HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WHAT IS ALL THIS?
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:27:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep28.040942.25417@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca
(Douglas Graham) wrote:
> >P.S. I'm an atheist, but I think the metaphors of religions can
> >be profoundly true.
> 
> I disagree.  I think that the metaphors of religions are profoundly
> silly, much as you would expect from the primitive people who
> generated them.  Not that I think we're much less primitive,
> but I do think that trying to extract profundities from the
> mythologies of cavemen is not the way to enlightenment.  They
> do make interesting reading though.

It is interesting to compare the metaphors of religions with let
us say the whimsical ideas of software construction. For a while
the main idea was structured programming/design, then CASE tools,
then Object oriented design, next year something else. In general,
most of the CS ideas are built on top of other ones, sometimes
they are generated as a countermeasure against a silly idea.

I do think that religious ideas also take part in this huge
idea evolution phase. In most cases we have fairly primitive
worshipping concepts, based on sacrifice and nomad-level cultures.
But they have been refined and changed during the long historical
transition to our times.

I'm sure that an early day Christian would be quite stupified about
modern Catholic doctrines.

Cheers,
Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered....9
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<Sep.26.01.18.14.1992.13571@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:07:48 GMT

In article <Sep.26.01.18.14.1992.13571@athos.rutgers.edu> 
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>The LDS participants in Usenet are open enough that they have major
>disagreements with traditional Christianity.  There's an LDS FAQ that
>summarizes many of these differences.  It's not as if they were trying
>to pretend that no differences exist.  I don't understand this
>insistence on creating a set of beliefs that LDS don't actually
>accept, and then arguing against them.  The only thing I can see that
>this is likely to do is discredit you.  I just hope readers won't
>conclude that this sort of approach is typical of mainstream
>Christianity.

I don't think it is. But, it does seem to be typical of fundamentalist
Christianity which seems to be on a war path to purge Christianity of all
sects that don't agree with the narrow fundamentalist view.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:58:00 GMT

In article <38588@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes:
>I also think it is sad that you Glenn would want to put a limit on
>what the Lord can or can't do.  If the Lord wished to reveal
>something to you in a personal way through an angel or through His
>holy Spirit, why would you want to deny Him this?

I don't know about Glenn, but there's one big reason _I_ would want to "deny"
him this: it's intrinsically impossible to tell between a real spiritual
experience, and a fake one that comes from a non-holy spirit.  Since it is
not possible to communicate the content of spiritual experiences, I would
not be able to compare a fake one to a real one, and could not tell it's fake
unless I happen to have _had_ a real one.

God knows (being omniscient) that if he wants to personally reveal himself,
he has to give the green light to humans treating fake experiences just like
real ones.  God knows better than to put human beings in such an impossible
position.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: rcs20@ccc.amdahl.com (Ray C Sensenig)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: ARE THERE ANY LDS GIFS?
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:23:00 GMT
Reply-To: rcs20@juts.ccc.amdahl.com ()
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


Do any of you BYU students, or anyone else for that matter, have any LDS
GIFs or know where I can ftp any?  I need a background for work!

Thank You,
Ray
-- 
************************************************************************
*                                                                      *
*                            Reply to:                                 *
*                      rcs20@amail.amdahl.com                          *
*                                                                      *
************************************************************************
From: yohan@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 3 Oct 1992 17:55:17 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: caravan.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <BvEMI5.n34@inews.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1acbmbINNqlu@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu> 
>yohan@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>>Wrong Mr. Harvey.  The only reason scientists hold mathematics to be true is 
>>that is has been verified by countless observations.
>
>I don't think that's the case. That would be blind faith in the majority. I
>don't think blind faith is compatible with Science. Countless observations
>do not verify scientific proof. They may indicate something that one can place
>one's faith in, but not blind faith. An observation of failure indicates a
>problem in a theory, but observation of success is not proof of scientific
>truth. Certainly there have been countless observations of the truth of
>Christianity and the reincarnation of Elvis, but I don't think there are many
>reputable scientists who consider this as proof.

This is exactly the course christians most often take.  They totally abuse the
word "observe" as often as they can.  The observations I speak of are rigorously
tested, and hold far more validity than Joe Blow saying he saw Elvis (or god). 
The technological advances that we interact with daily are a testament to the
validity of science and all that it is based on.  How could a scientist deny that
mathematics is correct, when we can obtain power splitting an atom?  If 
mathematics is incorrect, did man, with his invalid theories, accomplish these
feats by blind luck?

Religion lacks such evidence.  Belief in religion is faith, and blind faith at
that.

At any rate, this cannot be treated as an absolute.  Nothing is known with total
certainty, so the differences between faith in god and assuming I'll fall if I
jump off a bridge is a quantitative one.  Some christian's will argue that they
know one as certainly as they know the other, but when you break down their
belief in god, it comes down to a hunch based on personal feelings.  It is
paramount that a person makes as few assumptions as possible.

>
>>Christians base their life on
>>a few feelings they have that are generally a result of upbringing or from the
>>tnedency to attribute everything they can't understand to god.
>
>Hmm, well I'm not a Christian so I can't really comment on that, perhaps it
>is true?


