even human babies!)
>The chosen people move about the landscape,annihalating people as they go.
>God's punishments in the old testement are nothing short of ridiculous
>and cruel.he wants our faith and obedience,yet refuses to offer evidence of
>his own existence? much of the bible surely cannot be read literally,
>some statements are crazy e.g. the new jerusulum in revelations is huge
>and perfectly square;such a city can only fit on a flat earth!etc, most
>of whats in the bible conflicts with evolutionary theory,biology,physics
>etc. So why should i believe in it?
What! Do you not believe in myth? Metaphor? Symbols? 

>Why do some people believe Satan is evil? dosen't satan simply want us to
>be ourselves,to make our own choices and morality?Lucifer seems to be
>the opposite of god;he wants us to be us,not just computers whose
>programs are scriptures.I don't belive in 'GOD' or Satan;but would
>worship Satan if i did.if it is true,was Satan fighting for us as well as
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 And you begin to worship yourself. Good luck if you do.
>himself?to free us from god's yoke?
To the Christian (the Jews don't have a hell, the lucky people), Hell is
the absence of God. Satan in NOT the opposite of God, but the absence.
Big difference.
>please,could i have replys on this issue?replys based on what satan did/
>wants,not on statements from the bible saying he is evil or whatever;
>after all,the bible is written by pro-god people.
>what is so wrong about inventing your own morality?i follow my own
>personal (atheistic) beliefs,i judge them adequate;i try to cause no pain to
>others,actively try to help out people who need help,as well as attempt
>to weaken religion if i possibly can.what is so wrong with my morality?
>nothing that i can see.
>
This is the old emotivism tactic. "If it feels good, it must be good for
me!" I am curious to know on what principles would you base your
morality? And should I live near you? Or is it lucky for me that you are
in NZ and I in the USA?

-- 
jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org                                (214) 235-7161 x4100
John E. Spence                                                  CompuTrac, Inc.
"I don't speak for CompuTrac, and CompuTrac doesn't speak for me!"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:17:25 GMT

In article <eiwmuB13w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> There seem to be a lot of people offering "processes" who say "this is the
>> right one.  Pick it." too, so that doesn't help.
>Then you are unfortunate. Sorry.

Grade: 0% (refusal to give satisfactory answer to second question implied
by unsatisfactory answer to first question)

The question, explicitly: You said "this is the right one.  Pick it."  How can
I tell which of the many people who say that I should follow?
--
"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: bfc@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bryan Carpenter)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: A Message to all Born Again Believers
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc

rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
> Next time an athesist asks you to provide proof of God's existence,
> tell him/her to ask God to provide the proof.  If some one sincerely
> wants to know if God is real, they will ask God from the depths of
> their heart to reveal Himself, and He will. However, some really
> don't want to know God so they will never bother to ask Him.  Also,
> always remember that your words alone will not draw any one to
> Christ, but the Spirit of the Lord.

What you have said is not true.  I am a counterexample.  I was raised
as a Christian, and believed the teachings to be true.  I wanted to
experience the Holy Spirit and repeatedly asked Christ into my heart.
I was as earnest in this as I could be.  I wondered what was wrong
with me.  Only well into my adult life did I come to see all the
contradictions inherent in the Christian belief system, and to realize
that the concept of god was created by man, rather than man being
created by god.  I realize that your beliefs force you to either call me
a liar or say that I was deceived by Satan.  Whatever the case, the
fact is that if your god exists, he allowed an honest seeker of him to
fall away by never giving any indication of his existence.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:47:01 GMT

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> Fight?  Fighting takes a serious adversary, and you don't look like one.

In article <2wRDuB22w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> I think you're just a chicken, boy! Bwak, Bwak, Bwak!

	Oh yeah?  Well, >I< think Ivan probably has a code of honor
which forbids him from engaging in battles of wits with unarmed
adversaries. 
	By the way, where's that proof that abiogenesis didn't happen
that everyone's waiting for in talk.origins?  You did say it was
straightforward.  "Read the book," is not a proof, especially when the
book is apparently available only from some obscure Vedic publisher
for $10.  People are not going to shell out that much for a book
without some evidence that it is worth more than a pile of fetid
dingos' kidneys.  At least one person has offered to read the book if
you send him a copy at your expense.  Ball's in your court now.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
        HI!  I'm a mutating signature virus.  You can resist helping me spread!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:03:15 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) writes:
: > 
: > Show me this "material mind."
: 
: You can see it. But are you willing to undergo the process? Or are you
: too lazy?

In my particular case, yes, I am too lazy.  If I were to investigate
every weird claim I ever heard, I am afraid I will waste my one and
only life chasing chimeras.  By the way, what is the punishment for 
my laziness anyways?
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov21.233344.5841@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 1992 21:38:37 UTC

In article <1992Nov21.233344.5841@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>I hate to cut in here, but you might be interested in my $.02:

Welcome back John. You know, this is gonna sound insulting but in the
past I thought you were a good example of an authentic person leading an
inauthentic life, but here in this post you seem to be joining the land
of the living. (As if *I* would know such things.) Welcome back and keep
thinking.

>(Paul Harvey) writes:
>>OK, OK, I'm just trying to figure out your conception of the meaning of
>>Jesus. Now, it seems to me that this is what you are saying:
>>Item#1: Human Being
>>	Part 1: Human Body
>>	Part 2: Human Spirit
>>	At Human death, the Human Body dies but the Human Spirit lives
>>	and does something, what?
>>Item#2: Jesus
>>	Part 1: Human Body
>>	Part 2: God Spirit
>>	At Jesus death, the Human Body dies but the God Spirit lives and
>>	does something, what?
>>Some more questions:
>>1. Jesus does not seem to be 100% human since he lacks a human spirit.
>Jesus was fully man in bodily experience, and fully God in Spirit.

Allright, I think that statement is clear. Though a pagan concept, it
seems plausable to me.

>>2. Is God only God Spirit or are there other parts of God?
>The one Spirit has a plurality which is above our complete comprehension.

Interesting. You're becoming metaphorical aren't you? The transcendent
is of course transcendent of number and quantity. Is this what you are
saying?

>>3. What is the difference between Human Spirit and God Spirit?
>The human spirit is a creation (child) of the Spirit.

Is it a creation or is it an aspect, a part?

>My best (though probably flawed) understanding:

Why would your understanding be flawed? Who is the judge of such things?
And, though I might not entirely agree with your understanding, I hope
you understand that I have my own you see, it certainly seems plausable.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:49:11 GMT

Steve Adams writes

>>I just wonder:  can an animal sin?  (I mean animals aside from humans)

>No.  Animals are not 'free, moral agents.'

By proclamation? This seems rather simplistic to me. I'm sure we've
all at least heard of research that has shown that certain cetaceans
and apes are surprisingly close to humans in their capacities for
social and reasoning behavior and communication. Why would anyone
suppose that free, moral behavior is an exclusively human trait? I
tend to cast a wary eye on religion that produces pat answers to
difficult questions.  

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Homosexual Nightmare
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:19:50 GMT

Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
: 
: Let's stop all this beating around the bush. I completely agree with Mark
: Morrell, in that I do not want my child taught by a homosexual teacher
: either, and I am not afraid to say exactly why.
: 
: I do not want a teacher influencing my child, either directly or
: indirectly, toward a lifestyle that is perverted. Why are people so afraid
: to say this bluntly and truthfully? Yes it's unfashionable right now to say
: so, but it is perfectly consistent with 5000 years of Judeo-Christian
: morality and history. I stand on the side of the age-old standard. Let the
: perverts do whatever they want to in private, but they have no right to
: push their lifestyle on me or my family.

So you feel that 5000 years of bigotry is a rational basis to continue
bigotry?  Could you provide scientific studies that support your claim
that children are negatively influenced by having homosexual teachers?
Do you have evidence that homosexual teachers are more likely to molest
children than heterosexual teachers?  It's obvious that your
prejudice is based on nothing more than that of a run-of-the-mill 
racist.  Support your charges with something more than anecdotal evidence
and perhaps you might convince us that you're more than just an ignorant
hate-monger.
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 17:21:55 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>Perhaps it might be more reasonable to say "a morally sound person
>acknowledges an error if it is pointed out to him and if he
>recognizes it as an error".

Yes, this is my charge against him stated explicitly (before now there
had been no reason to state the charge in such detail, for the
discussion had moved in a different direction).

I believe Mr. Sandvik meets the explicit criteria.  That he recognized
his error can be established from the following.  He has knowledge of
hardware design, and thus understands truth tables.  I posted a truth
table to demonstrate the difference between (~p -> q) and the logical
inverse.  After he saw it he began to refer to propositional logic as
"special knowledge" that he did not have.  Something happened to cause
a change in his perception of his logic skills.  That something was
recognition of his error.

As a result of his participation in this thread, the case that Mr.
Sandvik recognized his error is more compelling than when we began.
He wrote, "...he should also state that I in my private email
conversation with him said that I was wrong in some of my statements
concerning logic."  It follows that he had recognized his error.

I don't mind saying it would be very easy for Mr. Sandvik to nullify
my argument that he is not morally sound.  He could simply acknowledge
his earlier logical errors.  That would diffuse my
refutation-by-example, taking the wind out of my sails entirely.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:30:31 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Nov17.000605.22065@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> In article <30420@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
|> >God doesn't demand that we obey under the pain of eternal suffering as much
|> >as call out to us to come to Him so that we can avoid eternal suffering.
|> 
|> What's the difference between these two?
Let's say that your house was on fire. I could come up, bang on the door
and with great concern for your well being, say, "Hey! Your house is burning
get out of there quick."
Or I could stand out on the street and yell, "Nyahh, nyahh your house
is burning, I hope you burn up with it because I don't care a fig for you."
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:09:39 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov22.235001.25025@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu > From this one can glean that I think a morally
sound person
> acknowledges errors, and in at least one instance Mr. Sandvik has not
> done so.  The two relevant responses are,

Another observation, look at the title of this thread. I think
it's a splendid title, actually! God speaks, indeed :-).

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Sharp Contrast to the Song of Solomon
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:42:13 GMT
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute

In article <1992Nov14.192733.9723@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)  
writes:
> Hello,
> 
> In my post of the beautiful and erotic poem, "The Song of Solomon", which
> comes, believe it or not, from the Bible, I made mention of an anti-sexual
> (and thus anti-Christian) set of instructions for the new bride written
> by the wife of a Methodist minister. in 1894.
> 
> [posting deleted]

Hmm. Pardon my skepticism, but I have a hard time believing that this was  
written by a Methodist minister's wife in 1894--not because I think that such  
attitudes didn't (and don't still) exist, but because the style, phrasing,  
rhythm and vocabulary sound far too modern. More accurately, they sound like  
someone's attempt to write in such a style, but the effort doesn't quite ring  
true. I'd have to see the provenance for this article well established before  
accepting it at face value. ..bruce..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             | We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty
Chief Technical Officer      | God according to the dictates of our own con-
Pages Software Inc           | science, and allow all men the same privilege,
bwebster@pages.com           | let them worship how, where or what they may.
#import <pages/disclaimer.h> |     -- Joseph Smith (11th Article of Faith)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------