HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: Re: What happened to Gavins' kill file
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:37:30 GMT

(Eric Rescorla) writes:
>(Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>I don't personally think 'ostrich' style advice, such as placing
>>people in kill files, it the right solution for open criticism and
>>discussion about world views. In my humble opinion it is as bad
>>as deliberate censorship.
>>
>>BTW, I don't use kill files.
>Hmmm. I, myself, don't use a kill file, but I don't see that it's as bad
>as deliberate censorship. A kill file does nothing to infringe upon
>a person's right to speak, only is an exercise of my right not to listen.

Exactly!!  After a while, a person may become tired with the words of another,
and choose to eliminate the annoying buzzing in his ears.
As to the ostrich idea; I engaged in discussion with JD for a while, and just 
got tired of his style (unique as it is :) of arguing.  I also got tired of 
the little flames he uses, e.g.

In article xxxx John Doe totally misses the point.

Eventually, I decided that as the traffic in a.a was high, and my time limited,
(and, I hope, of more value doing something else rather than reading strawmen),
I decided to put him in the kill file.

Notice, he is the ONLY one in the group in my kill-file.

Best wishes, (hahahahahahahaahahaha:)
		Gavin

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15993 alt.atheism:16909
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:15:50 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <adams.716048092@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>>In article <dabrowsk.715318926@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>>
>>If God created the universe, who created God?
>God is eternal, uncreated.  The unmoved mover, if you will.  The first cause.

If we must have a first cause, an uncreated something,
what makes a god (the god described by some religion
or other in particular) a better candidate than, say, 
the universe itself?

>Everything depends on how we define evil:
>
>1. The opposite of 'good'
>
>2. The antithesis of God's desires
>
>3. That which causes suffering.
>
>Pick one of these, or any other , and you get different answers to the 
>question you asked.  
>
>Option 3 is an interesting choice.  But all it does is push the issue back
>one level...'whence' suffering, and why?  One common explaination is that
>suffering exists to teach us values: right from wrong, good from bad.
>Moral evil (ie perpetrated by humans) is educational about our actions.
>Physical evil (hurricanes, tornados, etc) is educational about our
>environment.  Since without substantive, observable consequences of
>actions, we can't learn, there must be some form of suffering if there is
>to be knowlwdge, values, etc.  I toyed with this idea for a while, but it
>didn't resolve the problems I was having...

An alternative account of suffering is that it is simply a
modality of experience that arises from our essential
inability to grasp and control the content of that
experience. An example that serves to illustrate this
model vivdly is the emotional fury of a two-year-old
who wants what it cannot have, or does not want what
must happen. Surely this is quintessential suffering.
One might regard it as a form of the sin of Pride, though
I am thinking more of the atheist religion of Buddhism
in referring to this account.



Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15828 alt.atheism:16689
From: yohan@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 7 Sep 1992 19:07:15 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu


From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
I am voting for Clinton. As for the U.S. population, I don't think that
I am mistaken. There is more to overpopulation than simply the ability
to grow food.

Me:
What is your definition of overpopulation?  Do you honestly believe that the U.S.
is incapable of supporting her current or future population?

Jon Newton
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:03:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.194815.10818@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <4c7yqB1w164w@uuisis.isis.org> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes:
>>I find it quite interesting that so many different cultures, widely
>>dispersed geographically, end up telling stories which have many common
>>elements.
>
>Why is it interesting?
>
>Man tends to create his gods in his own image.  Man also worries about

Another non-scientific hypothesis might be of course that since God
made Man in His image, his soul contains the knowledge of God which is
sometimes glimpsed by man's intellect resulting in similar but not quite
the same stories.  But of course, this is unprovable...

>Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Objective Truth
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:09:47 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <lasa0pINN1ij@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM
(Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) wrote:
> (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>  I still don't subscribe to the notion that religious movements
>  have a monopoly on the doctrines. Reading peoples' comments on t.r.m
>  has even enhanced this personal observation. And no objective
>  truth means no truth.
>  
> I suppose the last sentence is the most interesting one to
> me, and it depends on how one would define "objective"; does
> your assertion mean there is no "subjective truth"?

Well, here we are diving into the issue of absolute values. We
can't even be sure that the universal definitions are valid or 
not. What if universes are just huge abstraction random generators,
anything is possible, it's chaos and at the same time chaos itself
generates truths that seem to be universal, at the same time it's
only true from our own perspective.

> If so, I would have to disagree. I can say I saw a shooting
> star last night that no one else saw or measured; it could
> be a matter of subjective truth as to whether what I say
> actually occured, yet as far as I'm concerned, it did.

It deals with the eternal dilemma if there's a sound when
a tree falls in the forest. I would say that it's a personal
choice, either there's a sound or not. The universe does not
care, it's important from the perspective of the observer.

Anyway, my simple philosophy states that observers observe
truths, and at the same time define truths by the observation
itself (compare quantum mechanics and the issue of observation).
In the case of defining truths the brain is causing the effect,
especially all the hard-wired information our brains have obtained
from social, cultural and other sources since birth (and before that).

So yes, I guess I could subscribe to the notion of objective truth,
but I would rather define it as objective notions that are mapped
to truth by our mind. Anyway, enough of my meta-physical ramblings :-).

Cheers,
Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:55:34 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-080992193704@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <67813@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
>Pitts) wrote:
>> In article <ksand-040992185731@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> >Isn't it weird that a non-Christian is using Jesus' words against
>> >a Christian???

>> No, it is not weird - it is expected.  Satan used Scripture with Jesus and
>> Jesus responded with an it-is-written response, himself.  I again say that 
>> you, Kent, need to read the whole passage and see that God can save the 
>> rich man, but man (rich or not) cannot save himself by works.

>Then I would suggest that instead of paraphrasing your statement
>that God can save rich men, let me know in what part of the scriptures
>Jesus clearly says this. I think this would solve the dilemma
>immediately, or what. Then you would also use the rules Jesus
>and Satan had during their mountain fight.

   Mat 19:25   When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and
      asked, "Who then can be saved?"
   Mat 19:26   Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible,
      but with God all things are possible."

UNPARAPHRASED - "WITH MAN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, BUT WITH GOD ALL 
                 THINGS ARE POSSIBLE."

To what is this referring?  UNPARAPHRASED - "WHO THEN CAN BE SAVED?"

Another way of saying it is in Ephesians, as follows:

   Eph 2:8   For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this
      not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
   Eph 2:9   not by works, so that no one can boast.

>Cheers,
>Kent

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<lav9hgINN4m9@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:23:47 GMT

<about is Jesus a man or a god already>

In article <lav9hgINN4m9@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
danoc@xtrek.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>Interesting questions, Paul, but I didn't write what you have
>attributed to me (this of course won't stop me from offering
>an opinion :)

My apologies. It didn't seem like you.

>However, even within the christian construct, I wouldn't
>think Jesus would "give up" his deity. I think it clear that
>according to christian theology, the logos became flesh, i.e.,
>Jesus was one of its manifestations, and that Jesus was of
>the same essence as god.

I don't think most Christians have worked this out yet, for most Christians,
Jesus is sometimes a man and othertimes a god. This is of course loaded
with logical traps, like oh so God really did create man in His image and
what does it mean for a God to die and come back to life and all that type
of stuff. Most other religions handle these problems by saying that the
transcendent is transcendent but personifications of deity are possible, as
a matter of fact human beings may just be personifications of deity, but
once the human form is created, it must abide by the rules of the human
form, ie life and death and all that sort of thing. So Buddha, for example,
was very much human even though he was fully enlightened and in Islam, all
these humans were humans, maybe prophets, but always human. Krishna, though
a personification of either Vishnu or Shiva, was limited upon the assumption
of human form. So, given that sin is the separation from the transcendent or
God, then yes all human being is separation, all. But that does not limit
the enlightened from seeing the illusions of human perception.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15725 alt.atheism:16599
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:34:53 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
> First, I don't see why the people against overpopulation care.

Yeah, right.  So what if eighteen million people in Africa face starvation
right now?  So what if a hundred and eighty million people are helpless after
failed harvests?  Why should we care?

Thanks for the kind thoughts, Mr Compassion.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I know!  I know!
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:33:29 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.


>In article <1992Sep1.222830.20839@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>  >P.S.   What do Satan, Eve and Shirley MacLaine have in common?
>
>All of them are mythical characters!!
>
>Do I win a prize for providing the first correct answer???
>
>darin
>wilkins@scubed.scubed.com

    Buzzzzzz.  Wrongo!  I saw Shirley MacLaine dance at John Ascuagua's
Nugget in Reno (and she's pretty good too!)  As a consulation prize
for trying, you win a trip to Convergence 3.1415.. .  Wanna try again? 
Anyone else wanna try?  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Ceccarelli
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ  85721
(602) 621-9615
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15839 sci.skeptic:16057
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:56:33 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

Is it me, or are all the churches around here fracturing into a lot of pieces. 
(I don't want to specify which number, lest I get cruxified or something.)

Are there going to be Fundementalist pythagorean churches?  (And the Loord 
sayiid, Pah is Three!  Send money!)

Pythagorean Buddisim?  (What is the sound of five?)

A Pythagorean Inquisition?  (Repent!  Confess that you have been sleeping with eand we'll only gouge out your eyes.)

Pythagorean Missions?  (No, Mutumbo, that's a holy calculator!  (Damn catholics)

Big Al.  I know it's all a joke.  But you can send money if you like. :*)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Re: Hindu "creation science"? (was Re: I visited the ICR in pers)
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:22:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.105236.133@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <gate.HH3mqB1w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us> kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) writes:
>@                     The Bhaktivedanta Institute
>@                     P.O Box 99584
>@                     San Diego, CA 92109
>@                     Tel: 619-272-8145
>
>	OK. I'll bite. What do they have to say? Anything that hasn't
>been said already?

	Isn't this where Druta Karma (remember him?) hailed from?

Rob Zuber
From: kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sean: TESTIMONY CALLO
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 21:26:08 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

(Kalki writes)
........The Vedas clearly state that without the mercy of the Lord, no
one can approach Him or please Him.

(Kent Sandvik writes)
KS>I think this is a good example of "East and West, and they will never
KS>meet". I belong to the Western society, where the issue of man
KS>not being in service of any master is one of the key revolutions
KS>in modern time. It is nowadays also part of a person's world
KS>view.

KS>Thus I would never accept a slave-master relationship between
KS>a god and a human. This was the norm 1000 years ago, this is no
KS>longer the social norm.

(Kalki responds)
 It is not possible to avoid serving others. Everyone serves someone:
 it is a law of material nature. The laws of nature are controlled by
 God, and therefore everyone is factually His servant, whether the
 servitude is direct (in loving devotion) or indirect (in fear or
 anger).
---
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Kalki's Infoline, 803-643-3172, Aiken, SC, USA
                                                                        
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 01:41:11 GMT

Someone:
>[trying to explain where evil comes from]
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>This doesn't explain how it arises....all it does is explain how it
>mutates.  Where did it COME from?  Why are people evil?  Take Stalin or
>Hitler...what made them evil?
>
>That's true.  God had advance knowledge.  If you've looked at all at the
>coversations I've had with Sean Hartigan, you'll know I recognize this,but
>still maintain that evil was actualized by man, even though it was created
>(or at least the logical possibility of evil) by God.

Steve you are making the same mistake you accuse the other poster of
making, namely not explaining where evil comes from. Saying that God
made evil logically possible is not an explanation of where evil comes
from. First you have to answer why he did that, where did Gid get the
idea of evil from (or did it pre-date him?), why did God make man at
all, etc, etc

graham

--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: JW humor
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:13:40 GMT

tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>  Under the topic of JW humor, somehow it would seem aprapo, that antti
>  would slip in and try to say something that he has been hidding
>  for a long time.  [[ Warning, Warning.]] The things that Siivonen says
>  and does should not be taken as representaive of the ideals that the
>  JW try to promote within their group. Think of him as a psudo-JW.
>  Having the appearence of sanctity, but denying the power therein.

> It may be humorous to poke fun at the poor boy, but he seems to know
> almost as much about Christainity as he does about the JW movement.
> Ie only from a distance. One can only suppose that he know as little
> about science and biology as he does about religon or religous belief.


> Please don't think of this boy as representive of either Christanity or
> JWitness. You would be doing either belief system a grave injustice.


	I'm just honest and I say what I think. If you ask me stupid questions,
	you get stupid answers. Besides, who are you to say what I am ?
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Scott G.: Answer this for me...
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:34:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Sep4.203321.28905@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>Scott Goehring writes:
>
>Tell me something Scott, how did trusting in Jesus for your salvation and
>receiving Him as the Lord of your life make you miserable?  You are not
>allowed to tell me about the people involved... Only about this simple state
>of mind, which is what makes one a Christian.
>

  Not to answer for Scott, but for me the problem would most
  certainly be one of cognitive dissonance.  It's a real bitch
  putting your faith of salvation in an entity you're pretty sure
  doesn't exist.  As for allowing him to be lord of my life, it was
  like turning my FM radio to 87.9 MHz.  No pilot, but a lot of
  static.  Hardly anything to base my actions on.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:55:18 GMT

In article <adams.716140467@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>>An alternative account of suffering is that it is simply a
>>modality of experience that arises from our essential
>>inability to grasp and control the content of that
>>experience. 
>This is fine for natural evil, I think.  Hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.  But
>what about moral evil.  If we eliminate any god from the picture, where
>does moral evil come from??  How is it defined?  How does it arise?

Moral evil is defined by the society you live in. What constitutes
good or evil also tends to change as the society which defines it
changes. For example, it used to be that smoking marijuana and
injesting cocaine was considered acceptable behaviour in the U.S. Now,
that is no longer the case. Illicit drug use has become the great evil
in this country. Or look at capital punishment. In the very recent
past, the death penalty was not deemed to be an acceptable form of
punishment. Now it is (at least in this country).

Actually, I think it is easier to talk about where moral evil comes
from if you don't have a god. With a god, you start getting into
questions like, "Why does this supposedly benevolent god allow
evil to exist in our world? And don't say we brought it on ourselves
because god created us and knew full well what kind of trouble we
would get ourselves into."

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 07:33:18 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<Sep.7.20.10.23.1992.7388@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>So fellow airm chair theologians, isn't this another nail in the coffin
>>concerning the issue of the holy trinity? If Jesus didn't know, only the
>>Father did. How could he be God then at the same time, and not knowing
>>about it, wonders Calvin?
>
>No.  The Trinity does say quite you seem to think it says.  It talks
>the unity of the Father, the eternal Logos, and the Holy Spirit.
>(I've avoided the term Son, because it is used with at least three
>different meanings, so it would be confusing.)  Jesus is not simply
>identical to the eternal Logos.  Rather he is a human incarnation of
>the Logos.  As a human, he is subject to the normal human limitations.

Really?  So walking on water, turning water into wine, feeding lots of
people with one fish, killing a fig tree with a gesture, talking to pigs,
and foretelling the future comes under the heading of "normal human
limitations"?


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.