HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Reflections on Ignorance (reply to Dano)
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:51:41 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada



Re: Dano's comments on my assertions of ignorance

I haven't been able to get on the net to reply for several days now, and 
my newsreader deletes posts three days old, so I don't have your exact 
comments to reply to. I'll try to do my best, though.

Your main point seemed to me to be a good one: how can I be so sure
I don't know anything for sure? 

In order to answer that I want to draw a distinction between two kinds
of "knowledge."  The first is what one might call rational knowledge,
knowledge in terms of language. The second is non-rational
knowledge, knowledge as in "knowing" what water feels like. 

The first kind of knowledge is both the kind that we want, and the kind that
we can never have. How do I "know" this? By the second kind of knowledge. 
Another way to put this might be, we can perceive the limitations of our
ability to know things rationally, but our rational knowledge can
never know what is beyond perception, because rational knowledge is by nature
nothing more than an image of the "perceptual."

Another way to put this: we can never know what is beyond perception, because
perception is all there is. One "knows" this by the second kind of
knowledge. One sees that one can never know. When I put this into words,
it starts to sound like a rational knowledge-claim, a belief. But it isn't
that, it's an observation recorded in a certain set of terms.

The difference between myself (for example) and a believer in a metaphysical
ideology is only this: I regard my rational interpretations of perceptual
events as being just that. Images. The believer wants to assert that
the images are not images, but are "real."  This is called confusing
imaginative and non-imaginative experience....or living in your
imagination.  Another word for this, I think, is "maya." Just my opinion, 
there, though. 

My interpretation of Hinduism: the recognition of total ignorance is the
penetration of "maya" (the world of illusion, or, your experience when you
think you know what's going on)

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Even if this were a .sig, it would only be more misleading than it is now.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Give me a Chi....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:37:24 GMT

Give me a Rho
Give Me an Iota
Give me a Sigma
Give me a Tau
Give me a Omicron
Give me a Sigma

Whats that spell....

Whats that spell..... 

FISH![1]

raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:
] 
] And the only thing 'derogatory' is your use of the 'x'
] as a substitute for the letters 'Christ' 
] 
] Christopher


just because gene is totally ignorant of philology and history
is no reason to point out your own Blatant ignorance of 
koina greek and traditional bible school notation tricks.[2]


ciao
drieux

[1] The Fish Joke May go past some of you DevilWorshiping
Followers Of the GreatWhoreOfBabylon.

[2] Ok, so our bible school did NOT have a 
Great Football team, but we did have a better
Prayer Huddle than the SeXularHumanistScum who
were all ToolsOfTheDevil[tm] and most likely
Grew up to Be Perverted, HateMongering, SickoPsycho
DrugAddledMassMurder, kernel hacking,....

uh,

uh,

skip that one....

PersonsWhoUseThe WrongOS.



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: donal@brewich.hou.tx.us (Donal)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 19:56:19 CST
Organization: The Brewers' Witch BBS, +1 713 272 7350, Brewich.Hou.TX.US

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

> In article <24DEC199211060189@jane.uh.edu> lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Bla
> >It was the Xtians that changed the meaning of "witch" in the first place.
> 
> When?
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that some group called themselves witches first, an
> then some Christians got together and decided to use this word to mean "devil
> worshipper"?

Yes, Ken, that is exactly what we are trying to tell you. It has been
stated previously that the word "witch" derives from the saxon wicce (or
wicca, one is male the other female, I forget which witch is which).
This term was used before Christianity came to western Europe to
describe certain wise persons, or village elders if you will, who also
served certain religious functions. Christianity later corrupted the
term and associated it with devil worship. This is what the Church did
repeatedly to any other religion they encountered. They said the same
things of Jews and Moslems, not to mention Mithraites(sp?) and others
that they sought to destroy. We do not seek to redefine the word "witch"
but to UNredefine it! A Witch is what I am. I am not a devil worshiper.
I do not burn or eat babies. I make babies (just did, too!). I am a Man
and I am a Witch.

Blessed Be! (Oh, and Merry Christmas to our Christian readers, and even
a Happy Hannukah!) The Sun returns, let all rejoice!


--------------------
Donal, SysAdmin of The Brewers' Witch BBS -- +1 713 272 7350
(Internet) donal@brewich.hou.tx.us  (Work) bill%pssi@brewich.hou.tx.us
(CIS) 76460,1443  (WFS) file-request@brewich.hou.tx.us  INDEX or HELP
(SCA) Ld. Donal Dubh, IC of Dun Bruadar, B of the Stargate, K of Ansteorra
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:42:06 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <85px02YM2e0601@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>This false conception of the denominations is common among LDSs, because
>of what Joseph Smith said about his vision; that all the sects were
>arguing over who was the "one true church". This fact is another thing
>that removes validity from the "first vision", because the major
>denominations have never argued over that!  Because they all are in 100%
>agreement on essentials.
>
Like whether women can be priests?  I doubt that.  And in 1820 it was
doubly true.  There was much doctrinal contention in those days.
You are incredibly ignorant of Christian history if you think
that people didn't fight and die over whether there was one true
church.  Back in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, this may
have been the major cause of war.  I agree that nowadays it is
much less an issue.  But it still is an issue, especially among
people like you who are always badgering Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses,
etc.  More liberal churches have gotten away from that, it is true.

>This is the reason that the LDS theology is so dangerous for one's soul.
>The LDS church teaches that Jesus was only A God, among many.  A created
>being.  And unless one believes that Jesus is the I AM THAT I AM that he
>claimed to be, they will perish.

I am not aware of a single Mormon author who has taught that Jesus was
a created being.  The Mormon heresy is rather than we are *not* created
beings.  Or in the words of Joseph Smith, we are co-eternal with God.
(Besides, the Mormons do believe that Jesus is the great I AM).



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sunday, 3 January 1993 09:11:24 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <1993Jan3.050831.26797@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)  wrote:
# 	I think that the concious mind *does* influence the information
# 	it recieves (this is quite easy to prove incidentally, anyone
# 	here see their blind spot?), but I have to think there are limits.
# 	(But perhaps the distinction I am making is irrelavent--if the
# 	*concious* mind believes something, that may be all that is 
# 	important.  Beliefs, political, moral, religious--are not
# 	present at the lower (hardware) level)...

  Don't be so sure you know where the line is.  There are any number
  of "beliefs" that exist at the instinctive level.  Here I use
  'belief' to mean a theory relating expected results to actions.
  Consider hunger->eating, thirst->drinking, sex, and so forth.
  There are cases where you can mess up the causality by (for
  instance) giving someone a dehydrating drink while on IV hydration
  (this happens sometimes with cholera) and they won't quit
  drinking even though it makes things worse.  They just aren't
  capable of UNlearning the instinct.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Date: 22 Dec 92 03:02:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec21.234517.28840@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) wrote:
> I believe J experienced the full weight of _all_ human sin and
> conditions when he became sin on the cross, so in that sense he
> did experience all and more. 

So we are dealing with a mystical transformation that will never
be explained, and all we have to rely on is the doctrines defined
later? 

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: WITCH was PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<24DEC199211060189@jane.uh.edu> 
	<1992Dec24.205827.26678@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: 24 Dec 1992 23:10:54 UTC

In article <1992Dec24.205827.26678@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <24DEC199211060189@jane.uh.edu> 
lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>>It was the Xtians that changed the meaning of "witch" in the first place.
>When?
>Are you trying to tell me that some group called themselves witches first, and
>then some Christians got together and decided to use this word to mean "devil
>worshipper"?

BINGO!
You say all that glitters is gold, half the story have never been told!
So now you've seen the light, will you stand up for your right?
wicca,wicce: OLD ENGLISH. (shaman)
Yes, Ken, there was religion in Europe prior to the Holy Roman Empire,
which as some have said was neither holy nor Roman nor an Empire.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Extra Credit: voodoo.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
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 21:11:06 GMT

lance@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US (Lance A. Brown) writes:
: > I am neither a follower of Judaism nor one of Christianity.  I have my own 
: > definitions of things, and subscribe to no existing religion.  I also 
: > don't give myself a name in the hopes of justifying myself, while in effect
: > inviting ridicule.
: 
: I don't call myself 'pagan' to "justify myself".  I call myself pagan 
: because it maps most closely to my belief structure.  It sure as Hel 
: doesn't map to any other word easily.
: 
: Anyone who ridicules me for calling myself pagan just self-selects 
: themselves out of the group of people I associate with regularly.

Exactly. You can usually find a fool to laugh at just about anything.
It is much harder to find people who will accept others, no matter
what label they may apply to themselves.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 05:27:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.092719.17208@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>: >
>: follow the logic of J.C. purportedly saying "I am the only way", and 
>: "therefore *everything* else is false, and I'm letting all these people
>: go to Hell if I don't show them the Right Way(tm)" If one side says,
>: all paths are equally valid, and another side says, "there's only *ONE*
>: right way: MINE", then the first group, if they do not push their own
>
>From what I have read in the Bible - Jesus did not say this. He is  
>supposed to have said "I am the way". That does not deny others as
>also being valid. He was only claiming that his way was valid.  I
>would expect, if the people who collated the mythology called the
>Bible had meant "only", that they would have written it that way.

Isn't the full text "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man
cometh to the father but through me."?  I don't have a bible handy
to check it.  Sounds awful exclusive to me.

Of course, at some point I looked at that and said, "I'm not a man
and I'm not looking to get to your father, bye."


*) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)!(* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (*
Jo Ann Malina, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Neither Stanford nor the DOE would be caught dead with these opinions.
Nor do they consult me when formulating theirs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.     -Bill Clinton
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:41:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec29.054604.2440@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> Logic in Christianity can work the same way.  It is possible to give premises
> and draw conclusions from them; even something as simple as:
> 1. If you do X, you go to hell.
> 2. It is not good to do things which get you sent to hell.
> 3. Therefore, it is not good to do X.
> is logical in that the conclusion follows from the premises.

Actually this is one of the best examples so far to counter-measure
my claim that Christianity lacks logic, and funny enough it's not
even presented by a Christian (correct me if I'm wrong; based on reading
earlier emails).

My comment is that if we all agree what for instance what the concept hell
consists of, then you could draw the conclusion. For a believer this is 
simple, for a non-believer the concept of hell is void, and that makes
decisions based on the conclusion not fully justified. If hell does
not exist, and I do things that should supposedly take me to hell,
but it does not, is this a valid logical conclusion or not? We 
can't even say it's false, because we can't measure the concepts
of hell, neither agree that they are premisses.

I think we need to separate between the information presented, and 
the actual verification if a statement is logical or not. The
information could convey a structure, but unless we could agree
that yes indeed hell exists and it's not a dumping ground called
Gehenna outside Jerusalem, and that the ten commandments plus/minus
other things will push you into this place, and so on, then it's 
very hard and not really practical to state that the conclusion is
valid.

I think that in general one should be careful about blindly make
assertions about premisses, without separating the two views
of information versus knowledge. Heck, I have to read Tractatus
once again :-).

Let me stretch a little bit and take the opposite side and try to
make a statement that could convey something logical, and at the same
time is based on Christianity-doctrines:

Jesus went around stating that if someone hits you you should turn
the other cheek around.
If someone hits me then I should do the same.
The outcome is that I'm most likely hit on the other cheek. Don't know if
it's
good or not, but I followed the orders! There's also a small possibility
that the enemy gets confused and won't hit me once again, but that's not
certain.

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 11:45:16 GMT

lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:

... delided ...
: Catholic, Baptist, etc.  All "christian" means is that they believe that
: Jesus is the Messiah.  It tells us nothing of their system.  Just as "pagan"
: means that they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah.  It also means that
: they don't derive their religion from the Judeo-Christian-Moslem base.

There are those that would disagree.

: Remember that neither Hindu nor Buddism are derived from the 
: Judeo-Christian-Moslem base.  Technically they are pagan also.

... delided ...

: >>>
: >>Aren't you being Christo-centric here? There are pagan Christians by the
: >>way. It is true that many Christians use the word pagan in a derogatory
: 
: It is impossible for there to be pagan christians.  However there can be

Coulc you please explain why this is impossible.

: pagan-positive christians.  It means that they believe Jesus is the Messiah,
: but that they do not adhere strictly to the dogma that "Christianity" is the
: one true faith.  There are also those people who worship both religions.

So, what would you call these people? Are they Christians? You have said
they cannot be pagans.

: This is what I assume you are referring to.  I have found that these
: people cling to Christianity because it still holds something for them.

That is why most people hold an unprovable belief - because it means something
to them. What is wrong with that?

: They are usually raised with it.  Sometimes it is hard to let go.  Because
: most pagans can see elements of the god or goddess in all religious figures
: it makes it easier.  

Why should people "let go" of Christianity? What is wrong with having Jesus
as one of your gods? Is the archtype to be rejected, just because some other
followers do not follow the teaching attributed to this deity?

Now, if you said that people should "let go" of religious fundamentalism,
of whatever stripe, then I would agree with your statement.

... delided ...

: >Pagan is the term that early xians used in a derogatory sense for non-xians.
: >You cannot be a xian pagan any more than you can be a non-xian xian!
: > 
: >Being a pagan does not mean that you follow x,y,and z but that you don't
: >believe in the xian, islamic or jewish god. Period.
: 
: Thank you.

Why are you thanking the person. The statement is false. I know a few
pagans who would disagree - at least, they use Jesus as one of their
deities. 

... delided ...

: Given this, can we agree that ... When on alt.pagan... we refer to pagans as
: "all those who worship a religion not founded upon the 
: Judeo-Christian-Moslem base"?  How you define it outside of this news group
: is up to you.

"Not founded on, but not excluding ... " is a phrase I could agree with.

Bill
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:28:47 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec28.014653.8227@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 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.

"Created in the image of God" suggests many other issues as well!

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 1/1/93   God's Promise in Revelation 3:20
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:05:59 GMT

psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>	Behold,
>	I stand at the door, and knock:
>	if any man
>	hear my voice, and open the door,
>	I will come in to him,
>	and will sup with him, and he with me.
>
>	Revelation 3:20


	Ah, yes, so saith the Bible,
	but I heard a knocking once
	yet when I answered it, there was no one there,
	and I decided it was my imagination,
	for even when I went outside to ask God to sup with me
	I could not find him, though I searched long and far.
	I dined alone,
	and the food was no less good for lack of him.

	Personal experience

-- 
_/_/_/  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
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief.
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:45:51 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <adams.725585678@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>Relative few christians question the historical accuracy
>of the resurrection, but I have known some who do.
True enough, but one has to reject certain parts of Scripture, most notably
Paul, to do this...

>>There is no con game here.  It is your choice to make.  Your decision on
>>whether or not you think Scripture is the word of God.  No force, no
>>intimidation. 
>
>No intimidation?  What happens to people who make the
>wrong choice?

I have no idea...that's up to God.  Iraneaus and others seem to think that
the choice didn't matter...and Iraneaus was canonized by the Roman church.

 -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,alt.atheism,alt.pagan