HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:03:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.155217.25765@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:

>In article <7g3sTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>
>>1) What is the soul?
>>2) What is the purpose of human life?
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Kalki Dasa

>1) There is no such thing as a soul (why do you think there is?).  But if
>you are asking what makes us who we are as individuals, then the answer is
>the combination of the matter of which we are made and the form/order/
>arrangement of this matter. Don't confuse the form with your concept of
>the soul -- form is a property of matter and does not exist independently
>of matter.

Question 1 Grade:  100% - very good!

>2) Purpose implies design, which is not evident.  So then we are left to 
>our own devices to give meaning and purpose to our lives.

Question 2 Grade - 100% - very good!


Don't forget to chant:  There is no God
                        There is no soul
                        There is no morality
                        Bugs Bunny is God
--
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Null - 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
                                               --------------------------------
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:50:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov6.174338.17948@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James
Meritt) wrote:
> 1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil
> bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Ancient scholars knew about Orwellian politics :-).

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21066 sci.skeptic:19569 alt.censorship:8809 alt.sex:36185
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Keywords: mindless,politically-correct,use,your,head
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:16:19 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Nov10.191427.1174@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>
>Mr. Walz writes lots of nonsense in response to a post of mine indicating
>that he either doesn't know how to read, orjust hasn't bothered to do so.
>
>Since all the nonsense he says is addressed by previous posts of mine,
>
>-- 
------------------------
And I suppose that you might want to put the stupid letter you wrote
me here too, and my more than sufficient responses to it to have
thrown your equalibrium out of wack entirely, Greenbean. Please do,
and without deletion. I think it will amuse.
- Steve Walz


-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc

Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 00:45:26 GMT

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

>In article <Bx8MvG.MIr@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>>I think you mean P(A given B) and P(B given A): "the probability that a
>>given child molester is queer" and "that a given queer person is a
>>child molester".  You have to posit a very small number of queers
>>before Clayton's assertion makes any sense.

>No you don't.  Imagine a society with 10% gays but one child molester who by
>chance happens to be gay.  The first probability is 100% and the second is
>negligibly small, and you can replace the 10% with anything you want and get
>the same answer.  The assertion also works if only the number of molesters is
>small.

I believe that Paul was trying to say that Clayton's numbers do not make
sense in *this* society.  You are certainly correct in saying that these
numbers might conceivably make sense in some imaginary society.  So,
what's your point?

--
Rob
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:34:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.183247.18805@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>isn't what makes a True Prophet (tm) in your book.  So what makes the JWs
>>True Prophets? 
>
>	True fruits, as I told you. It's true that even false religion can 
>	produce some fruit that can seem good to someone, but when considered
>	everything they've done, it's more bad than good. 

 This may be just a problem with your usage of standard English, but in
 your mind what does "True fruits" mean?  In common english, the term
 refers to the condition that oranges do not grow on apple trees.

 Are refering to the biblical statement, that the tree will bear _good_ fruit?

 How is i possible to distinguish the False Prophets of the JW's from
 the Good Prophets. Do the witness group have a sure-fire method of
 being aware of those differences?

>	I know there are honest non-JWs among worldly people. We're seeking them
>
>
>	It's impossible to say what is in the minds of individuals. I got the 
>	idea that there were many views about it in the HQs, too. 

>>Not an answer.  Many different groups produce good fruits; therefore by
>>your approach, they must be good trees. Correct? 
>
>	OK. Tell me, what good fruits have you produced ? I suppose the Catholic
>	world is the happiest nation on earth and has solved all their problems.
>	If you add +100 to -10,000,000 it's still negative. 
  

  If the catholics or any other religous group has produced something,
  would that be much better than a group which hasn't produced anything
  or changed anything. And yes I'm awaware of both "Be ye therefore in
  the World but not of the world." and "ye are the salt of the earth"

  Isn't one group holding a candle in the dark much better than anyone
  hideing their candle under the bushel basket?



-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 03:31:17 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

> >1) What is the soul?

>      usenet

Question 1 grade: 0% (joking to cover up ignorance)

> >2) What is the purpose of human life?

>       see sig.

Question 2 grade: 0% (joking to cover up ignorance)

Overall grade: 0%. Try again!


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 01:33:55 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

>1) What is the soul?

There isn't one.

>2) What is the purpose of human life?

There isn't one.  Or, the purpose is to reproduce.  Or, the purpose
is personal.  For example, my purpose is to learn as much about the
things I find interesting as possible, and to otherwise enjoy myself.
I have, however, no purpose imposed on me externally.

keith
From: esuqg@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J D Brickwood)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Zen
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:09:05 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: fennel.csv.warwick.ac.uk

I don't subscribe to this group. Please email me your replies.
Can anyone please explain to me what Zen is?
thanx.
xx
jase
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 4 Nov 92 19:56:01 GMT
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual



Sorry, but I just couldn't stop myself from posting this:

The following revelation was given through the prophet Joseph Smith:

Doctrine and Covenants
======================
93:29-30&36
-----------
"Man was also in the begining with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth,
was not created or made, neither indeed can be."

"All truth is independent in that spere in which God has placed it, 
to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence."

"The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth."

The Book of Abraham
===================
3:19
----
"And the Lord said unto me: These two facts exist, that there are two sripits,
one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more 
intelligent than they; I am the Lord God, I am more intelligent than they all."

With brotherly love,

		Frank
From: news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Jeff H ... Send me mail!
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:40:02 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


    Jeff H ... Did you get my reply to your e-mail?  My reply to you
    bounced twice (when I sent it to you using the return path your recent
    mail gave me).  I sent it a third time using the return path from your
    e-mail from a year ago, but haven't heard back (and didn't get a
    bounced message).

    -mark.
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:42:55 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
: > : 
: > : 1) What is the soul?
: > 
: > IMHO, it is an unsupported assertion that our consciousness is an 
: > independent, immortal, supernatural essence instead of a physiological 
: > phenomenon.
: 
: Question 1 grade: 50% (knows what it is but doesn't want to admit it)

Let's see your evidence.  Put up or shut up.
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20484 alt.atheism:20665
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State, A Myth
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:16:28 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <1992Nov5.023246.8614@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|>
|>	Why this fixation on posting the Ten Commandments? The Sermon
|>on the Mount, and some other teachings of Jesus Christ (or at least
|>teachings attributed to him) would be _much_ more interesting to post.
|>Questions of ultimate authorship aside, it would be interesting to see
|>people's reactions to such teachings as:
|>
|>	The worthlessness of material wealth and why one must give it
|>all away.
|>
|>	How one should do lots of nice things for one's tormentors.
|>
|>	That one should be consider neutering oneself in order to
|>enter "the Kingdom of Heaven".
|>
|>	That one should pray in private, and not try to impress others
|>with one's piety. [There go official school prayers]
|>
|>	I'm sure the Rush Limbaugh school of though would flay JC
|>alive if they realized the things he taught.
|>
                     
There may be great debate on what (if anything) Jesus was, but
one thing is certain: Jesus was NOT a republican!

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:17:15 GMT

In article BVRyTB6w165w@kalki33, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us () writes:
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>> So where do you get the answers from?
>> --
>
>Bhagavad-gita, Bhagavat Purana, Chaitanya Charitamrita, and other
>standard works of the Vedic scriptures.

How do you know that these (and therefore not some other) scriptures
are correct? Preferably, something that doesn't go for all those other
books.
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Paul and the Gospels
Date: 13 Nov 1992 04:11:12 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com


Here's a question about Paul that's always bothered me:

Does anyone else find it, well... _interesting_ that Paul seems to be so
*completely* absent from the Gospels?  

I mean, there's not even a hint of Paul's existence.  Zip.  None.  All in
all, it wouldn't take a very great leap of imagination to read the Gospels
and imagine that someone had gone through and deliberately excised all
mention of Paul.

The closest Paul comes to making it is in Acts.  But even there the author
of Luke-Acts is very careful to not even mention Paul until well into Acts.
You'd think he might lay a little ground-work in his first volume.

This is particularly interesting if you consider that the Gospels were
written in the milieu following Paul's death, with presumably his writings
(and thought and influence) making the rounds.  But this influence or
thought is not merely played-down; it has utterly vanished.

Furthermore, the writers of the Gospels seem perfectly happy to perform
exactly this sort of service for other leaders of the early, post-Jesus
Church.  Consider, for example, how much emphasis is placed on James, John
and Peter --i.e. the so-called "Jersulem Party"-- and how they are being
"groomed", as it were, for their later leadership roles.

Now, it is certainly true that the Paul comes along later than the time-
frame covered by the Gospels.  But again, the writers of the Gospels show
little compunction about showing a little "foresight" when it helps their
cause.  I guess I'm a little surprised there's not a _single_ phrase that
reads something like "...And He said, After I am gone, a great comfort will
come to you from Tarsus"

To the modern reader, if there is a second person after Jesus in history of
Christianity that person is Paul.  Given this absence, both in person and
in thought, this is particularly confusing.

It seems that the very least we much conclude is that Paul's influence
and/or position w.r.t. the Early Church --at least those portions of the
early Church who were responsible for and whose history we read in the New
Testament-- was very much different that how we perceive it today.