Jon Newton
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 7
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:53:45 GMT

From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
> In article <a7Tv02i0236A01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> > slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> [...]
> >>"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's;
> >>the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and
> >>bones, but is a personage of Spirit.  Were it not so, the Holy
> >>Ghost could not dwell in us."  (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22.)
> >
> > This is an accurate quote from Doctrine & Covenants 130:22. Thanks
> > Jason for bringing that up.  However, the Bible teaches us that God
> > IS Spirit (John 4:24). The King James Version says God is a Spirit, but
> > the Greek actually read, God IS Spirit.
>
> If God *is* spirit, that does not exclude him from being more
> that spirit.
>
> I am spirit.  I am also flesh and bone.
>
> The Joseph Smith inspired translation (JST) [which I'm sure you
> will reject] renders John 4:24 as:
>
> "[For unto such hath God promised his] Spirit.  And they [who]
> worship him, must worship him in spirit and truth."
>
> The rendering, although not based upon the Greek, fits nicely with
> the context of the surrounding verses.

I'll say Joseph Smith's Inspired Translation is NOT based on the
greek.  Take a look at what he did to Matthew 4:1

  The Bible says:
    'Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness
    to be tempeted of the devil.'
  Joseph Smith said:
    'Then Jesus was led up of the Spirit, into the wilderness
    to be with God.'

So, who was Jesus was with -- God, or the devil?

Mark
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are LDS Christians?
Date: 26 Sep 92 06:23:29 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <38590@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes:
>>>      "Repent and be baptised every one of you for the remission of
>>> sins..."                                      ^^^
>>
>>Based on your interpretation, then MT 12:41 must be saying the men
>>of Nineveh repented *for* the preaching of Jonah.  The word 'eis'
>>is used in both verses, and means 'in view of' or 'because of'.
>
>Well, I certainly don't claim to be a linguist but your approach is
>fallacious.  Often simple words like "for" have different
>significances in different contexts.  As Jason used to say, you
>frequently demonstrate that you have a "binary" mind.  This leads to
>sweeping generalizations that are often incorrect.
>
>Perhaps you would care to comment on why Peter in this passage says
>that by repenting and being baptised, they will receive the Holy
>Ghost?  If they already had the remision of sins like you imply, why
>did they need to bother with repentance and baptism to receive the
>Holy Ghost?
>
>Robert


Baptism is an outwardly sign of the inward change that is in you.  You
are justified by your Faith in God's eyes, (Romans 4), you are justified
by works in man's eyes (James 2).

Repent and be baptised every one of you FOR the remission of your sins..
                                        ^^^

If you take an asprin FOR the remission of a headache, it is not to get a
headache, it is because you ALREADY HAVE a headache.  Likewise, you get
baptized because you have the Holy Ghost as an outwardly sign to justify
such in man's eyes.

-t
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: On the Hunt for Elusive Family Values
Keywords: values, television, families, goals, `Woof!'
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:26:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.183550.28205@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>Mr Schwarzenegger has
>killed more people in his movies than all the Americans soldiers who died in
>Operation Desert Storm.  Did Dan Quayle say anything to complain?

More Americans have died in bathtub drownings, I'll bet, than died in Desert
Storm.  Heck, it was safer to be in Desert Storm than here, because the
increase in traffic accident death rate made up for the chance of being hit by
a Scud in a bunker.  To say that someone's movies had more cumulative deaths in
them than Americans who died in Desert Storm is not to accuse the movies of
great amounts of violence.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17444 talk.philosophy.misc:1845
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Dogbert on brain research
Date: 30 Sep 1992 11:34:27 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Interzone Office
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com


hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>Does anybody know anything about the research Dogbert is referring to, or 
>did the creator of "Dilbert"  (whose name, BTW, is S. Adams!) just
>make that up?  Any info that could help me out would be welcome. 

I can't answer this specific question in any detail, but given the way that
the strip butchered Bell's theorem and the EPR paradox [yeah, yeah, yeah; I
know it's only a comic strip] I wouldn't hold too much truck with it.

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --                Bush/Gorbachev: One Down, One to Go
From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 28 Sep 92 04:29:54 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <eZ0qRB5w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>what's the difference between "sufficiently evidenced" and "of value /
>useful"?

Utility is far more value-laden a concept than corroboration.

>Can you give us an example of something which is useful to believe although
>there's no evidence?

An afterlife can be useful to believe in for people who dislike the
idea of non-existence.

>Or something for which there is tons of evidence but
>which is entirely useless to believe?

Some people would derive no use from believing in, say, quantum
physics.
--
Brian Holtz
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:19:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct6.190910.6964@unislc.uucp>, mls@unislc.uucp (Michael Simons) writes...
[...]

>I think you'll find that if you use the Fundamentalist Muckraker definition
>of Christianity that pretty much everyone but them are excluded.  Mr. Rose
>should tell us if he includes Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic,
>Church of England, Presbyterian, Unitarian, etc, in his definition of
>Christianity.

Mike,
	This is called equivocation.
	Address the issue please.............
	and let the unitarians rest in peace.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<BvEqEB.xB@inews.Intel.COM> <1992Sep30.202805.21656@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:35:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.202805.21656@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <BvEqEB.xB@inews.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.014457.25899@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
>>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>>In article <BvD58q.Fz5@inews.Intel.COM> 
>>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>>Of what use is an true metaphor?     
>>>>Of what use is an false metaphor?   
>>>Whether or not something is useful is rather different from whether or not
>>>something is _there_.
>>Yes, utility and existance are two different concepts.
>If they are two different concepts, why did you try to back up "there is no
>such thing as a true or false metaphor" by rhetorically suggesting that
>true and false metaphors are not useful?
>Just because true and false metaphors are not useful does not mean that there
>is no such thing as one.

Oh, I don't know. I was only trying to illustrate, not win a debate. So,
I guess I lost the debate. I guess true and false metaphors are useful
to you. Good luck with 'em.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun)
Subject: Re: Islam
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:18:30 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago IL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

>>MANEJWZA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu () writes:
: In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
: 
: I bear witness that there is no diety except Allah, who has no partners<<



There is >NO< god but AM'N, and AM'N is the HIDDEN.


>>: and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.<<


There is no one man nor any one book that can be the absolute authority on
any one thing. AM'N is mysterious and in that mystery it is as plural as it
is singular.

It is presumptious to assume that deity is dependent of messengers or
soldiers out of poverty of expression.

AM'N gave us eyes, and ears. And all five senses by which, if we use them
with prudence we can know AM'N without any written opinion of any imperfect
man.


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.humour
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: Jesus for President
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00382-346dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:45:59 GMT



>>Imagine Jesus entering the current Presidential race..

>>... he is sagging in the polls after an initial strong start and we catch
>>>up with Him in a meeting with his political handlers in a crisis meeting...

>>Consultant #1. "Can I be frank with you Jesus? Your stump speech sucks
>>                megadick."

>>Consultant #2. "Joe Sixpack doesn't want to hear a lot of kindergarden crap
>>                about lambs and lions and camels and asses."

>>Consultant #3. "Watch this business with the arms. Holding your palms out
>>                makes you look like a pussy."

>>Consultant #1. "And will someone please tell me what the fuck a Pharisee
>>                is??"


So he turns you and the others who are running into pillars of salt!
HAHAHAHAAHHAAH
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!


Chris :)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Jesus For President
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 06:18:38 GMT

In article <b04Q02vE23EG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE) writes:
>Can we say Blasphemy?
I probably can. I thought it was kinda funny, though.

>"You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will
> not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name."
That's cool. In this passage, God is talking about his Name...I.e.
YHWH. This dude use Jesus, which ain't God's name, but rather the Greek
translation of the name of this guy that God walked around as for a while.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:59:23 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep28.160718.59243@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.042756.11832@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, 
>ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>>From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
>>>psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>>> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>>>[...]
>>>>>> This is in print in every copy of the book MORMON DOCTRINE,
>>>>>> and he was an Apostle of the church.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe he was an apostle when he wrote it.
>>>>> He became one some time after the book was published.
>>>> [...]
>>>> McConkie was sustained a member of the First Council of the
>>>> Seventy October 6, 1946 at 31 years of age.
>>>>
>>>> After he wrote _Mormon Doctrine_, he was ordained an apostle
>>>> on October 12, 1972.
>>>
>>>Thank you for providing the dates.  I was unsure of them.
>>>
>>>> For those who wish to distance themselves from _Mormon
>>>> Doctrine_, the question arises: If the book was full of holes,
>>>> why was McConkie awarded as an Apostle *after* he wrote it?
>>>
>> ..
>>>2. _Mormon Docrtine_ was first published in 1958 and revised in
>>>1966 and 1978 (1979?).  This seems to indicate that there was no
>>>connection with the publishing of the book and and McConkie's
>>>status in the church as a General Authority.  To be made an
>>>apostle 14 years *after* one produces a work, and 6 years after
>>>one revises the same work seems to be a rather bizzarre time
>>>frame for any course of action.
>>>
>>>(Yes, Johnson, we think that the work you have done for the
>>>company today is so valuable that we're going to make you a full
>>>partner ... 14 years from now.)
>> 
>> Jason, isn't it true there are a limited number of Apostle'ships?
>> I didn't think they could hand them out, like a field commission,
>> which seems to be what you are implying.
>
>Yes there are.
>
>Since you are so up on Mormonisn, how many persons where made
>Apostles after 1958 but before Bruce R. McConkie?
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu

Oh how fun, Mormon trivia!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:44:57 GMT

In article <BvD58q.Fz5@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Of what use is an accurate metaphor?  
>Of what use is an true metaphor?     
>Of what use is an false metaphor?   

Whether or not something is useful is rather different from whether or not
something is _there_.  Does this mean that you now admit these things exist,
and you merely disagree over whether or not they are useful?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:11:29 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Sep23.000948.22140@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:

>1.  We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the _only infallible_,
>authoritative Word of God.
>

Would this mean that if someone believed in evolution instead of
the Adam and Eve story or rejected the idea that all life except
two of each type of animal Noah had on the Ark became extinct
at the time of a global flood in 3000BC, they aren't a Christian?


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------