HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Date: 20 Dec 92 04:17:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: world,public

In article <1992Dec15.200523.1605@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.001729.26444@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>> You're right, Stephen. Separation, pain, and, let us not forget, finality.
>> The choice we all make every day about whether to remain apart from God is
>> rather important in that light, is it not?   As (I think) CS Lewis wrote
>> once, "Could there not be a state of _having_been_ a human soul? And would
>> this not incorporate separation, suffering, and finality?"
>
>Wow. Action-packed stuff. Assumption of implied claim (existence of God),
>*grrrrrrross* condescension toward atheists supposedly choosing daily to
>"remain apart from God" despite there being no such choice to make from
>the atheist standpoint, and argument from the `authority' of the dismal
>CS Lewis all in one brief paragraph.

Well, I try ;>

However, NO condescension was meant. Each person chooses whether or
not to believe in _any_ god or goddess [and those who choose to
believe in god or goddess or gods or goddesses choose to accept or
reject various belief systems]. Every person either continues to
affirm their choice or chooses to change their mind about their
beliefs.

I believe Christianity is true, hence I argue from that point of view,
particularly when someone (like Stephen) is arguing about what 
Christianity teaches. Note, tho, I'm not claiming to have made it
up or to even always like what it has to say. You are certainly not
required to do any of the above.

-jen
 Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 29 Dec 92 03:27:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


In article <1992Dec24.050037.8184@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:

>Correctly constructed arguments can be both false and illogical.
>This is an example which parallels yours closely:
>  1.  Dragons exist and like to eat people
>  2.  Silver has been blessed by the gods; that is why it shines so bright
>  3.  Dragons hate the metal silver
>  4.  SO:  it is good to wear silver

>The argument is false because the science doesn't back it up (dragons
>don't exist).

>The argument is illogical because there is no demonstrated cause-and-effect
>between the steps.


/(arromdee)
/I don't understand what you mean when you say that there's no demonstrated
/cause-and-effect between the steps.  Do you mean that the conclusion doesn't
/follow from the premises?  If so, then how can you call it correctly
/constructed?


I haven't been clear on this; that much is true (to my chagrin).  rjk 
(aka Conan the Libertarian) pointed out the same in an identical thread.
Let me try again:  

The argument is false because the science doesn't back it up.  No 
debates here, I take it.

The argument is illogical because there is no demonstrated cause-and-effect
between the numbered steps above.  It is as if skinner's argument (and 
my hypothetical argument) had said:

1.  The sky is blue
2.  The grass is green
3.  Therefore, gravity pulls things downward (assume local reference for
    the word "downward")

In this example, all three statements are even true.  But there is no 
inferential relationship between any of them (scientific or rhetorical) 
which implies causality between them.

The argument is "properly formed" in that its "assumptions" and "facts" are 
set forth initially, with the conclusion following at the end (where most 
conclusions would normally expect to be found).  

In other words, skinner's argument, my theoretical one, and the immediate 
above argument all take the form of:

	1.  Point 1
	2.  Point 2
	3.  Point n . . .
	4.  Conclusion


That's all I was trying to illustrate.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/4/93   God's Promise in Isaiah 43:25
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:46:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	I, even I,
	am he that blotteth out thy transgressions
	for mine own sake,
	and will not remember thy sins.

	Isaiah 43:25
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:32:30 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <2716@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>        "One example of this would be Matthew 1:23, which quotes Isaiah
>    7:14:  'Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son,
>    and they shall call his name Immanuel. ...'  The word in Isaiah 7:14
>    for 'virgin' can just as easily be translated as 'maiden,' which
>    liberal scholars used to discredit the virgin birth of Jesus.

If we use the Masoretic text version of this verse, the prophesy is still
fulfilled.  To require the Septuagint version to be correct and the Masoretic
text in correct presupposes the gospel of Matthew and that Isaiah indeed
predicted the virgin birth.  Such presupposition is unnecessary.  Either
way, Mary was a young woman of marriagle age who brought forth a son who is
"God with us."  The fact that this prophesy was fulfilled by through a
virgin birth does not mean Isaiah prophesied it.  In other words, a
translation of the OT should give what the Hebrew gives, which in this case
is "girl."  The main modern translations that use "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14
(NIV and NASB) use "girl" or "maiden" everywhere else 'ALMAH is used.  Why
should they not use the correct translation in Isaiah 7:14?  The only reason
is that the translators presuppose the later Christian use of the verse.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,sci.skeptic
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Speaking of ModernDayIsms
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:52:09 GMT

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.


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?????

Or Even Read the Bible?????



ciao
drieux


ps: and what sort of 'direct connection' is there between
say just the Modern Assembly Of God TeleVangelists and
older Pentecostals who were of the Serious Opinion that
Radio was a tool of satan????? Let alone back to 33AD.


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
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 21:04:33 GMT

ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus) writes:
: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: >If you have a problem with a word that a group of people have chosen to
: >describe themselves - feeling it "silly" - then it is YOU that has the
: >problem.
: Precisely.  And without that term, I and many others wouldn't have the problem.
: One could argue that I could change, too.  I may yet.

So, why should people care, one way or the other - whether you happened to
feel a term was silly? Would it matter to you, at all, if I felt that Lotus
was a silly and stupid term to use for describing yourself?

The point is - the term is descriptive. Just because some group doesn't like
a term does not mean that it should not be used - nor is that any reason to
change it.  To do so would mean that you cannot use any term - as there will
always be people who dislike the description, for one reason or another.

Rather, maybe you should examine your perceptions of the term "Pagan" and
find out why you think it is silly. Then, if it is worth the effort to you,
you could work on altering your perceptions, until the word no longer feels
silly. If it is not worth the effort, then I would suggest that you should
go elsewhere to post - as you would be wasting your time here.

: >: (This is, btw, called "pragmatism").
: >No comment.
: I shouldn't ask, but why not?  You seemed to accuse me of being irrational, and I countered by asserting that I thought your view was impractical.

In what way is your belief "pragmatic"? It certainly does not attempt to
relate the word "pagan" to its practical bearings. Rather, you appear to be
letting a preconceived belief/bias about the belief define your reality.
That is not pragmatic.

Bill
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<ksand-211292190446@wintermute.apple.com><1992Dec21.162627.27379@csrd.uiuc.edu><1992Dec24.050037.8184@microsoft.com>
	<1992Dec29.020114.5071@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 11:38:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.020114.5071@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com

   >Skinner is trying to make Sandvik obey a standard of evidence which Sandvik
   >has never professed to hold.
   >I'd call that stupid.

  Yes, you already did, demonstrating that you didn't understand the
point made by Gregg Skinner.  It is not a matter of what standards of
evidence should be applied in verifying the premisses of an argument.
The point instead is that verifying the premisses has nothing to do
with verifying that an argument is logically valid. Kent Sandvik's
complaints about the lack of logic in Christianity are no more
justified than the complaint that there is no logical reasoning in
Euclidean geometry or axiomatic set theory since the axioms can't be
verified. The reply to such a complaint is not that the axioms *can*
be verified, but that his requirement is irrelevant.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/31/92   God's Promise in Romans 8:34
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:22:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Who is he that condemneth?
	It is Christ that died,
	yea rather,
	that is risen again,
	who is even at the right hand of God,
	who also maketh intercession for us.

	Romans 8:34
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:21:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.051351.4921@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, I wrote:
                                                      ^^^^^^^
|> In article <1992Dec21.041610.42537@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|> |> In <1992Dec21.012812.8797@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|> |> |> >Perhaps someone could explain the difference to me, but if your fighting
|> |> |> >for the right for people to have abortions, aren't you pro-abortion?
[snip]
|> These are honest questions.  I expect some flames, but I would love for
|> someone to calmly present a few answers, for indeed, I am no expert and
|> am new to this forum.
|> 
|> -Mike Noonan

Sorry folks, I didn't mean for this stuff to hit the religion/atheist groups!

-Mike (gee, I really am new to this) Noonan
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Those wacky cults
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:01:48 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

These wouldn't happen to be the Manolo cult, the "Jesus Christ of the
Philipines", would it?
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:42:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.92Dec29064938@brahma.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> In article <ksand-281292142215@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
>  (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>    >So the prime issue is then when do we define that a building block
>    >is valid for constructing logical statements?
> 
>   This "prime issue" is obscure to me since I don't know what you mean by a
> "logical statement" or a "valid building block".
 
>    >Well, we might disagree on this issue - and that's fine.
 
>   Disagree on what? This is a simple technical issue. In logic, the validity
> of an argument has nothing to do with either the premisses or the conclusion
> being in any sense verifiable. If you object to this, I suggest that you
> explain what (non-standard) sense of "logically valid argument" you have
> in mind.

So are we just now agreeing on logical conclusions when we can't even
agree on the premisses? Doesn't that show something?

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: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 10:28:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.092719.17208@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>: >
>: That kind of live&let-live is all fine & good, if everyone agrees. 
>: Unfortunately, it ain't that way. First, xians usually do try to force
>: their definitions on us. Second, I suggest that it would be *real* *hard*
>: to find a Xian, who most other xians would agree was xian, who did *NOT*
>: 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
>: definitions, and defend themselves, wind up like the Democrats in the
>: 80's, who sat in the corner and acted like they were saying "please
>: don't kick me (whimper, whimper)".
>
>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.
 
Doesn't the rest of the verse go "no man comes to the Father but
through me?"  Scarcely a ringing endorsement for other ways.

SD



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 21:11:28 GMT

donal@brewich.hou.tx.us (Donal) writes:

>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

I have yet to see any evidence that the old witches served religious functions.
In the Celtic cultures, it was the Druids, Bards, and Ovates who served the
religious functions, and the Germanic languages which became English all had
perfectly good words for Priest/ess other than wicc*.  All the evidence I've
seen points toward the witches being folk magicians, not anything religious.
Please note that non-religious folk magic, and the practitioners thereof, 
continue to exist in many rural areas of the world.  Magic does not have to be
tied to religion.

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
"We are secretly replacing the fine quartz crystals this medicine pouch maker
usually uses with Folgers crystals.  Let's see what happens...."
                                      --DACCrowell
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24458 alt.atheism:24198
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 22 Dec 92 11:31:38 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec21.052716.6295@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <12071@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>My wedding will be without God -- but it won't be without beer.
>
>You might argue: God didn't invite me to his wedding - why would I
>invite him to mine?

Or maybe he'll show up without an invitation, and I'll have to kick him out.

Consider this (from _The Glasgow Gospel_):

\begin{quotation}

   Zacchaeus, bein a wee man, canny get near oan accoont o the great
crowd o folk roon aboot Jesus.  So he decides tae sclim up a sycamore
tree beside the road tae watch.
   When Jesus eventually comes alang, he spies Zacchaeus.  Lookin up,
he shouts: `He there, wee man -- come doon will ye!  Ah've decided tae
invite masel tae yer hoose for a meal this efternin.'
   Tae say that wee Zacchaeus wis fair chuffed is pittin it mildly!

\end{quotation}

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24575 alt.pagan:14530
From: lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 24 Dec 1992 11:06 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

..stuff deleted...

>No, because Jews called themselves Jews first, and it's those who define Jew
>as "baby-killer" who are redefining words.  If _you're_ the one who's redefining
>the words, you shouldn't then complain that the old definitions harm you.  Why,
>of all the words possible, did you pick one which means "Satan worshipper" to
>Christians?  And then _complain_ about the meaning?  Of course it means that--
>you knew, when you picked the word, that it already meant something.
> 


It was the Xtians that changed the meaning of "witch" in the first place.  They
just had a really good PR campaign.  (The threat of torture is rather 
effective.)  So you are telling me that just because someone successfully
stole my name and twisted it and successfully pawned off the twisted version,
that I shouldn't complain.

NOT!


Tammy the irritated
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:12:49 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <b2YW02L42epu01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>Well, you cut off the reference, but it came from the Ensign, June 1985,
>page 16 (I believe, that is from memory).  But I know it was from the
>Ensign, in the First Presidecy Section, by the Prophet, in which most
>Mormons I know refer to as Scripture.
>
Gag me with a spoon!  I don't know a single one that refers to the
Ensign as scripture, but you may know some that do.  I profoundly
disagree with the quotation you made from the talk by Apostle
Benson, as did many in the Church.  It was highly ill advised.
I certainly don't accept it as true, let alone scripture.  There
are many things said by apostles that are false.  For example,
Joseph Fielding Smith said that man would never reach the moon.
This is false.  Your theory that Mormons have to accept every
word any apostle says as scripture is absurd.  Most of what they
say is their opinion.  I think your problem comes from your belief
that every word of the Bible is literally true and the word of
God.  I can see where it is a small leap from that to thinking
that Mormons have similar beliefs about their apostles and
prophets.  
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24617 alt.pagan:14571
From: lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 26 Dec 1992 21:21 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: elroy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec26.064139.4633@u.washington.edu>, mimir@hardy.u.washington.edu (Al Billings) writes...
>In article <25DEC199214323283@elroy.uh.edu> lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>>
>>A "witch" was (as I understand it, please correct if wrong) a member of the
>>wiccan.  Members of the wiccan studied wicca.  Wicca means something like
>>"ways of the wise ones" or "ways of the old ones".  Therefore the original
>>meaning of the word witch is "practitioner of the old ways" or something like
>>that.  I really wouldn't call that devil worshipping.
>>
>>
>>Tammy the tired of such bullshit
> 
> Can you back this with anything verifiable or academic?
> 
>Grendel the tired of the folklore passed off as fact
> 

I'm pulling stuff from my memory.  As a result I can't point you to the exact 
location of sources.  I would have to research it (again).  Back in my earlier
days I didn't cite things because I didn't know any better (which is playing
havoc with my genealogy stuff...sheez, was I stupid).

You'll have to ask someone else.

Tammy the poor of memory