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --     "...and they opened their thesaurus and offered 
                            him gold and frankincense and myrrh..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Existential Blues was What is the soul?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 8 Nov 1992 20:02:24 UTC

In article <1992Nov8.044221.5541@gboro.glassboro.edu> 
kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>    My own answer is this: "By `soul', I mean whatever it is that makes me
>    a unique individual.  It may or may not have independent existence.  It
>    makes for some interesting philosophical discussions, but beyond that
>    the question seems to me utterly pointless."

That's Existentialism. Personally, I think it's all an illusion. When a
system is sufficiently complex such that it is beyond our complete
understanding, then we say it exists. "The Soul in the Machine". Perhaps
insite can be gained by considering what is life and what is not life?
How is life defined? There is no scientific answer to this question.

>> 2) What is the purpose of human life?
>To worship and glorify God.

All depends how you define worship, glorify and God, doesn't it?
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:29:46 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Nov13.181955.19388@spdc.ti.com> hughes@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Susan Hughes) writes:
|In article <74333@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>In article <1992Nov09.170021.28822@bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|>|In article <74157@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>||> In article <1992Nov06.211949.14647@bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|>||> |In article <73889@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>||> ||> In article <Bx9J8z.5F1@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
|>||> ||> |In article <72646@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>||> ||> |>
|>||> |
|
|>|  c) They consistently ignore the FACT that god commands the Jewish priests
|>|     to commit abortions. (Numbers 5)
|>
|>This was a judgement against adultery.  Have we gone so far as to
|>think that what was a punishment is now to be desired?
|
|This seems like a good point to bring in a question on another biblical 
|passage, one which after reading I was really suprised to not have seen 
|mentioned before; Ecclesiastes 4: 1-3 reads-
|
|   1  Then I returned and considered all the oppression that is done
|      under the sun:
|        And look! the tears of the oppressed,
|        But they have no comforter-
|        On the side of their oppressors there is power,
|        But they have no comforter.
|   2  Therfore I praised the dead who were already dead,
|      More than the living who are still alive.
|   3  Yet, better than both is he who has never existed,
|      Who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.
|
|This would seem particularly pointed to unwanted children (the oppressed)
|and abused children ("they have no comforter"). It could be read to say
|that it truly is better to abort than bring a child into a lifetime of
|suffering. If there are other interpretations/comments I would be very
|interested in seeing them.

I believe the child is better off.  For the Christian, it is better
to be apart from the body and so be with the Lord, than being alive,
but in both cases the ending of the life brings judgement on the one
who ends the life.  Physical death is not the worst thing that can
happen.  The one who causes physical death will be punished appropriately,
but even more severely will be the punishment for those who lead
children (of God) astray.

|Regards,
|Susan Hughes

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:21:19 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <76790001@teecs.UUCP>, to@teecs.UUCP (Norman To) writes:
|> Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?
Christianity.
The Bible states:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,
that whoever believes in him, shall not perish
but have eternal life.

Also, Jesus said:
I am the Way, the Truth and the Life;
No man comes to the Father, but by me.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:25:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.222313.17794@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>In article <Bx6L11.2zJ@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu
>(Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>In article <dhalliwe.720825225@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes:
>>
>>>It would be very unusual to know who went to the market without knowing
>>>their gender, and using the appropriate gender can hardly be considered
>>>inappropriate in this case.
>>
>>Their gender has no more effect on the fact of
>>their going to the market than their age, weight or hair color;
>
>Who are they?  Are we suddenly talking about more than one person?

No.

(If this was meant to be a snipe at me, it failed; I was not the one
to introduce `they' as a gender-neutral pronoun in this discussion, as
you'll see from reading the above paragraphs carefully.)

>Finally, do I read you correctly in believing that if I were to say
>"My brother went to the market.  He bought..." you would find that
>objectionable?

No.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:15:14 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <BxKoJq.Mqp@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

....

I think the title of this should be "Problems with Paul Harvey's history
of Jesus." :-)

Before I respond to the original article, let me ask you, Mr. Harvey,
do you think Paul wrote or directed the writing of all of the NT?
Do you think he did the same for the OT?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:01:03 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


~
 
~
GRS00010@CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU (Shannon R. Adams) requests:

> 1)  Name
>a good practice that makes Jehovah's Witnesses stand apart from
>other religions.

The fact that on a cold winters day they will go to the trouble
of knocking on someone's door who is most likely hostile to
them, in hopes of saving them.

>2)  Name a bad practice that makes Jehovah's
>Witnesses look like they are out of their minds and unbelievable.

The fact that on a cold winters day they will go to the trouble
of knocking on someone's door who is most likely hostile to
them, in hopes of saving them.

             :)

Jack

 

Keywords: 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc