HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: True Gay Christians
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:58:52 GMT

In article <WIGGINS.92Nov7001040@hurricane.cs.odu.edu> wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
>In article <1992Oct30.153527.23351@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>   Come now, Richard. The Bible IS words. Disputes over what it says
>   are thus naturally disputes over words. How can they be anything
>   else? Looks to me like you're just refusing to address the issue
>   which is that nowhere in the Bible does it really say clearly
>   that being gay is wrong. It does, however, say that you should
>   be stoned when you don't obey your parents. Funny thing, that.
>Disputes over what the Bible says are disputes over semantics.  It's a
>funny thing that two people can say the same thing, but have totally
>opposite meanings.  Or, they can use totally different words, but mean
>the exact same thing.  To me, the Bible seems simpler than two people talking;
>it says the same thing (meaning) throughout.  From what I get out of
>the Bibomosexuality is a sin (Leviticus chapters 18 a 18 and 20, and 
>Romans chapters 1 and 2).  Hebrew and Christian tradition support this.  They
>must have gotten this idea from somewhere.  Even the laws of nature apply;
>if everyone were homosexual, the human race would end.
I see, so being celibate is wrong? If everyone were celibate, the
human race would end. I'll be sure to let Jesus and Paul know you
disapprove.

> You say the Bible
>does not clearly say that being gay is wrong (must be ignoring Paul).  Please
>enlighten us as to what Leviticus and Romans were really saying, then if not
>directed at homosex
Consider: Leviticus really refers to "lying with a man as with a woman."
It's not at all clear what that means. It's been suggested that it
refers only to anal sex. Romans refers to homosexuality as a penalty
for sin, not the other way around. Where, then, is your point?


-Ekr








-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Dawkins' 1992 Voltaire Lecture (was: Should religion be eliminated?)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:01:06 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,alt.atheism

In article <1992Nov8.200201.29934@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>,
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk > I spoke briefly to Dawkins backstage after the
lecture (and before
> he was whisked away by organisers nervous of the gaggle of excitable
> Christians and Muslims whose fatuous haranguing sadly constituted much
> of the Q&A period) and suggested that there might be a `super-meme' or
> `meta-meme' on the backs of which religions are mere opportunistic
> infections: namely that meme which permits the investment of belief
> in unfalsifiable notions without evidence. An analogy might be a
> victim of AIDS who technically dies of pneumonia resulting from
> infuenza or whatever; the *big* problem isn't the opportunists
> themselves but the meme which makes it all possible by destroying
> the immunity which ordinarily exists.

I've started to think about similar concepts. Campbell showed elegantly
how we have many core myths in use in various world religions, and
Jung pointed out the core archetypes that are present in dreams.

Thus, there is a core of 'something', ideas that are common for our
race, based on cultural traditions, biology, our ancestory history
and ultimately our genes and how our brain works.

We might call these ideas meta-memes. Unfortunately due to human
nature these get distorted -- as well as modified and inherited --
and as one of the side effects we see religions based on the 
ultimate truth (more intelligence driven, gnosis, self-realization),
or the ultimate sacrifice (emotionally driven, faith-based,
realization by an outside force).

So ultimately I do think we have two religious meta-memes, gnosis
contra outside-help. And it's not hard to figure out wherefrom the
current religions are inherited.

This is a really interesting t.r.m topic! I hope others could also
contribute to this, instead of the normal mormon/JW/Christian
bashing that is not exactly very productive.

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Where are those Fundamentalist mystics (Re: The Barry Truth)
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:18:14 GMT

I think I jumped in a little late, but...  I've read your posts and find them
very interesting.  You were discussing how there seem to be no Fundamentalist
mystics.  What I gathered was that Fundamentalists don't have deep enough
spiritual understanding, because they are very dogmatic and intolerant, and
rely very much on intellectual knowledge.  Now, I've been labeled a 
Fundamentalist by some, but I also claim to have had very deep spiritual
experiences.  Apparently, by your schema of things, I'm either a mystic or
a Fundamentalist, but not both.  This is very interesting to me.  Could you
please post a definition and some clarifications on:
	What is a Fundamentalist?
	What is a mystic?
	What is considered a deep, truly spiritual experience as opposed
		to head knowledge?
	How does one grow to know God better?
Thanks.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner)
Subject: Re: God is dead,  Nietzsche
Organization: M.Sc, C.S, Queen's, Kingston, Canada.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:35:53 GMT


  eliota@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Eliot Anderson) writes:

  Nietzsche dramatically attacked this in "Zarathustra."  He pronounced
  "God" dead, this was his "funeral."  Thought has subsequently changed
  dramatically since Nietzsche's pronouncement.  He revealed a thinking
  that had been a subtext of the 19th century, the death of god.

According to Kaufmann (who is nitpicking enough to know), the first
time that Nietzsche writes "God is dead" is in "The Gay Science", and
he immediately proceeds with the following passage:

     ... The total character of the world, however, is in all eternity
  chaos -- in the sense not of a lack of necessity but of a lack of
  order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever other names
  there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms.  Judged from the
  point of view of our reason, unsuccessful attemtps are by all odds
  the rule, the exceptions are not the secret aim, and the whole
  musical box repeats eternally its tune which may never be called a
  melody -- and ultimately even the phrase "unsuccessful attempt" is
  anthropomorphic and reproachful.  But how could we reproach or
  praise the universe?  Let us beware of attributing to it
  heartlessness and unreason or their opposites: it is neither perfect
  nor beautiful, not noble, nor does it wish to become any of those
  things; it does not by any means strive to imitate man. ...
      Nietzsche, "The Gay Science",#109.

Sorry for the long-winded quote.  From the context, I would say that
"God" for Nietzsche had something to do with the order that we humans
think is in the world.  The world has no order, but our brains can't
think chaotically.  We need to simplify the world so that we can
understand it.  However, this simplification process is done so often,
and is so invisible to us, that we end up thinking that the world has
some sort of order.  This order which we attribute to the world needs
a creator, and hence we invent God.  It's not a deliberate invention,
like Thomas Edison doing a lot of R&D to develop the light bulb.  It
happens naturally, imperceptibly.  There's very little sense in
getting angry at people who believe in God, because they're not doing
it on purpose.

Now, "God is dead" can be interpreted to mean that we Western
Europeans who felt that the world had a plan are beginning to realize
that there is no such plan.  The scientific method, which originally
(eg, with Newton) assumed that the world obeyed laws and was orderly,
has led us destroy the instinctive faith in that order.  The very
desire to get at the truth has destroyed God.

Even though at first glance this murder of God might seem like a good
idea, since it opposes superstition and obscurantism, Nietzsche also
recognizes it as a great tragedy.  He tries various things to replace
it with, such as the courage to endure Eternal Return, or the Will to
Power, but his destructive efforts, not his constructive solutions,
are more convincing.

Alejo (hausner@qucis.queensu.ca)
From: lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:04:59 GMT

In article <BxMIDB.714@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>In article <76790001@teecs.UUCP>, to@teecs.UUCP (Norman To) writes...
>
>>Which god/religion gives us an easiest access to heaven?
>
>I'm not sure, but my travel agent has some good rates...  Maybe scalpers at
>the Gates are selling Unlimited Access Passes.

My travel agent paid an unearthly price for mine...  He tells me that 
the scalpers at the Gates are selling Worst Excuse Passes.  But if you
look around locally, you can get the same stuff for free.

Terence
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20449 sci.skeptic:19035 alt.censorship:8576 alt.sex:34996
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
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: 5 Nov 92 17:19:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov5.171906.16699
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Nov5.143554.27849@cs.mcgill.ca> troye@cs.mcgill.ca (Troy ENGLISH) writes:
>As far as a gender neutral pronoun, well, I don't really like the idea
>of making the manner in which something is said more important than what
>is said.

	This is the WHOLE POINT of good writing.


 Admittedly the manner in which something is said conveys part
>of the message.  Truth be told I simply don't want to go out and have to
>learn new grammar rules every time the popular politics change.

	Now inertia is something I can understand...it just seems to me that
gender consistency just makes sense to me. And it isn't that much of a
problem to have a third person indeterminate pronoun.

-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith becomes a Methodist, despite God's command.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:57:25 GMT

When I pointed out that the 1838 account of the First Vision contained
significant Biblical illusions, Mr Rose commented:

    Would I _dare_ suggest plagerism?

If Mr Rose wants to suggest plagerism that is up to him. But it doesn't
take an expert to notice that whenever the Angel Gabriel appears (such
as to Zacharias or to Mary) in Luke 1, he seems to be quoting the
Septuagint.  For example one might compare rather closely Luke 1:13-17
with such passages as: Num 6:3; Lev 10:9; Judge 13:4; Mal 4:5-6

I tend to believe, like other Mormons, that when a heavenly messenger
appears, he will generally start quoting scripture.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21025 sci.skeptic:19530
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:54:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1dpmrtINN1to@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.155222.21131@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>=Let's say for argument that all of Christianity is defined by the statement,
>="Love is the only path". I think that most of us would agree that this is
>=a noble sentiment and goal for humanity.
>
>I'd say that it's a referentless generalization, subject to so many different
>interpretations as to be useless.  Worse than useless, since some people will
>probably be deluded into thinking that it actually MEANS something.
>
>=It's not Christianity that is at issue, it is basic human nature. Whatever
>=human belief systems exist, there will be someone there to misuse it for
>=his/her own benefit. That includes skepticism, science, psi,... you name it.
>
>If Christianity is in conflict with basic human nature, then it's useless.  At
>best, it will delude its followers;  at worst, it will cause the sort of
>perverse behavior somebody else has already ascribed to Christianity.  As I've
>said before, YOU CAN'T EVALUATE THE PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EFFECTS
>IT HAS ON ITS FOLLOWERS.  If you're going to talk about some purely abstract
>set of ideas, THEN TAKE IT *OUT* OF SCI.SKEPTIC.  There are lots of philosophy
>and religion groups out there where you can argue the equivalent of "how many
>angels can dance on the head of a pin" all you want.

	Wrong again, Carl.

	Christianity is useful precisely because it is conflict with basic
human nature. One of the worst mottoes of the New Age is the advice of
that old fool, Polonius, "To thine own self be true." In the case of Polonius,
following this adice got him stabbed behind a curtain, while he was 
eavesdropping on Hamlet.

	On of the beauties of Shakespeare is that he makes abstract ideas
concrete, even though he is a writer of fiction.

	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."


-- 
Bill R.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20677 sci.skeptic:19198
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 8 Nov 1992 18:22:46 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

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.

And what we'veb been trying to say is that the term "Christianity" has,
historically, been applied to the various churches.  If you're talking about
something other than that, come up with a new word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:09:14 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> 	arms blessed by your church point my town, a little town in Northern
> 	Russia, every citizen of it - little kids in playgrounds, old women in
> 	the market square, even some of your fellow-believers. You, Walter 
> 	Smith, are ready to destroy us. 
> 
> 	My word to you is: You fill me with disgust. 

AArrgghh!!  I knew I forgot to do something this morning, I forgot to
disarm the missiles in the silos in my back yard!!  Don't you hate it
when that happens??  

What I'd like to know is how Antti knew I had those missiles in my
yard, and how he knew my priest had blessed them...

> 	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
        ^^      ^^^^
Was that a slip?

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: schaerer@isi.ethz.ch (Thomas Schaerer)
Subject: What is HENOTHEISM ?
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:19:25 GMT

     *******************************************************************

	I know what is monotheism, polytheism and pantheism. Can
	somebody explain with easy words what is HENOTHEISM. I am
	a swiss. So a germain speaking person can answer in germain
	as well. You can answer as 'forward' in this newsgroup or/and
	to my mailbox.

	Greeting from Thomas	schaerer@isi.ethz.ch

     *******************************************************************


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.philosophy.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Immortality (Why Bother?)
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:30:40 GMT

(Alejo Hausner) writes:

>I don't know.  It's hard to express what reoubles me about this.
>Obviously the answer to "why do we desire immortality" is "because we
>have the will to live".  But that doesn't quite explain it.  It just
>repeats it.
>
>Even if seems perfectly natural to want to live, it nevertheless is
>illogical.  There is not good reason for it.  All the arguments for
>life beg the question in some way.

I would argue that the "desire to live" is hardwired (so to speak)
into our brains; we probably would not have lasted long as a species
if the "survival instinct" wasn't present. So, a racial/genetic
component has implications for individuals: i.e., the mid-life
crisis.

I would also argue (and it's not original) that the anxiety over
one's  "real"knowledge of one's death, one's finitude, is the base
in which all anxieties are grounded.

Dano
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 05:58:43 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

> >1) What is the soul?
> 
> An abstract concept.

Question 1 grade: 0%

The soul is an actually existing living entity whose principal
characteristic is consciousness and who is part of the Supersoul, or
God.

> 
> >2) What is the purpose of human life?
> 
> What you make it.
> 

Question 2 grade: 0% (indefinite answer)

Overall grade: 0%
Try again!

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:48:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <73887@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> Good point.  The Christian approach does not meritted high intellect
> else all would not be able to gain membership.  That is not to
> say intellect is to be despised, but I would say that it can keep
> the focus on your ability (i.e., man's ability, in general) and
> so keep you from focusing on God's ability.

I agree that a meaningfule universal religion would be understandable
for someone in Borneo as well. This is the reason I don't know why
Christianity needs usually 4-10 years of intensive training 
(speaking about my Lutheran background).

> By all means, I believe Christianity contains the utmost in wisdom
> and power, if you grant us the fact (which really doesn't depend
> upon your grant, for it is true) that Our Saviour (Our God, Our
> Lord, Jesus of Nazareth) is the Creator of all that you see.  There
> is no small amount of intellect required for that.  Man's ability
> hasn't even come close to doing ANYTHING near that which God did
> through creation.  Don't you agree the one who created all you
> see and even yourself is far above your own ability and intellect?

I agree, but that does not mean that this being is omnipotent. A 
highly skilled engineering culture might crack universes and create
biological life forms, but we should not call them Gods due to that.
Remember what primitive tribes thought about Europeans...

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:33:40 GMT

sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
: In article <1992Nov5.101554.14585@newstand.syr.edu>
:
: >The difference is akin to the difference between calling somebody a
: >"pip-squeak" and calling somebody "short."
: 
: I know a number of people who refer to themselves as "short", but
: I've never heard anyone use "pip-squeak" in a self- referential
: manner.  Is that the distinction you meant?

I assume you are both talking about somebody who is vertically
challenged?

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I'm using my X-RAY
Rosemount Inc.                                |VISION to obtain a rare
                                              |glimpse of the INNER WORKINGS
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |of this POTATO!!
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20433 talk.politics.misc:58111 rec.scouting:3769