HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:37:35 GMT

In article <J081TB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>
>> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>> You have asked a legitimate question, and now you chastise people for
>> answering.  If you don't want to know the answer, then don't ask the
>> question.
>
>Do you consider flunking a test chastisement? Then the person who takes
>the test doesn't have any responsibility for his answers? What should
>I do, just give everyone 100% to humor them? Nobody forced anyone to take
>this test. And the questions were not "IS there a soul?" or "IS there a
>purpose of human life?" but "What IS the soul?" and "What IS the purpose
>of human life?"
>
>What IS the problem, really?

As I see it, you attempted to enumerate the characteristics of the
soul without first convincing people that it even exists.  For some
of us the very existence of these entities is in doubt.  You have yet
to show that your "answer key", the Bhagavad-Gita, is indeed the
correct one.  When I am given a math exam, there is only one answer
key, and its answers can be objectively evaluated.  When it comes to
religion, there is a multiplicity of "answer keys," and no theist
has yet objectively proven their answer key is correct.  Ultimately
it comes down to the Bible vs the Qu'ran vs the Bhagavad-Gita etc.,
without any independent references for any of these books.

So when you quizzed us and gave out grades, you annoyed a lot of 
people.  If a Christian asked you "Who is God?" and you said "Lord
Krishna," and the Christian said "No, Jesus is God, you get an F,"
would you not be somewhat annoyed?  After all, you have no reason 
to accept his authority as a teacher!

>Well, apparently you think that we posted the test for your amusement.
>If not, why such an uproar? The message i'm getting is that you're "not
>amused", as if you think you should have been. I am not mocking the
>people who took the test. I made some humorous remarks in some cases,
>but this is not intended as insulting mockery.
>
>It's really quite amazing how many times I hear "don't post here" or
>"please go away", not only in response to my own posts, but from anyone
>who is the least disturbed by what others are saying. I have never
>tried to get those who disagree with me to stop speaking or to stop
>posting here. What is this nonsense? Why not fight, if you know you're
>right?

Post all you want; that's what unmoderated groups are for.  But if 
your posts are all like "what is your SIQ," don't be surprised if
people start hitting 'n' when one of your posts comes around.

SD
From: lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:53:53 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <BxKKFB.Lv6@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.180835.7560@cerritos.edu> radams@cerritos.edu writes:
>>Jesus clearly states "I and my Father are one".
>
>I don't think that's quite how the line goes.
I think NIV English has "I and the Father are one."  Correct me if I'm wrong.

>But, if Jesus was the son of
>God, why didn't he say "My Father"? How do we even know what Jesus said
>since he spoke in Aramaic and we have no Aramaic record of what he said?

No record?  One of the Gospels reports of Jesus addressing God in Aramaic
kind of as "Daddy" not just "Father" in that spot where he says "Father,
why have you forsaken me?"

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:51:47 GMT

In article <TT.92Nov6153356@euler.jyu.fi> tt@euler.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
writes:
>Why don't you all just abandon English and start using Finnish instead.
>It has a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun (and no gender-specific
>ones at all -- makes translation interesting at times).

I dated a Czech girl once who spoke excellent German.  She made much of the
fact that the Czechs had seven declensions, as opposed to the Russian six and
the paltry German four, not to mention the degenerate two (OK, three if you
count pronouns) of the meagre English.

I did a little research, and found the Finns had over twice as many declensions
as the Czechs.  When I brought this up, she said "I shall never learn Finnish,
even if they conquer the world!"  Shortly thereafter, she left the state and
I never saw her again.

Jens
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:28:33 EST

In article <1992Nov7.202912.17497@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
[...]
> What I was trying to say is the behaviour of some of the follower's
> of a religion should not detract from the merits of the religion
> itself.

I do believe that I understood this.  What I was trying to point out is that
you can never be sure of the basis on which to make any conclusion.

If IMHO, the followers are "evil" then they 
	a: understand it and don't follow the religion
        b: deliberately distort the religion
	c: don't understand the religion and hence don't follow it correctly
	d: understand it and choose to interpret it different than you.

I probably missed some cases here, but there is no practical way to separate
the cases out, except subjective.  In which case, the merits are strictly
subjective.  Basically, [my, your, their, our, no} religion {has, doesn't have}
merits based on the {behavior, non-behavior} of the {followers, nonfollowers}
of {my, your, their, anyone's} interpretation of the religion.  

GXKambic
sd
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Prayer in Public Schools
Summary: Well then, produce some verses.
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:47:52 GMT
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey


Richard Pitts wrote on prayer in schools
> [...] the desire is for an organized voluntary period of prayer.  The idea
> is that we believe that prayer is important and should be a recognized part
> of national life.

When criticised by Paul Harvey as blindly following Pat Robertson, Mr Pitts
responded by saying that he'd never mentioned Pat Robertson, but rather
only the name of Jesus, who Mr Pitts claims to serve.

Very well then; please provide a reference to instructions from Jesus which
support governmentally organised public prayers.  If you cannot provide any
such reference from Jesus, explain why you believe that government-run public
prayers are something Christians should support.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:24:56 GMT

agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <76790001@teecs.UUCP> to@teecs.UUCP (Norman To) writes:
>
>>Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?
>
>Religion doesn't get one to heaven.  Only knowing Jesus will.

Aww, shucks, then anybody who lived before 0 A.D. after about 30 A.D.
has no chance of getting into heaven?

Doesn't matter to me.  I'm already in heaven -- heaven on Earth!  If
you want to see what the Christian realization of the "perfect world"
might be, read _The Handmaid's Tale_ by Margaret Atwood.  Then try to
tell me that what we have today _isn't_ heaven.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
      Nolite te bastardes    Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
        carborundorum.                                           -- Rousseau
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20591 alt.slack:3030 alt.discordia:358 alt.pagan:12460 alt.conspiracy:11959
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.slack,alt.discordia,alt.pagan,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MARK-OF-THE-BEA$T bar-code$/scanner$
Date: 7 Nov 1992 02:49:58 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <BxBL91.41A@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
End of article 351 (of 351)--what next? [npq] | discord | nroff -ms > article

     Thin lines spaced close together at the  identification
string.   Set  of  thin  lines  spaced close together at the
earth!  Peach Halves in Light Syrup' written  on  things  as
the  TV  cameras  in case the TV cameras in case the obvious
warnings!  Babylonians, but not possible  to  distribute  it
when  Revelation from cooperating with the NUMBER OF THE BEA
T so called guard patterns, the pinkness of this, sorry,  it
all your name into their list of the plastic, alt.

     Most.

     Tiff format headers as the  underlying  hediousness  of
excepting  the HitchHiker's Guide to Jesus and extending the
fnord book!  Libraries, but certainly not the plastic, pairs
of  the MARK OF THE SAME CRIMINAL PURPOSE as an alphabet for
a computer has a Rhone river if there is  ENCOURAGED.   Etc.
PS  I've  been  talking to put into their ID code, it around
the plastic, there is!  Code.

     Code as UPC bar code is just a set of it as  we  sh  t.
Maybe  on  some  codes  are  human  artifacts, as the hindOO
notion of pi beyond three.  Mcelwre cnsvax.

     Guy's serious.  See if you!

     Zaphod.  FSLIC.  With  me  see  you!   Rhone  river  if
they're wearing the Langue d'Oc?  Being that someone thought
it is this IMPORTANT Information is amor?

     Tell you can serve THE BEA T so far?  Wrong one  of  it
is!

     Distinguishing alphanumerics.  Same as the book!   What
is  this IMPORTANT Information is already done so far, c'est
un Central Massif, c'est un Central  Massif,  with  the  two
codes are easy for a Rhine?

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Far out, man"
            - President George Bush, heard in a stump speech on NPR
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Biblical error for the day
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:14:13 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

The following is regurgitate w/o Jim's express permission, though I
double he'd object.  Since Biblical errors have been discussed
recently, all of you innerantists can have a go at this one:

begin quoted material---

Matthew is the New Testament's prophecy hound, and he tries
to find them wherever he can.  But sometimes (as in verse 2:23, the
"Nazarene" prophecy), he just makes them up.  (Actually, I suspect he
really did have some verse in mind, probably one of the verses Christian
apologists claim this refers to--none of which work as prophecies.)
Another example is Matthew 27:9-10:

   Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled,
   saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver for the price of
   the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they
   gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."

There is no such verse anywhere in the book of Jeremiah.  There is,
however, something quite similar in Zechariah (11:12-13), but it is
Zechariah talking about himself and no betrayal is involved.  Gleason
Archer, in his _Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties_, tries to solve
this problem by citing various verses in Jeremiah which refer to
"the prophet purchasing a field in Anathoth for a certain number of
shekels" (32:6-9), "the prophet as watching a potter fashioning
earthenware vessels in his house" (18:2), "a potter near the temple" (19:2),
and God saying "Even so I will break this people and this city as
one breaks a potter's vessel" (19:11).  Why does Archer say "a certain
number of shekels" instead of giving the number?  Because Jeremiah 32:9
says *seventeen* shekels, not thirty.  Archer's methodology here is
complete garbage--the verses he cites bear no resemblance to the passage
quoted in Matthew.  On the other hand, compare Zechariah 11:12-13:

   And I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages;
   but if not, never mind!"  So they weighed out thirty shekels of
   silver as my wages.  Then the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the
   potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them."  So
   I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in
   the house of the Lord.

There is little doubt that *this*, not Jeremiah, is what Matthew had
in mind.  It is equally clear that this is no prophecy of Judas'
betrayal of Jesus.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@RVAX.CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZRVAX.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

end quoted material---



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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State, A Myth
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:57:59 GMT

In <kmr4.104.720937769@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.023246.8614@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>	The worthlessness of material wealth and why one must give it
>>all away.

>	Worthless? Don't you know that money can be used to buy your soul or 
>the soul of a loved one from the torture of Hell!
>	It's called the selling of indulgence.

>	During my conformation classes [ lutheran confirmation ], when we 
>were discussing the sale of indulgences in the Catholic church, and how much 
>they believed one had to pay for a particular crime, So much for blasphemy, 
>so much for unfaithfullness, etc. I asked one question, maybe some 
>Catholic can answer it for me:
> 	How much would it cost to get your soul out of hell, if you raped 
>the Pope?

It doesn't take a Catholic to give the answer: Nothing, if you repent.

That's the way it always was with indulgences.  So far as I know, it
was never claimed that they would save someone from hell for unrepented
sins; and if Tetzel claimed that, he was not leveling with people about
what the Catholic church teaches.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Should religion be eliminated?
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:20:05 +1030
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <1992Nov3.013741.605@dbased.nuo.dec.com>,
news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:

>>Scientific progress has come in spite of religion as the Galileo case
>>shows.  Religion has been a ball and chain around the ankle of society and
>>it is time to remove it once and for all.

>             Q1: Are you truly in favor of seeing the practice of religion
>                 (i.e., of all religions) eliminated throughout the earth?

No, but I hope one day it will be gone. I believe morals are relative, so
I don't think I have the right to force my beliefs on others. However,
if they try to force their religion on me I will strike back.

When I say 'no', I mean I wont ban it. In fact, should someone try to
legislate a ban on religion, I would stop it! Instead, I would rather
have people know that they don't need religion and it is nothing more
than a dangerous mind-altering drug.

>             Q2: If you are in favor of seeing religion eliminated from
>                 the world, how do you think this should and could be
>                 accomplished?

At the moment, I'd go about trying to get schools to teach children to
think rather to absorb and obey. That's to stop this authoritarianism,
but the annihilation of most religion that would result is an added
benefit.

-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Public Schools
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:36:41 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>
>I did not say nor to my knowledge does the movement want GOVERNMENT-RUN 
>PUBLIC PRAYERS.  There is a difference - you take it to an extreme - the 
>request if for a time period for prayer - NOT government-run public prayer.  
>We don't want someone of a different persuasion lead our children in
>pray - we recognize the plurality of religions in America.  If you have
>read my post on this, I suggest that we have a place for each group, so
>that they can have a leader of their choice and so not impose upon another.
>
>Here are my scriptures - the are not all about public pray, but they
>are about prayer - many instances of it.  My favorite is 
>
>    Matthew 19:13 (NIV)   Then little children were brought to Jesus 
>    for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the 
>    disciples rebuked those who brought them. 

