HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:29:19 GMT

     I guess it is about time that the unfortunate suggestion be made--
that it is time to get back to chemistry and discuss faith in evolution
and faith in creation (neither of which are sciences) in another place.
Some great scientists are believers in creation, some believe in evolution.
Why not talk about it in one of the philosophical departments?
     Still friends?

Vince Summers
vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Gore Vidal's new book: LIVE from Golgotha
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:46:27 GMT
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison


In article <1992Aug17.092111.25834@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren
I. Petrich) writes:

]	GV has had controversy in the past; one of his works back in
]the 1950's was _The City and the Pillar_, about an athletic
]all-American young man's unrequited passion for another such man after
]a youthful sexual encounter. It was written in a style that suggested
]some sort of thinly disguised autobiography; according to GV, some
]aging pederasts are convinced to this day that he was once a male
]prostitute with an excellent backhand at tennis. It caused a big
]scandal at the time for treating homosexuality in a straightforward,
]non-moralistic way; he was sternly lectured by various critics on the
]joys of heterosexual love.

The "City and the Pillar" was the first book I ever read
that had something about me in it (I was gay and had an
excellent backhand at tennis).  That was 1953.  It was quite
a revelation.  As for its moralism (if that's a word), Vidal
does kill off the gay man at the end.  The critics must have
wanted the murder to be a lot more grisly.

Some people!

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Summary: about this idolatry thang ...
Organization: Could it be ... the Church Lady?
	<Bszn8I.LrJ@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <66293@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:19:44 GMT

In article <66293@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
<<<<<rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
<<<<<Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
<<<<<                        -|-  |  -|-
<<<<<                         |   |   |

<<<<Would that be some type of icon you have there?

<<<Not for me, if the real questions is this an idol.  It is a symbol, but
<<<I don't worship it.

<<And what did Yahweh have to say about using religious symbols? What symbols
<<did Yahweh say were appropriate to represent Him?

<You rightly question what did Yahweh say about images/symbols representing
<Himself.  He didn't want anything (e.g., graven images) representing Himself.
<The above symbol does not represent Him.  It represents Chrisitianity
<in the sense that the three crosses are often identified as being a
<key point in its foundation and of everyone's salvation.

Ah, is this Christianity you are talking about seperate from Yahweh? Do
you believe in Christianity more that you believe in the Lord? Which do you
believe more? What do you think the Lord would have to say about your little
icons up there? He who commanded little babies be smashed against rocks. And
where in the Bible does it say that followers of the Lord shall display little
cross icons as symbols of their faith?
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How evil are the Republicans?
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:03:48 EST

In article <1992Aug2e.115342.27628@wixer.cactus.org>, lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
>  And
> while there are some differences between Bush and Hitler, the similarities
> are infinitely more frightening. 
>....


you forgot to mention one glaring similarity - the "Let's remain
a Military Superpower" horse-crap. How much is it going to cost
and who are we supposed to fight?

oops, since this is talk.misc.rel I guess I should mention the
right's religious agenda, but I think the guys with the real power
just use the religious right for votes and then ignore them, preferring 
to accumulate power and money while see-sawing back and forth over
abortion just enough to keep the religious folks strung along.

    ando.
From: bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:29:29 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.

In article <2457@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
> There are many orthodox
>Christian who happen to (still) believe in the universal flood as described
>in Genesis.  I happen to be one of them.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what evidence there is for a global flood.
A huge body of evidence including ice core data, lake bed silt and tree
rings don't seem to show a scrap of evidence for this supposed flood.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!stc!bruce
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: How evil are the Republicans?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:32:03 GMT

<SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
>In article <1992Aug21.115342.27628@wixer.cactus.org> writes:

>>I don't know about anyone else, but the Republican convention has
>>frightened me.  We hear how all our country's problems are because of
>>someone else and how if only President Bush could do whatever
>>he wanted the country would be okay.

>The convention and the ensuing campaign should make it clear to the
>people of the United States that fundamentalist and born-again
>Christianity is essentially a fascist political movement as much
>anything.

  sorry to burst your bubble, but the republicans are the fascists
and you won't find the bible advocating totalitarian fascist politics.
people have done wrong unjustifiably in the name of jesus before [crusades,
the spanish INQUIsition [catch the python intonation? :) ] and those
cia-flunkies in the republican party are at it again.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jgmiles@amber.utah.edu (John Gregory Miles)
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Organization: University of Utah
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 04:16:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.005355.19454@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.103505.7859@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley) writes:
>> 
>> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>
>> >Secondly, if the man could have somehow figured out that Jesus was God
>> >in disguise, why didn't Jesus praise the fellow for his insight? After
>> >all, Peter supposedly got the keys of the kingdom for merely intuiting
>> >that Jesus was the Messiah.
>> 
>> Probably the man _didn't_ realise that Jesus was God, and that this is
>> what the Jesus wanted the man to realise. So when the man said "Good teacher"
>> (possibly as a term of respect, it doesn't matter), Jesus asked a question
>> which would have (hopefully) caused the man to think things like -
>> "Only God is good?, I know I need something more to gain eternal life...
>> But this Jesus character - nobody's ever found a fault with him...
>> Surely He is good - but then what did He mean?"
>> Hopefully, the man would eventually come to the correct conclusion about
>> Jesus.
>
>Oh bravo Michael Hartley!!! That argument would have to get you at least the
>bronze medal in the 'Christian Logical Gymnastics'. A scriptual triple
>somersault with half-pike, magnificent! You start with a text where a man
>calls Jesus 'good' and Jesus replies 'Only God is good' with the BLEEDING
>OBVIOUS implication that he is not God. You then turn Jesus' 
>straightforward reply into an obscure question, place a complex chain of 
>thought (which is not even *hinted* at in the gospel) in the man's mind and
>(as the crowd holds its collective breath) end up with the triumphant
>conclusion which you had been assuming all along! If you keep this up  you
>could be a strong contender for the 'Josh McDowell Text Twisting Award' or
>the 'Duane T. Gish Sophistic Pseudo-Argument Medal'.
>Tim O'Neill  


I think the proper interpretation of the verse is this:

Jesus did nothing of himself, but what the Father told (i.e., taught) him 
to do. [John 5:19-20; 8:28]  So in a very real sense, though Christ was
sinless and held the office of Godhood, it was not He, but God the Father,
that was good.  Jesus was trying to teach the questioner that the only way
for man to do good (including the Son of Man) is to receive inspiration
from the Almighty God and act on that inspiration.  Even though we may have
good intentions, they may end up resulting in "evil" (i.e., not good) if we
do not have all the information relating to a particular situation.  Christ,
too, advanced from grace to grace and knowledge to knowledge.  Sounds like
we need a church with a living prophet at the head so that we do not "wrest
the scriptures unto [our] own destruction." [2 Pet. 3:16]
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:37:24 GMT

In article <36725@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, sobarr@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Carlos Saul Menem)
writes:
> 	Due to the lack of transitonal fossils, a novel theory was
> introduced called punctuated equalibrium.  this says that tramatic
> changes occure to a species, and thus due to survival ofthe fittist,
> only those with mutations that resist or better over come the stress
> live.  This is a realtively fast transition that could take a
> million years.

  Close.  Punctuated Equilibrium (PunkEek, or PE) is when some of the species
become isolated for a long period (by say, the formation of an inland sea, the
collision of two continenents, or a mountain range).  The isolated species will
evolve differently that the rest of the species, and changes would spread
through the genome faster since the group is smaller.

  When the barrier is removed again (by whatever mechanism caused it) the
isolated species can be wiped out by the more fit general popualation, form a
new species if it has moved into a different enough niche, or take over the
general population if it is more fit.  The last case results in a "sudden"
change (sudden meaning over a few thousand years).

  The "transitional" fossils can still be found if the archeologist is looking
in the right place.

  BTW, you can see PunkEek in action at the Grand Canyon.  The squirrels on the
North and South side were once separated by a river, but as the canyon formed
they were isolated, and have now become two separate species.  If the river were
to shift it's course, the Canyon would be worn away and the two species would
recombine.  Neat huh?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:56:43 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714076351@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <sbuckley.714033633@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>That's just begging the question. That is PRECISELY what I am
>>suggesting that God is. Or rather, I am suggesting that
>>there is no reason to suggest that God is any less hypothetically
>>abstract than the GP.(or Santa.)
>
>  and you're free to suggest that as i am free to suggest that from
>my experience god lives and jesus exists.
Yes, but you seem to think that I should take Jesus more seriously
than Santa Claus, which suggests that you should be presenting reasons
why.

>>This is utterly irrelevant to the truth of the philosophy, as I
>>tried to explain to you before.
>>I see no reason to accept the premise that a lie cannot make
>>you happier than the truth.
>
>  and i do not offer empirical proof of jesus existence.  what i am saying
>is that there is more relevant data than what is bounded by empirical
>parameters.  but you can just conclude that i'm dancing around the issue.
Yes, and your "data" can just as easily be used to show that the
Muslims are right.

>>Show me a Jesus who is the bearer of a covenant between God and
>>humanity. I don't see one. What I do see is a bunch of ancient
>>writings[albeit some of them quite impressive, some not so impressive]
>>and a bunch of people who believe those writings. I don't see
>>a single shred of evidence that those writings have any
>>relation to the real existence of any sort of god, any more than
>>I see evidence that the somewhat smaller corpus of writings about
>>the Great Pumpkin bears any relation to the real existence of
>>the GP.
>
>>What separates a hypothetical from reality, Mr. Buckley, is evidence
>>indicating that it is more than hypothetical. Funny that you should
>>present none.
>
>  i'm asserting that the empirical data set is smaller than the data
>set i'm acknowledging as relevant.
Yes, but by refusing to consider as evidence the body of data that is precisely
analagous to yours and which says that Islam rather than Christianity
is right, you are indulging in special pleading. I know of no evidence
available to me, empirical or otherwise, which suggests that
Christianity is in any way truer than Islam, Buddhism, or any of
a rather large set of religions. Since you clearly believe Christianity
to be true--and therefore must believe it's competitors to be false.
I ask you on what basis you do this.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: Watchtower on misquoting Richard Lewontin.
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 03:58:21 GMT

Here's all I have to say about the JW's claims that the Watchtower
was not misquoting Richard Lewontin in their book _Life:_

page 143, par. 5, _Life_:

	Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms "appear
	to have been carefully and artfully designed."  He
	views them as "the cheif evidence of a Supreme Designer."
	It will be useful to consider some of thie evidence.

Now, look at the question on the bottom of page 143, for paragraph
five:

5.  What recognition does a zoologist give to design and to its
originator?

Now, picture the typical JW at a bookstudy,  answering this
question:

"Well, as the paragraph shows, Richard Lewontin views the design
of organisms as evidence for their being created."

Conductor: "Very good, Laura.  Any other comments?"

As has been noted before, Richard Lewontin is NOT a creationist.
He expressed himself so when another creationist misquoted him
in basically the same way.

It is blatantly plain to me that from the context of the paragraph,
ALONG with the question on the page, that the Watchtower wants
to make its readers think that Richard Lewontin has a creationist
viewpoint.  If any of you JW's cannot see this fact, I am sorry
that you are so cowed and blinded by your religion that you can't
consider this example.

  
-- 
"All religions make me wanna throw up!"
"All religions make me sick!" - Dead Kennedys, Religious Vomit

corey@sdf.lonestar.org                       ..!uunet!convex!egsner!sdf!corey
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Perfect Prophets?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:05:26 GMT
Keywords: unscientific, false prophecies, misuse of rhetoric

In article <1992Aug12.105250.29140@cbnews.cb.att.com>, wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.013951.10977@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>  
> |I'm gonna hold you here. Willard, you just quoted me as saying, "let
> |ALL the prophets be liars", then you twist that into a strawman by
> |saying you interpreted me to say I have a double standard.
> |You manufactured "traditionally", "ignore *all*" in your own little
> |mind. Does Nibley have something to say about that also?
> |Do you have anything to say in your defense of this blatant misuse
> |of my own words?
> 
> Thank-you for setting me straight. I have to confess that sometimes I have
> a difficult time understanding exactly what you are trying to say. Your feed

Willard, if you can't read and comprehend something as plain as
what I stated, that makes it alittle clearer to me on how you
read and interpret other writings that are not so plain.
Besides, you didn't ASK what I was trying to say, you just proceeded
to... 

> back helps a great deal. On the basis of my understanding of your last two
> posts, I am responding thusly. If I have still misunderstood what you have
> said, then feel free to correct me.

I know that I will need to.
> 
> If it is better to let ALL prophets be liars, then try to understand how and
> when a prophet is truely speaking for God and when a prophet is not, then
> you have gone even further than rejecting Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jonah, and Moses,

Whoa Willard. You are making a big leap here on my behalf. I at
least responded to your point on Jonah and didn't agree. I haven't
read your response to that yet. You haven't shown me any Isaiah.
You did point out one prophecy from Ezekiel which did come to pass
except for the island city part of it. Moses you pointed out the food
law  out in Lev.
I am interested in prophecies that begin in the name of the Lord
and do not come about, and as you say are not scientifically sound.

> you have essentially rejected the recorded word of God, since these were
> written by the prophets. You have no Bible, what a pity.

A pity? How so? I don't have a religion either. As I said in my other
article to you, the bible is more an anchor in my use.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:54:13 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>I, being a scientist, once believed that evolution had all the answers.  But,
>evolution presents some gross inconsistencies with modern scientific laws. 

Evolution in violation of some scientific law?  What is he talking about?
Could he be trying to trot out that old stale thing about...

>Evolution requires that all matter somehow came together to form life.  The 
>law of entropy states that all systems will tend toward a state of maximum 
>entropy (maximum disorganization).  If this law is valid, then how, without
>some outside force, did matter come together to form life?

Ahh.  The 2nd Law of Thermo.  The 2nd Law is, entropy can be created, but
not destroyed, consequently, the entropy of an isolated system will never
decrease.  It does not say that *all* systems increase their entropy, only
isolated ones (ones where no energy or matter enter or leaves the system.)

	*  The earth is NOT a isolated system.  To see a source of low entropy,
	one only has to look up on a sunny day.

	*  Elements and compounds still have to obey a set of laws conserning
	their reactions.  If these say that under certian conditions,
	self-replicating molecules will form, that's not my problem.

So far, creationists have been unsucessful in actually showing that life
requires a violation of the 2nd Law.  Or do you know something that you are
just holding back?


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:10:55 GMT
	<sbuckley.714431508@sfu.ca>
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.

About Islam, Stephen Buckley writes:
no.  what is offered by islam and allah did not affect my life, help me
understand things or help my relationship with the divine.

Scott Gibson writes:
For how many years did you go to mosque?

Stephen Buckley writes:
good question.  it never got that far.  i don't believe that humans
on our own can achieve the life of felicity.  my life is a testament to 
a failure in that.  i do not believe i can ever know god if left up to
me to become good enough.  no matter how good i get, it will never be
good enough to be with god, ... 

---
How interesting. Of course any one who has studied Christianity and
Islam knows that they are in fact the same religion, they worship the
same God. Oh sure there are some differences, like the differences
between Catholicism and Protestantism, they are mostly fabricated to
justify persecution and war. After all, who is this Allah? Christians
translate the one Deity of Judaism into English as God. Moslems
translate this same Deity into Arabic as Allah which is just the Arabic
word for The God. It's the same God, just a different translation.
Surely translation does not change The God, does it? And they pretty
much use the same books. Some Christians get confused and see a Holy
Trinity, thus diverging from true monotheism. Islam maintains monotheism
with the obvious realization that Jesus was a man and any man is capable
of mistakes. This is what it means to be a man. Sure, a God can become a
man or have a man as a son, but the result is still a man, a man who
dies just like any other man. Islam is just Eastern Christianity just as
Catholocism is Western Christianity. If there is a J/C/I Heaven and
followers of J/C/I are going there, surely it is the same place. One can
only hope they get along better there than on earth. I've always
wondered about the Christian Heaven. If the Christians argue amongst
themselves up there like they do down here, it must be a true Hell. I am
that I am, now what is My name? Yahweh, no Jahweh, no Jehovah, no Jah,
no Lord, no God, no Jesus, no Allah. Do you really think God cares by
what word of humanity you call Him? After all, what did He say? He said,
I am that I am. That's fairly straightforward, isn't it?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject:   self-worship
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:32:06 GMT

Paul Harvey writes:

> One True God for the one, each and every one coming to 
>find one's own One True God. This is just the way of the individual, the
>authentic individual living an authentic life.

  and the way of self-worship because there is nothing certainly-knowable
greater than yourself [like God(tm)] to judge whether you've got god or not.  
at this level when you are in control of god's definition, you control god,
thus you are god.