HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Date: 20 Jul 92 16:04:36 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>We're not talking about today's Rome.  We're talking about the Rome familar
>to the community from which Revelations arose.  The Rome that was
>slaughtering Christians, oppressing most of the world and blowing up The
>Temple in Jerusalem.

	Rome plays an important role in Bible prophesies, but Daniel explains 
	that after Rome there would become yet another world power, also John
	(?) refers to it (5 have passed, one is (Rome) and one is yet to come).
	However Babylon was said to be destroyed forever. Rome wasn't destroyed
	in apostlic time, so it doesn't refer to John's age. Rome didn't 
	prostitute with kings, on the contrary Roman Caesars fought against 
	barbarian kings and won them. 

	Those facts you gave can be found for instance from the Gospels or the
	letters, many examples how Rome persecuted Christians. There wouldn't
	be needed any revelation for that.      

>Babylon == The major source (and symbol) of suffering to the Jewish people
>           of that period (and remember, at that time most of the
>           Christians were Jewish-Christians).

>Rome == The major source (and symbol) of suffering of Christians during the
>        period when Revelations was written (and to which it was
>        referring).

>Therefore, you use a nice, handy symbol from the past to depict your
>current situation: i.e. Rome = Babylon.  Much as if we wanted to portray a
>figure today as the incarnation of evil and wickedness we would compare him
>to Hitler.

	This kind of symbolic has been used in the Bible, Daniel talks about 
	seven world powers: 

		1. Egypt
		2. Assyria
		3. Babylon
		4. Medo-Persia
		5. Macedonia
		6. Rome
	       (7. Anglo-America )

	All of them have persecuted Christians. But also there are three 
	different kinds of power:

		1. Kings, political powers: the USA, the USSR, the UK, France,
		China, Germany, Bush, Yeltsin, Major....

		2. Shopkeepers, companies: Unilever, Nestle, Du Pont, Dole, 
		Mitsui, Pepsi-Cola... 

		3. Religious power: Vatican, the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
		Dalai Lama...

	Revelation describes that two of them become sad when one of them 
	(the Harlot) dies, namely 1 and 2. So, logically the harlot must be
	3. 

>nichael@bbn.com  --  "Dr Pepper -- it's not just for breakfast anymore."

			Quite good, but I still prefer Pina Colada. 

Btw. about the power of 2. : Do you know that mothers in Zambia give lemonade
to their babies instead of milk, when they think it's best for them and then 
the kids have malnutrition ? That is because a company called Fanta has had an
advertising campaign in Zambia. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:35:52 GMT
Organization: Blank Resume by I Can't Get A Job
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

>[ on various translations of the Bible: ]

I read somewhere about the "Anchor Bible" and I haven't seen
it mentioned in this thread; it was recommended as ~the~ 
reference work for scholars. As I will be attending seminary
in the fall, I suppose I could wait, but I wanted to know if
any of you had heard of it, and how large it was. . .

D.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro  OR
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 06:41:53 GMT

daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:

>>	  No intelligent atheist claims that there is no god - just that there
>>	  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>	is no evidence for one. In other words an atheist has no particular
>>	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Thus George, if one cannot present strong evidence for their god (ie: evidence
>which is verifiable and is not an indefensible example of special pleading),
>then it is indeed *logically* valid to dismiss the existence of that god. 


	Wrong! I am as much an atheist as anyone, however I am willing to admit
	that there may be a "creator". What shape or form it/he may be, I
	wouldn't have the slightest. I simply say "I see no evidence for the
	'Christian' or any other personified god from any other religion".
	There is no evidence to support the existance of a "god", but that
	doesn't mean that it/he/she doesn't exist! Maybe "god" just hasn't made
	an appearance yet - but may in the future (I seriously doubt it, but
	you must allow for the chance, even though slim)

	No present evidence for the Loch Ness "monster" doesn't mean that it
	does not exist - only that attempts to gather evidence for it, that
	have failed miserably so far - make it's reality look pretty slim.
	Add that to its slim plausiblity, likened to that of a "god", and
	the probability becomes very slim - *but not zero* (quite yet!)