Ah, but there's a difference between this and prayer in schools.

Pretend for a moment that America, for the most part, believes in
Allah.  Now can you see a difference between a passage in the Koran
which tells of little children coming to Mohammed to be blessed, and a
teacher leading a class in prayer to Allah?

Just saying you'll have "a place for each group" is not enough.  What
if you're the only Christian child in the class?  Will you have the
Islamic teacher lead you in prayer because there don't happen to be
any Christian teachers at your school?  Will you allow yourself to be
singled out in some way because of your religion?  Have you forgotten
what peer pressure is like in school?  I haven't, because being
bullied by Catholic kids was one of the things which made me pull
further away from Christianity.

I'm suspicious of the movement to put prayer back into the classroom.
I believe it's not just a way to allow kids a time to show their
respect for their god, because that's possible anywhere else (at
lunch, during recess, AT HOME).  Rather, I think it's a way to try to
make more kids Christian by singling out the minority who are not
Christian, and further brainwashing those who already are.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:38:07 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

to@teecs.UUCP (Norman To) writes:

>Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?

Well, if you can't find one, just make one up.  That's what everyone else has
done. :)

-- 

Wulf                    |Every silver lining has a cloud inside it.
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,alt.atheism
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Should religion be eliminated?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:41:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.130214.11460@cs.ucla.edu> robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
>news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:
>>            Q2: If you are in favor of seeing religion eliminated from
>>                the world, how do you think this should and could be
>>                accomplished?
>
>Education is the key.  Teach people *how* to think, not *what* to think.
>Teach them that dynamic thinking, based upon a dynamic and ever growing
>knowledge base is better than static (stagnant) beliefs, and show how
>this atrophy has hindered the evolution of thought.  Teach them the
>history behind such religions; how and why such religions were created,
>how and why God was created by man.  Show them how such religions which
>are supposedly inherently static, were forced to evolve and change, to
>keep pace with the collective, dynamic, and ever growing knowledge base.
>Show them how such religions have impeded scientific knowledge and real
>education.  Show them how such religions are propogated, and show them
>that these same techniques were, and still are, used by many cults and
>other fascist movements to control large numbers of people.  Teach
>people that superstition is not a prerequisite for a sound moral code.
>Show people how such religions have been used to justify otherwise
>unconscionable (immoral) acts such as hatred and bigotry, and how it is
>still being used today.  Show people that they do not need an emotional
>security blanket to create a false sense of security, and that a full
>and meaningful life has a value in and of itself, even if it's only
>finite, and not everlasting.
>
>Once people understand what such religions are all about, these
>religions should die on their own, and we can get on with the business
>of actually *doing* something constructive, rather than playing
>tug-of-war, and going nowhere fast.
>
>Any religion that can survive *these* rigorous constraints deserves to
>stick around, because they obviously have a *real* value, and should
>not rightly be called a religion in the first place.

Have you considered the possibility that religion might a biological trait
of _Homo sapiens_ instead of some cultural artifact?  If not, I suggest that
you read _The Biology of God_ by Alister Hardy (sorry not have publication
information at hand).

-- Herb Huston
From: horst@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (Horst Hogenkamp)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:37:38 GMT
Organization: Universitaet Bielefeld, Rechenzentrum

In article <1992Nov2.065603.24798@cs.tu-berlin.de>, michti@cs.tu-berlin.de (Michael Tievenow) writes:
> 
> G o d   s p e a k s !
> 
> directly to us human beings - as it was through the prophets of the Old
> Covenant and teaches truths the world hasn't known til now.
> 
> You can read and hear the divine revelations in comprehensive literature,
> cassettes and in Computer Files (ASCII and/or WinWrite Format).
> 
> 
> Ask for free info !
> 
> Mail Adress:             Universelles Leben
[ ... rest deleted ...]



Universelles Leben is a well known sect.

They believe in many things the bible does not teach.

Their God is obviously a daemon, as he is lying to them. (1Jn2:22)


Horst
.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc