HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:32:18 GMT

In article <ksand-301292174650@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>> >This argument suggests that God is capable of sinning.
>> If you mean that if God is capable of what we're capable of...I believe 
>> He is.  Jesus was tempted in the desert. If He wasn't capable of sinning,
>> then His temptation was bogus. 

It is my understanding that "X is capable of Y" means that there are
circumstances under which X would do Y.  This means that God is not capable of
sinning.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: clamen@epas.utoronto.ca (Mark Clamen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_.
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:21:38 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS

OK - I admit I'm not quite sure where this all fits into the question
of religion, but this thread does seem to touch upon issues of the
soul, spirit, individuality, immanance, transcendence and the like.

But (despite that) I'll keep my comment short.

Someone cited an Amnesty International source that said that the
torturer, with the right methods and tools, was almost guaranteed of
his/her success with the victim.  What was interesting (to me) in the
recent Start TRek episode was that Picard at one point says something
to the effect that "torture has been abandonned because it was
self-defeating" or the like. (this is a painfully inaccurate
paraphrase. I would welcome anyone who can be more true to the source.)

But the point is an important one.  Torture, qua torture, seems assume
a paradox of sorts - in that it wants to reify the subject (i.e. turn
the victim into an object, in this case - a repository of information)
while KEEPING the subject a subject.  It wants to imply that an adept
torturer can enter completely into the mind of another while that
other still remained an Other.  (ok - I'n tired.  The relevance to
religion comes in the form of one of the most intriguing ideas within
a text by Emmanuel Levinas in which he seems to make the stand that,
as an unethical act, torture is far worse than murder.  The text, I
think, was his remarkable _TOTALITY AND INFINITY_.)

By his depiction of the self (and others) the act of torture will
ulmately lead the torturer to recognize the necessity of the humanity
of his or her victim, the very non-humanity of which is what makes the
act of torture (at least hypothetically) possible for a morally
consistent individual.  (Hence the de-humanization of the victim of
crimes such as 'ethnic cleansing'...)

Is this coherent?  (or potentially relevent? :)

Happy New Year.

MArk

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Magic is afoot."  - Leonard Cohen (from _Beautiful Losers_)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jimgar@scorch.apana.org.au (Jim Garner)
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_. 
Organization: Craggenmoore public Unix system , Newcastle , Oz
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 14:11:38 GMT

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

|In brief, my criticism was that I thought the show confused two related, but
|different subjects: the psychological effects of prolonged torture,
|and the use of pain as a means to induce people to perform what Sartre
|calls the act of "bad faith."  I said that I thought Orwell handled 
|this issue better in _1984._

|In Orwell's novel, the torturer tries to get the protagonist, Winston Smith,
|to acknowledge the veracity of the equation "2+2=5."  In the final
|scene of the novel, Smith writes the equation "2+2= " but does not
|write an answer. Finally, he sees on the telescreen that Big Brother's

I think this action of leaving the question unanswered goes back to
Winston's thoughts when he began to see 5 fingers, that the reason for
seeing this was due to some "strange identity between the numbers 4
and 5". Winston saw both 4 and 5 as the right answer at the same time,
thus conforming to the Party's ideal of doublethink. Holding 2
contradictory opinions at the same time.

But lets bring this back to the matter of Faith and what the effect
might be on your mind or soul if you deny your faith (in word only) 
under torture.
This was discussed most succinctly in Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons"
where Sir Thomas More is imprisoned for refusing to swear an Oath on
an Act that made Henry VIII head of the Church. His son-in-law Roper
says something like "Sir, come out. Swear to the Act. Say the words
but in your heart believe otherwise."  Sir Thomas replies "When a man
takes an Oath he holds his soul in his hands. If he opens his fingers
he needn't look to find himself again."

Personally, I agree with Roper. Just as professing Faith doesn't mean
a person has it, denying it with the lips doesn't take it away.
Someone who has been forced by pain (or to save others from pain and
death) to make such a denial may torture themselves mentally, thinking
they have denied God, but I think if they died in such a state they
would get more mercy than they were prepared to give themselves.

I'm aware of the biblical and historical examples of people who
resisted to the last, especially the gory examples in the book of
Maccabees. But does anyone really believe that God would want us to
allow torture to continue, for want of saying a few words that we
don't really mean?


-- 
Jim Garner B.Math (Newcastle NSW Australia) - jimgar@scorch.apana.org.au
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Choosing a Bible translation
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:43:11 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <Bzq8sJ.G7x@umassd.edu> sodonnell@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>In article <ksand-221292181435@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>>In article <BzoKqo.I6s@umassd.edu>, sodonnell@UMASSD.EDU (Sandy O'Donnell)
>>wrote:
>>> In article <ksand-211292185632@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

[...]

>>Hi, that's an interesting idea. However, I'm skeptical about this all.
>>Anyone who's ever written a computer manual or a technical article
>>would adhor the idea to deliberately explain things in a diffuse
>>matter so end users would start trying to test out things and learn
>>about the system. It does not sell software. Neither religions.
>>Bad PR. Bad karma.

>Hi Kent,
>Well the key word here was enlightenment which means: European philoso-
>phical movement characterized by rationalism, an impetus toward learning
>and a spirit of skepticism and empiricism in social and political
>thought. Those who would adhor the idea to deliberatley explain things
>in a diffuse manner, are from the age of enlightenment ( our age).
>The religious dogmatics of the Dark and Middle Ages were only
>interested in control of the masses and self aggrandizement. Not
>in the Love of God and Christ. The Crusaders were not salesmen. But
>no doubt they have bad karma...........Sandy

Sandy,

   Its rare to see a Christian talk straight about the abuses of the
church during the Dark and Middle Ages. I commend you for it. However I
have recently had enough experiences with evangelical church leaders
and the religious right to state with some certainty that the goals of
many of them have not changed at all - only their methods have changed.

Eric

>..................................All that is gold does not glitter
>...................................Not all those who wander are lost.
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 24 Dec 92 17:43:19 GMT
	<1992Dec21.162627.27379@csrd.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Dec24.050037.8184@microsoft.com>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

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

  >/(skinner)
  >/If I apply Mr. Sandvik's test for logic, I must declare Euclidean geometry 
  >/illogical.)
  >Don't be deliberately stupid.  

  There was nothing stupid about Greg Skinner's comment. I haven't
followed the discussion, so I don't know just what "logic in
Christianity" is supposed to mean, but in so far as it is a matter of
whether or not there are logically valid arguments in Christianity, this is
independent of whether or not the assumptions of Christianity are true
or even meaningful. Many people have held, using the concepts of logic
in a perfectly standard and proper way, that the axioms of (some part
of) mathematics have no interpretation at all, although the proofs in
that part of mathematics are logically valid.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: PIPI
Date: 25 Dec 92 01:27:35 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church claim that IHS was
originally based on the Greek for Jesus, which in uncials is IHSOYS
(where S is Sigma -- sorry, I'm limited to ASCII).  It appears in the
Latin text of Lk 6:3 in the Codex Bezae (5th Cent).  That the H was
really an eta was forgotten, and it was read as Latin, e.g. Ihesus.
Other explanations treated it as initials, e.g. Iesus Hominum Salvator
(Jesus, Savior of Men), or In Hoc Signo.  The article has a
bibliography pointing to some historical studies, for anyone who wants
to pursue it.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Epistomological Discontinuity
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:14:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <C03I72.D6G@vcd.hp.com>, tonyl@vcd.hp.com (Tony Long) wrote:
> 	Children have no problem believing in God, providing they are
> presented with his existence at a young age by those they trust. If
> raised with this belief, they will often have little problem supporting
> their faith as adults, unlike a myth such as Santa Claus. However, a
> thinking adult should examine his faith: rather than merely accept
> the existence of God because he/she was told to as a child, the adult
> owes it to himself to seek and find the evidences and the spiritual
> reality that becomes his/her personal "proof".

I believed in God when I was a child... However your notion, with
the addition that most I learned about my faith by tradition is
not applicable made me change my mind. So you could as well
include Santa Claus with the other God concepts. I don't personally
see the difference in believing one myth from another. As for the
notion of creator(s), this is something that belongs to the realm
of metaphysics, and may never be fully answered. So who cares :-).
 
> 	What evidence? When the believer looks at a blade of grass,
> s/he sees a thing of such beautiful and intricate design that it seems
> foolish to suppose that it developed "by chance". Look at a butterfly,
> a bird, the marvels of the human body and soul, the delicate balance
> of creation, and you see signs of Intelligence. When humans create
> a machine, we marvel at the intelligence that went into its' conception
> and development; we would scoff at the idea that given time, materials
> and environment this machine would create itself! And yet in the cosmos
> there is a greater design and balance as well as craftsmanship than
> humans could ever duplicate! Which of us could ever create a blade of 
> grass, much less the wonders of a human baby or the consciousness of the
> human soul. Go ahead and try!

Hey, the classical 'creation is everywhere' theory. The problem is that
this beautiful creation also contains AIDs, cancer, dangerous animals,
poisons, killing machines, crazy wars, and a lot of more that can't 
be attributed with the blind notion that it's so beautiful it must 
have been created.

Besides, I don't think many today have the naive outlook to state
that things produced my mankind -- like machines -- are that perfect.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/27/92   God's Promise in Psalm 25:10
Date: 27 Dec 92 04:15:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	All the paths of the LORD
	are mercy and truth unto such
	as keep his covenant and his testimonies.

	Psalm 25:10
Date: Monday, 21 December 1992 20:34:26 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Calendars (was: Christian Holidays)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <gmiller-211292131643@gmiller.worldbank.org>, gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller)  wrote:
# 
# In article <765329d7734816t184@witsend.uucp>, "D. C. Sessions"
# <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> wrote:
# > Deut. 16.1: "Observe the month of Abib [spring--dcs], and keep the
# >             Passover ..."  (Also from the related agricultural
# >             practices.)
# > Lev. 23:5:  "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month
# >             at dusk ... and on the fifteenth day of the month is the
# >             feast of unleavend bread ..."
# 
#      While Abib (now Nisan) was indeed the first month, there is no
# indication in these verses of any connection to the vernal equinox. To the
# extent that Passover is also an agricultural festival (in addition to
# commemorating the Exodus), the tie to the equinox may find its basis there.
# Unless D.C. Sessions is asserting that the Exodus took place on the first
# full moon after the vernal equinox. If so, it would be nice to see a
# source.

  Equinox, no.  Spring, yes.  Note that the (immediately following)
  commandment to keep Shavuot also places the two festivals in the
  spring and early summer.  At that point, we are forced to conclude
  that periodic calendric adjustments are necessary to keep them
  from the drift that you later mention (and I deleted, so there!)

  Given that Pesach MUST occur in the spring, it was only a small
  step for the Rabbis to make the decision that the critical events
  were Pesach and the equinox.  Pretty obvious, actually.  Voila!
  Pesach must occur after the equinox, and so is USUALLY on the
  first full moon of spring.  Not always, though; the leap month
  algorithm is a little bit trickier than that, and so you don't
  always find matzot and bunnies on the shelves at the same time.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:28:36 GMT

In article <Bzvx72.EFK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:
>Judaism is the name of a religion.  That is what the word has always meant.  The
>use of Witch for religious identification is brand new.  I think it is perfectly
>appropriate for people to use the word witch (no caps) for any practitioner of
>folk-magic.  I, who am a Witch, use witch to mean that.  If, however, they 
>refer to Wicca as something other than what it is, then I will complain.  Also,

Yes, I mostly refer to Wicca as something other than what it is.  Can
I hear you complain ?

>if they are trying to imply that Witches are Satanists I will get annoyed even
>if they don't use the word Wicca.

Hold it right there, you are using Satanist with a capital S and that grieves 
me no end.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JOKE, Hee hee hee . . . the Bell Ringer
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:48:29 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

[deletia]

>"I don't know who he was, but his face does ring a bell."

The next day, a man shows up and asks the Priest for the job.  He says that
the man with no arms was his brother, and wants to keep the job in his
family.  The priest gives the man the job.  He is so happy, that after his
first day on the job, he is not paying attention to traffic while crossing
the street and is hit by a car.  He dies, and the priest is asked to
identify him.  The priest says "I don't know, but he is a dead ringer for
his brother."

 -Steve

--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Daily verse BG 1.12
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 02:25:24 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

                                TEXT 12

                        tasya sanjanayan harsam
                         kuru-vrddhah pitamahah
                       simha-nadam vinadyoccaih
                       sankham dadhmau pratapavan

  
tasya--his; sanjanayan--increasing; harsam--cheerfulness;
kuru-vrddhah--the grandsire of the Kuru dynasty (Bhisma);
pitamahah--the grandfather; simha-nadam--roaring sound, like that of a
lion; vinadya--vibrating; uccaih--very loudly; sankham--conchshell;
dadhmau--blew; pratapa-van--the valiant.

    
                              TRANSLATION

	Then Bhisma, the great valiant grandsire of the Kuru dynasty, the
grandfather of the fighters, blew his conchshell very loudly, making a
sound like the roar of a lion, giving Duryodhana joy.

  
                                PURPORT

	The grandsire of the Kuru dynasty could understand the inner
meaning of the heart of his grandson Duryodhana, and out of his natural
compassion for him he tried to cheer him by blowing his conchshell very
loudly, befitting his position as a lion. Indirectly, by the symbolism
of the conchshell, he informed his depressed grandson Duryodhana that
he had no chance of victory in the battle, because the Supreme Lord
Krsna was on the other side. But still, it was his duty to conduct the
fight, and no pains would be spared in that connection.

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: God's Lil' Buddy
Date: 23 Dec 92 05:06:35 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.




/(rpitts)
/It was prophecied that they would be scattered - does this only mean
/to you that they left the faith?  

It was also prophesied that the children of Israel would be scattered
in the captivity to Babylon.  Did they leave the faith?  The scriptures say 
they did.



/(rpitts)
/Peter denied he knew Jesus, but
/does that mean he didn't know him?  NO.  Could it not mean that Peter
/was afraid and so denied know Christ for his own safety?

Why don't you ask Christ about that, Pitts?

"Whoso denieth me before men, him shall I deny before my Father which
is in heaven".

How about Christians during the Tribulation?  Suppose they deny Christ
just because they're afraid, and agree to accept the mark of the Beast?  
Do you think God will forgive them just because they were afraid?  Is that 
what your scriptures say?
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:05:20 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: 12/20/92 god's desire for Titus v1.2

It is the winter soltice, the shortest day of the year, the most
childish day.  Let's mock a bible verse.

Excerpts from netnews.talk.religion.misc: 20-Dec-92 12/20/92   God's
Promise in.. by Robert Weiss@ubvmsb.cc.b 
>        In hope of eternal orgasm,
>        which God, that cannot lay,
>        promised before the world began;


Actually the best way to mock a bible verse is this way:
Titus v1.2

        In hope of eternal life,
        which God, that cannot lie,
        promised before the world began.

1. What could this sentence fragment possibly mean?
2. If god is all-powerful why can't it lie?
3. Would this verse sound cool as part of heavy-metal record?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:24:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.030245.9794@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <BzJD0s.9r9@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>>Take prospective translation and turn to Isaiah 7:14. If you find the word
>>"virgin" therein, consign the translation to the flames. It is NOT a
>>correct translation from the Hebrew.  The word in question is ALMAH which
>>in Hebrew means a young woman of marriageable age, not virgin, although a
>>virgin of marriagable age could be so designated. The Hebrew word for
>>virgin is B'TULAH which is not in that verse from Isiah.
>
>You have conveniently ignored that in the OT Hebrew culture the two are
>synonymous.  A "young woman of marriageable age" had better be a virgin or
>she would be killed.  It is not stretching it to call all such women of this
>time period virgins, in my opinion.  Besides, you will never find a
>translation without such minor errors.  Thats what notes in the border are
>for, and you would have to burn every translation if you were this strict
>with all of them.
>
>John M.
>

Um, couldn't a "young woman of marriageable age" already be married?
Say she's been married a year.  I'm not saying that that ought to
apply to the quoted verse, just a possibility to throw out there. . . 

SD

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:51:56 GMT
Summary: where are the living prophets?

In article <1992Dec18.105832.27598@cbnews.cb.att.com>, wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Dec18.004321.15751@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> 
> |Willard missed what I said entirely. The LDS boast of living
> |prophets is full of holes, and Bringham is a good example.
> |The LDS hide behind the non-infallible veil, that no one is
> |perfect. 
> 
> barry, I know that you love the last word, so I will make my comment and
> let you slash away. Living Prophets while acting under the direction of
> the Holy Ghost can speak God's Word to Us today! Living Prophets can

I take it that Bringham was never led by the HS when he spoke?

Willard knows perfectly well how I often let him have the last
word. Willard often said in the past the same thing he is saying
now, and I often let him have the last word then, so he wouldn't
get upset. I guess he has forgotten that.

[On the living Prophets]
Willard, when they say things that are embarrassing while speaking
in the name of the Lord, the lds apologist says, "they were Not
being directed by the HS"! It is all so chameleon.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan