HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: group selection for homosexuality
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:09:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Jul30.053936.9070@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>Extreme group selection is present in many insects such as bees where the
>vast majority do not breed. 

	I hate to pick on Mr. Foard here, but he does seem to manage
to squeeze multiple biological errors and misconceptions into very
little verbiage. 

	First of all, it is debatable whether group selection is
present in eusocial insects (bee, termites, ants). Also it is
entirely possible that you are confusing two issues. As I see
it there are two big issues in the evolution of eusociality;
maintainance of sterile castes and complex divisions of labor.

	The first requires no group selective arguments. Sterile
workers reproduce by proxy because they are closely related to
the queen and can pump out more offspring indirectly by serving
as a worker or soldier than if each ant tried to reproduce by
itself. This is often called kin selection and it is _not_ a
form of group selection because the _individuals_ inclusive
fitness is sufficient to maintain this form of breeding.

	The second aspect (complex divisions of labor) I think can
evolve via group selection. In eusocial behavior, interactions 
between different individuals give rise to emergent properties at
the level of the group -- if there are heritable differences 
between the two groups with respect to the underlying factors
that influence these emergent properties, group selection can 
occur.

	Mr. Foard then goes on to say:

>There is no reason why it should be absent in
>higher animals. 

	There are plenty of reasons why it should be absent it
"higher" animals. But first of all, please don't call animals
higher or lower -- this plays into one of the major miscon-
ceptions about evolution. Evolution is not a scale or ladder.

	Group selection is absent from most animal species for
one very good reason -- selection at the level of the individual
is a far more potent "force". If humans lived in highly inbred
groups and reproduced by sending out propagule groups, then you
could argue that group selection might be possible. As it is,
humans are nearly panmictic (randomly breeding) -- there is
a certain amount of assortative mating (people tend to breed with
others of the same melanin content, height, weight, intelligence
etc.(*)) -- but not enough, IMHO, that the opportunity for group
selection exists.

(*) these have varying degrees of heritability so assortative
mating on some of these traits may have little effect on levels
of inbreeding

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Just Curious
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:02:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.093940.6320@u.washington.edu> jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
>Just curious, folks.
>Why is it so difficult for the followers of any organized religion
>to accept that the claim of salvation in any other religion is as
>valid as their own ?
>And the logical implication that follows ?
>No quoting any texts, please. The same question above can be asked
>about the text.

Because one of the premises of many religions is "none of the other claims of
salvation are valid".

People accept their own religions' premises about other religions just like
they accept their own religions' premises about the afterlife, or about
the creation of the world, or about anything else.  Basically, because it says
so, and because what a follower _is_ is someone who believes what the religion
says; a logical consequence of accepting a religion is accepting things that
the religion states, including statements it makes about other religions.

So you're really asking either
1) Why do people believe things because their religion tells them to?
("things" could mean "claims that other religions don't bring salvation", but
could also mean lots of other stuff)
or
2) Why do religions include that sort of premise in the first place?

Which I suppose have answers of some sort, but probably not what you're looking
for....
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - more disc. on JP II's letter "On the Family"
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:57:27 GMT

In article <l744i6INNari@skat.usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ) writes:

>LP>> The document in question "does not say anything"

>DK>> I think it does.  It is a comprehensive theological reflection
:	on the purpose and function of the family...

	THE family? Aren't there only individual families? Although
these fall into several different kinds.

:	If nothing else, what this document does, EVEN FOR THE NON-CATHOLIC, 
:	is to present a clear standard by which coherent reflection/discussion
:	on the role and purpose of the family can begin.

	So it is necessary to have some point of departure.

	Why the Pope's say-so, and why not some other?

	Why not (say) Betty Friedan? Aristotle?

>LP>> The Catholic documents which I have posted in this series are 
:	relatively recent and they "don't have anything to do with
:	the Bible"

>DK>> All the documents I have posted have cited the Bible.  Further,
:	the teachings build on each other.  I have been very careful
:	to post the footnoting along with the text of the documents
:	which I have posted.  Trace them back.  

	I haven't seen any serious discussions of the polygamous
Israelite kings and how they were never forced to have only one wife.

>Finally,

>LP>> What about if the husband and wife hate each other.

>DK>> The husband and wife aren't supposed to hate each other...

	But what if they do???

	I once knew of a vehement opponent of divorce (he was raised a
Catholic, I may add) who cited the precedent of how his parents had
hated each other, but had stayed married. Is this the attitude one
must have toward marriage and divorce? Actually, I respect this
divorce opponent's honesty, because if one seriously believes that
marriage is good in itself, no matter what, then it should not matter
how much the people who are married to each other hate each other. I
have yet to see that kind of honesty out of the Vatican.
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:55:24 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
>Do you shave your beard?  If so why is it ok to sin in this way? 
>(yes shaving your beard off is against the teachings in leviticus)
This is new to me.  Could you please reference the text and possibly
paraphrase it for me here?  Thanks.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:50:37 GMT

pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>Yes. It means quite simply that our knowledge of the human body has not
>reached that level. It does not require us to immediately think "Oh dear
>I cannot comprehend this. God exists, QED".

	You can't prove God's existence, because he is too big for science. He 
	leaves it to you to decide whether to believe or not. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Lilith - the first person created by God?
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:11:17 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <CMM.0.90.2.711710649.alsberg@delphi.uio.no> alsberg@math.uio.no (Bj|rn Alsberg) writes:

>Where can I get a translated version (to english) of the story
>about Lilith? I've read somewhere that Lilith was the first person
>before Adam and Eve to be created by God. 
>Why is this story not in the Bible? Was it because a woman
>was chosen to be the first human being ...?

Maybe it was not in the Bible because the legend developed later.  I think the
main reason is because this story was not inspired.  I am not sure how old
the legend is.

Lilith seems to be a figure in Wiccaanism and other occult belief systems.
I have heard that the story goes that she was Adam's wife, but she did not
like the missionary position, and she wanted to be on top.  So Eve took
her place, and she went and became the queen of demons or some such as that.

link hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Michigan
	<1992Jul27.174944.3084@sdf.lonestar.org>
	<LAURAF.92Jul28112038@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1992Jul29.145951.19411@anasaz>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:07:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.145951.19411@anasaz> scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson) writes:

   In article <LAURAF.92Jul28112038@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
   >
   >Man cannot create life therefore I see no evidence of evolution.

   While I'm not really trying to be insulting, I must point out that
   this is a glaringly stupid argument, if it can be dignified with
   the term "argument" at all.  The one has, quite literally, nothing
   to do with the other, unless you believe that the meaning of the
   word 'evolution' is "the ability of man to create life."

I would never be insulted.  Actually this very same argument was given to me.
His thoughts were that if evolution was really the way in which human existance
came about then man would have discovered the process of life a while back.  But
the fact that these so called "secrets" have not been discovered or even close
to being discovered then his concept of evolution was fallible.  His point
being: there is a reason man has not even come close in eliminating death.

   As an interesting side note:  Do you hold that all stars in the
   universe were created as is, or that some current stars may have
   been formed by the physical processes currently believed to cause
   them?  If you believe the latter, I must ask why, since it is
   clear to me that "man cannot create stars".  Of course, if you
   believe the former, then I'm wasting my breath (fingers?).

I am not sure I follow your logic here but I believe that the stars were created
by Jehovah just like to earth, mars, the milky way galaxy, etc., were created by
Jehovah.

   >Living forever sounds too good to pass up; especially on a paradise earth where
   >one does not have to deal with Satan's system!!  I love life, don't you?

   Another stupid argument.  Just because you would like a thing to be
   so, does not mean you should believe it to be so.  I would like it
   if Santa Claus was real; don't you love having that nice man to bring
   happiness to so many children?  Why don't you believe in him, then?

Why do you believe this is a stupid argument?  I believe so because I have been
told so through the bible.  Again, we are back on the subject of the bible.  If
one doesn't believe the bible I would have to say any argument presented on the
basis of the bible would be "stupid" in that persons eye.  On the other hand, an
argument presented by one that does not believe in the bible to an individual
that does believe the bible would be just as "stupid".  Are we caught in an
endless loop?

Laura
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:57:18 GMT

In article <13193@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
}George Belle misinterprets me, and concludes that I assert all atheists must
}conclude that there is no God:

I must have a definition problem.  I am under the impression (just checked
a dictionary) that atheists are defined by a denial of the existence of God.
Hence, by that definition the misinterpretation appears correct.  And an 
agnostic would not have reached a conclusion, and a theist would conclude
that there is.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:17:06 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <MIB.92Jul27141316@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.215359.20714@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>
>   In article <91776@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>
>   If I understand what you mean, then the verses can't be read this way
>   and make sense.  In Romans 1, heterosex is described as natural.  You can't
>   just go through and add in and take out words to make it say the opposite.

much stuff about Romans 11 deleted.


>Now, this phrase, the Greek "para physein" is precisely the same
>expression we find in 1:27.  God here is acting contrary to nature,
>doing something UNNATURAL--and yet, that unnatural thing is the
>greatest of acts remembered by Christians.
>
>To equate nature with the will of God is a gross error.  God acts
>contrary to nature.  To presume that nature is a law of existence we
>should not exceed is a serious error.

My point was not that natural is good.  It was that you cannot simply
change words around in Scripture that apply to homosexuality and make them
apply to heterosexuality.  Homosexual sex between men for example is 
described as abandoning the natural use of the woman and dishonoring the
body.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.sf.written
From: charless@sco.COM (charles stross)
Subject: Re: Going Back in Time to Meet Jesus Christ -- What Would You See?
Organization: The Somewhat Contagious Operation, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:28:56 GMT


In article <1992Jul26.123447.17713@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>>If you want to know what it was like, watch Monty Python's "Life of Brian".
>>The original title was Life Of Jesus, but some people felt that would be
>>too realistic. Always look on the bright side of life ...
>
>Actually, there's a very good Sf short story about package holidays
>to Jerusalem at the time of Jesus to witness his crucifiction. Can 
>anyone remember the title?

``Let's go to Golgotha'', by Garry Killworth. I think it
won a Times/Gollancz short story competition some years ago;
it was one of Garry's first published stories.



-- 
Charlie Stross aka charless@scol.sco.com ..... UNIX oriented text mangler
WARNING: The opinions voiced in the preceding electronic document are the
product of a warped mind. Take two before meals. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: JWs and their blood hypocrisy
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:29:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.122216.7129@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>  Wait, hold it.  A Christian faction gets in trouble it is persecution, a
>>muslim faction gets wiped out by the millions and they deserved it?
>
>	No, I think that Kurds have the same religion as in the surrounding 
>	nations. Besides, the persecution of Baha'is was religious. 

  Well, the Kurds probably wouldn't see the difference between JWs and Lutherans
either.  The persecution is still for religious reasons.  As for Bahai, isn't
this yet another example of a religion being persecuted worse than the JWs?

>> It is happening for many religions in those places.  Why do you insist this
is
>>especially against the JWs?  A friend of mine who went to China was informed
by
>>the customs officer that if he was caught talking about God he would be
arrested
>>and deported.  They didn't even bother asking him his religion.
> 
> 	Perhaps it's bit difficult to define... I think Satanists are quite 
> 	persecuted, too. 

  Probably.  So the it comes down to this: do you seriously believe that the JWs
are persecuted more than any other religion?

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "It is easier to fight for one's principles than   *
* vonRoeschlaub *   to live up to them." - Alfred Adler               *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:52:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller) writes:


>The Oxford Study Bible (Available in NRSV and REV) is very good (and
>expensive).  I like the REV but I know nothing about what reliable
>authorities say sbout it.

>In my experience, the NRSV (and the RSV) are the versions most reccommended
>for their precision.  I want to get an Oxford NRSV whenever I've got $30
>to burn.

I have both an Oxford Annotated NRSV and an NIV Study Bible (not to mention
a KJV and NAS).  I don't use any one volume as absolute authority.  The
NRSV and NIV seem to have two different thrusts, as follows:

NIV : accuracy as to meaning of the text, and relatively easy understanding, 
      with a conservative bent

NRSV : accuracy as to literal wording of the text, and relatively easy
       understanding, with a moderate bent, also very 'inclusive' language

I tend to examine all of the translations I have, and check Greek and
Hebrew definitions as necessary.  I like the NIV text much more than the
NRSV text, though.

All in all, I'll take the NIV text, with support and understanding from the
others.  Just my opinion...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: University of Michigan
	<LAURAF.92Jul30155204@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1992Jul31.082736.858@yvax.byu.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:48:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.082736.858@yvax.byu.edu> mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:

	   Isn't God the same yesterday, today and forever?  Why then would He 
   involve Himself in people's affairs before our time but not in our time?  What
   about Armageddon?  

The bible says that Satan is the God of this system of things.  It also says
that God will intervene at his time and establish his Kingdom on earth as it is
in heaven.  Now, if Satan is the God of this system of things and God will
establish his kingdom at his given time, what does that say about his
intervention with man's affairs today?

   -Mark

Laura

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: JWs and their blood hypocrisy
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:17:57 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  But you are saying that you don't know.  If it isn't labeled you aren't
>knowingly eating blood.

	Let's say: I know that such food should be labeled, but I *suspect* some
	producers don't label food that should be. So if it's labeled to contain
	blood I'm sure that it contains it, but if it doesn't have it, it either
	contains blood or then it doesn't, never know. 

				Andreas
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:31:22 GMT
Organization: SPS


(Steve Adams) writes:
> I am pro-choice.  I object to abortion on religious grounds, 
> yet refuse to impose my religion on anyone else. 

(Steve Adams) further writes:
> The issue is just not as clear cut as say murder, or even pollution to 
> use your example ...   There is NO agreement in society about the
> personhood of unborn children.  Until this happens, we'll continue to 
> have these disagreements.

I agree. But lets consider another example, maybe a better parallel to this 
situation, commercial logging in the habitat of the spotted owl. There is 
complete disagreement in society as to the morality of this.  Does that therefore
mean that those seeking to shut down this logging are imposing their morality
on the loggers?  Even though I may consider this a despicable practice, I should
not try to stop those engaged in it?  Again, in good conscience, shouldn't one 
actively pursue the elimination of a societal practice he/she considers wrong?

For your consideration,

DBW
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - more disc. on JP II's letter "On the Family"
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 15:52:07 GMT

I think DK may be on to something here:

In article <l744i6INNari@skat.usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ) writes:

>	And thus we are reduced to babble.

[...]

>As for the Church's teaching on marriage.  The Church maintains the 
>indissolubility of marriage, (1) because Christ himself declared that, 
>and (2) both the relationship between God and the Jews of the Hebrew
>Covenant and Christ and his Church in the New Covenent were described 
>in terms of a marriage covenant.  The marriage covenant is taken to 
>be a sign of the God and his people, one which the Church prays will
>never be broken.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.