===============================================================================
			George S. La Belle

Software Engineer			(503) 696-2149
Intel Corp.				ccm!george_labelle@intelhf.intel.com
Hillsboro, Oregon			WB6YZZ
ARRL, NARAL, ACLU, CSICOP, NTH, ABC
"The worst day fishing is better than the best day working"
"Help I'm falling - and I can't reach my beer!"
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Just Curious
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:18:52 GMT

In article <12547@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>This is just a question of being dogmatic. There is nothing that prevents you
>from believing all religions and making use of them as you see fit.

Sure there is.  They contradict.  You can't simultaneously believe A and B
when A says that B tells untruths and B says that A tells untruths.  You can
believe large _parts_ of all religions, and you can even pick some parts as
important and claim to believe all the important parts--but that's not the
same as _all_.

>No religion tells anyone to believe anything. You are an individual, live up
>to that promise. You are free to believe.

This is a matter of playing with words.  If I say "Paul, print out this
article", I am telling you to print this article out.  The fact that you then
choose not to print it out doesn't mean that I have not told you to do so;
that's not what the word "tell" means.  You seem to think that the word "tell"
means "tell and be obeyed", and it doesn't.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Playing God (WAS Re: The C word)
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:08:22 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Jul23.205537.20325@portland.mdc.unisys.com>
tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:

>There is no reference to cheeseburgers in the Bible.

"Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk".  Are you *sure*
cheeseburgers are OK?  Orthodox Rabbis aren't.



--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@cs.concordia.ca
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:03:39 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
in Message-ID: <1992Jul23.012300.14031@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <22557@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>>FYI Jesus HATED every sin not excluding homosexuality.  

>Lets pretend for a second that there is no question about the existance
>of god. 

(A) If there is no question about the existence of god then:
      Cherchez d'abord le royaume de dieu, et sa justice.  Et toutes
      choses vous seront donnez en plus.  Alleluia.
    (Pardon my French) Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice 
    (righteousness).  And all these things will be added unto you.

    If you say that he is your lord, your sin cannot be.

>How do you know that homosexuality is a sin? 
(B) I believe that we (humans) are created in his image (figuratively
    more than literally).  If sin is a departure from him, and homosexuality
    departs from our design, then by the transitive property, it is sin.
    Our bodies are corollary, in a sense, His temple.  Defiling any of
    His creations or especially our bodies in thought, word or deed; 
    is defiance and defication against Him.

>How do you know that its ok to not keep kosher?
(C) see (A) and (B)
>How do you know its ok for women to evangelize (sp?)
(D) see (C)

>Don't tell other people that a passage applies to them when you conviently
>ignore the commandments only paragraphs away.
(E) see (D)

Without a god, what does it mean to be ok?

Terence
From: John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:41:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University Medical Center

Jesus and the beloved disciple who laid his head on Jesus' breast were involved
in at least a homoaffectional relationship. It wasn't like everyone laid their
head on Jesus' breast.  Just one.  Lovers. 


Face it.  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Subject: Re: Hear Ye Him!
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:21:58 GMT

Believe in me or you will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
If that's supposed to be the good news, I don't wanna know
the bad news.
 
Glenn     glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Get a Clue (was: Get a Life)
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:48:51 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Jul27.192608.7655@dg-rtp.dg.com> grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross) writes:
>
> Your opinion is that He is dead.  However, there is consistent
> evidence that not only is He not dead, but that He arose and walked
> with His disciples and that some 500 disciples saw Him ascend into the
> heaven whereupon He was swallowed up by clouds.

There is consistent evidence that Allah is the only God and
that Mohammed is His prophet. This also comes from an old book,
and lots of people also believe it.

And there is consistent evidence for any number of other religions.

And there is consistent evidence for an atheist worldview, the one
to which I personally subscribe.

> [points of agreement among Christians deleted]
>
> The Bible is our sole source of faith and teaching.  The Bible is both
> infallible and inerrent.  When there is a dispute, we must turn to the
> Bible for final arbitration.

The problem here is that without being omniscient, *you* cannot know
that _The Bible_ *is* infallible and inerrant. You judge it to be so
by your mortal reasoning, which you then reject and turn to _The Bible_
for The Truth. This is illogical because it is inconsistent.

> Gene

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:42:07 GMT

Gregg Skinner writes:

>Dave Butler writes:

>>On the other hand it IS *logically* valid to conclude that lack of evidence
>>for the existence of a thing, is evidence against the existence of that thing. 

>I am not familiar with any logic in which this is valid.  That is not
>to say this is incorrect; I just am unaware of adherents to this
>school of thought other than Mr. Butler.  Perhaps he would be willing
>to point us to some scholarly works on the matter.

  well, from dave butler's logic then, there being no "evidence" proving
the existence of god, is evidence against his existence.  but the lack of
evidence does not PROVE god does not exist--just like the lack of evidence
does not prove unicorns equipped with rosignol skiis are slaloming down
down some as-yet-unseen-by-human-eyes alpine glacier don't exist.  i don't
think those unicorns exist, but i certainly won't say [based solely on logic]
that they don't.  similarly, by logic alone i would not conclude god does
not exist.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:11:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.164931.142181@cs.cmu.edu>, rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S
DeSilva) writes:
> Anyway, here's the obligatory anecdote (for the benefit of rec.humor): Some
> philosopher/theologician, when questioned as to whether he believes in God,
> replied, [paraphrased] ``Either God exists or He doesn't.  Either I believe
in
> God or I don't.  Of the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage.
> To avoid that possibility, I believe in God.''
> 
> BTW, could someone tell me who said the above?

   Pascal.  The construction is called Pascal's wager.  While correct, it
stikes me as being sort of spineless.  It is definitely NOT the way a
Klingon would wager.  The reasoning is without honor[1].

Disclaimer: I am, of course, speaking as an apathieist and may
            well be biased.

> Rujith de Silva.
> Carnegie-Mellon University.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
[1]Terminology due to Lt. Worf, NCC-1701D.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Get a Clue (was: Get a Life)
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:10:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.192608.7655@dg-rtp.dg.com> grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross) writes:
}In article <92205.122637SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
}>In article <1992Jul22.173330.23164@samba.oit.unc.edu>
}>Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
}>
}>>Jesus was and is sinless, and forever will be.  You should   "Face it".
}>
}>As the man is almost 2,000 years dead and the concept of "sin" is
}>what you make it to be, the above statement has less impact than a row
}>of farts.  Face it yourself, Mr. Gross, your Jesus can be tricked out
}>to be whatever one chooses to make him, a god for all churches.
}
}Jack, would you care to point out His grave to us!?

It is right next to the ark of the covenant, with the 10 commandments
serving as the headstone and right next to Noah's ark - other well
known atifacts.

}Your opinion is that He is dead.  However, there is consistent
}evidence that not only is He not dead, but that He arose and walked
}with His disciples and that some 500 disciples saw Him ascend into the

Care to point to the accounts written by, oh, 1% of these 500 people?

}heaven whereupon He was swallowed up by clouds.

}The concept of sin is clearly defined in the Bible (a book of 66 books
}covering a period of over 4,000 years).  Check it out sometime.

I've read it.  Amusing, in spite of multiple contraditions and repititions.

}The Bible is our sole source of faith and teaching.  The Bible is both
}infallible and inerrent.  When there is a dispute, we must turn to the
}Bible for final arbitration.

And what do you do when the bible itself (as given) contradicts itself?

}And there is more....

For some reason, I'm not suprised at all...
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Structure of Time (SUMMARY)
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:52:02 GMT

>In article <1992Jul24.165232.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> 
>hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>...
>         "She said that she knows everything about the space."
>

Space-potatoes and Cosmic Blue-shifts?
does she know where can i get some, and the price?
does it hurt the brain?

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "Evidence" of god
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:41:50 GMT

George La Belle writes:

>>Perhaps we should challenge YOU to demonstrate that the proton exists....

>	After you accept the previous challenge.

Challenges to "prove" things, in this group, are almost inevitably rather
loaded.  The exchange takes a familiar pattern: Some sucker presents a
"proof" which is then shot up all over the place on the basis of what is
claimed to be scientific reasoning.  The challenger (IMHO) almost never has
any intent other than destroying whatever "proof" is presented (and indeed,
my "challenge" here is patently a trap).

I've been around on this subject many times before with Mr. Gibson.  I
don't think that the standards that he brings to this dicussion are
realistic.  Proofs require a shared proof method, and this is lacking here.

>	At least learn how to spell trinity!

Spelling flames: the last resort of the argumentationally challenged.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: jw's and the 144000
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:20:15 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

napo@cs.hut.fi (Hannu Napari) writes:
>You are again claiming to be a biologist? Trying to see as many birds
>as possible, ie being an ornithologist doesn't make you a biologist.

>Is this pride or lying? But anyway, enjoy your swim. 8) 

	Neither. No it doesn't, but my reputation as an ornithologist and my 
	knowledge on ornithology is far greater than for instance in botanics. 
	I have done botanical studies and corrected some errors in the official 
	index of plants in Finland, 2nd volume, but as said I'm not that       
	familiar with botanics, because it would require much more efforts 
	(How interesting are for instance the variant types in Orchids).  

	Microbiology, insects and water biology are my weak points. 

	I can survive with this stuff. Besides Hario has just written an 
	interesting article about the variant types of gulls, especially 
	Larus fuscus - argentatus, which has raised discussion. That is the
	classical question among evolutionists. 

	Besides, I'm far more biologist than mr. C. Darwin. 

				Andreas
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 05:09:04 GMT

akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:

>By the way: Revelation was talking about the ancient city of Rome.  It
>has nothing to do with modern Rome, or with the Roman Catholic Church.
>Any such comparison is as idiotic as it is slanderous.

Just in case anyone was in doubt, that last paragraph was *not*
directed at Mr. Albrecht.  It was a flame aimed at certain people who
claimed that the harlot was the Catholic Church.  If Mr. Albrecht was
accidentally singed, however slightly, I apologize.

Keith
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Hear Ye Him!
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:00:40 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
> 
>"Faith, Hope, and Love, abide these three." means that if you had to 
>throw out everything in the bible and keep only three things, these would 
>be the three to keep.  Not Justice, Fear of the Lord, and Anger.  
>"The greatest of these is Love."  Is saying if you opened the 
>bible and God had put only one word in it, that word would be 
>LOVE.  (Not justice, not heaven, not hell.)

  well, i would disagree with your priorities.  i love faith hope and love,
yet the highest priority in the bible is that we are separate from god through
our sin and jesus exists to reconcile us to god.  am i right in assuming
you think god as love is more important than our jesus' sacrifice for us?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:59:17 GMT

In article <sbuckley.712260813@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>  yeah, i have considered that it's all crap.  the overwhelming despair that
>plagued me for a decade of thinking that led me to consider that it's not
>all crap.
I want to point out at this juncture that whether or not the concept
that there is no God is depressing or not is of absolutely zero
relevance to whether or not the concept is true.

The truth of a statement is not measured by how comfortable it makes
one to believe it.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs and their blood hypocrisy
Date: 20 Jul 92 15:36:58 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>In the US, there are kosher certification groups...have the JW's thought of
>setting up a similar group or groups?  For example, I know, off hand, of 3
>kosher certifiers: Orthodox Union, Chicago Rabinical Council and one other,
>whose name escapes me at the moment, but their symbol is a 'K' in a
>triangle.

	We have some kinds of lists, but they are old and perhaps outdated.  
	Usually sausages contain blood, but sausages are bad food anyways. 
	And they have fair information. More dangerous is microwawe-food and
	such things there some-kind of meat is used. What kind, who knows. 

>By the way, Kosher food is often of higher quality....

	Yes it is, thatswhy they don't want to make noise about this subject,
	there are other ppl that are interested, too. 

	I've heard that blood doesn't have very much nutritional value after
	all and it's used only to make the products heavier. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived