HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible
Date: 19 Nov 92 10:56:08 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <fVq1Bjd@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>If I'm not mistaken, the oldest written text that we have today that we
>understand is the Persian Epic of Gilgamesh.

You are definitely mistaken.  The several Epics of Gilgamesh are
written in either Sumerian or Akkadian.  Both languages have been
as dead as Dodo for more than two thousand years.

>The second is the Indian Mahabharata. Third is probably the Hebrew
>Scriptures. All three languages are still widely used today.

Well, Hebrew had ceased being used for quite a while, and was revived
artificially.  Sanskrit has never gone out of business, but its
application nowadays is rather limited.  Present-day Persian (Farsi)
is quite different to Old Persian (which was very close to Sanskrit).

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with MISinformation)
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:47:33 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <11639@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <WIGGINS.92Nov17130759@hurricane.cs.odu.edu> wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
>>     In our effort to find the Truth, we end up believing only what we want
>>to believe.
>>     But, I guess we'll all find out in the end, when we die, what we
>>should have believed.
>
>I am having some trouble with the last four words here, and I daresay
>they raise an interesting question about behaviour.  When I have to
>make a decision, I make it on the basis of my current knowledge,
>beliefs, assumptions, and so on.  If later it turns out that another
>choice would have had more favourable consequences, I don't blame
>myself for not having taken the most fortunate course.  I just shrug
>my shoulders and say, `Bad luck' or `Well, I couldn't have known that'.
>
>That's how I shall react, in particular, if after my death I meet one
>of the heads of the various pantheons.  I won't say `It seems I should
>have bought the claims of this religion'.
>
>-- 
> `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
>Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
>* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
>* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK

Have you never rejected good advice that seemed unsound
at the time and later kicked yourself, after it was too
late to do anything about it, for not having seen the 
truth of it?   I suggest that whether you regret it 
will depend on the seriousness of the consequences of
having been wrong.  Just hold on to the hope that
you will get another chance (but it is easier if you 
can get it right the first time).

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:50:23 GMT

In article <fVtOfGe@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>>Where does this business about "godless" hordes from the east come 
>>from?
>
>From the same propagandists that brought you Paulist Christianity, the
>blond Jesus, the Noble Savages, White Man's burden and a few other
>brilliant marketing concepts. Wake up and smell the java my good man!
>The chickens will be coming home to roost!

OH NO.  Where's the FAQ on "Are there any *true* atheists?"
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21155 sci.skeptic:19627
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:41:10 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov13.014956.834@HQ.Ileaf.COM>, raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:

>  If there was ever an altruist aside from the Lord, it was Dr King

A womanizer and a plaigerizer, but an altruist.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:56:25 GMT

In article <sNcFuB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> >> Show me this "material mind."
>> >You can see it. But are you willing to undergo the process? Or are you
>> >too lazy?
>> The problem is there seem to be a lot of offers of "processes".  How do I pic
>> the right one?
>This is the right one. Pick it.

There seem to be a lot of people offering "processes" who say "this is the
right one.  Pick it." too, so that doesn't help.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21648 talk.philosophy.misc:2545
From: daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 20 Nov 92 10:08:10 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.

In article <Petch-191192082841@oboe.gvg.tek.com> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:

>It amazes me how people who know very little about the religion they are
>criticizing manage to be so certain about their opinions. Being a
>fundamentalist simply means getting back to the fundamental ideas taught in
>the Bible without embellishing it with present day fads, such as the idea
>that homosexuality is not morally offensive. 

How about the way you embellish it with present day fads like people
of colour are OK, the world doesn't actually stand still but behaves like
Galileo said, and pi isn't, in fact, 3...

The problem for fundamentalists is that your pitch has already been queered
by centuries of injustice perpetrated by the church, all with absolutely
rock solid biblical basis.

Maybe you think we should go back to that era?

You, and other fundamentalists seem incapable of recognising your own
prejudices, and instead seek to bolster them by using badly translated
and misunderstood bits of the bible - coupled with your miscomprehension
of what you are talking about.

>Next, is homosexuality a sin, or should we simply tolerate it? Check out
>Romans Chapter 1 in the NEW TESTAMENT where the apostle Paul refers to

Oh heavens! Not this chestnut!

Read it again, try it in Greek - if you really wanted to see what it says.

I suggest that you don't want to see what the text says.  We've been over and
over this bit so many times here.

>Chuck Petch

Chuck, your fundamentalism shows your own prejudices.

Dave

--- daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------
Dave Stow, Comp. Dept. SECAMS, Lancaster University, Lancs, LA1 4YL, UK
     Tel: +44 (524) 65201 ext. 3142           Fax: +44 524 381707
--------------------------------------------- B5(6.5) f- t- g+ k+ s+ e r p ----
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:29:33 GMT

In article <ksand-211192124109@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>> >Also, all these countries have something in common that the highly
>> >religious USA does not have. And what is that? A clue, it has
>> >to do with compassion for the common man.
>> 
>> ...My postulate rests on the
>> theory that humans are *selfish* by nature.  viz.  Put lots of them
>> together in concentrations and rot from hell compounds on itself.
>> Look at Taipei, Bangkok, Manhattan, Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Sodom...
>> The Nordic countries represent so little of the world's total
>> population, how can they possibly have problems as bad as the
>> population concentrations.  When we get that few people together,
>> I think it becomes more obvious that we actually need each other.

>> >It's called free social health care.
>> I think a discussion of health care steers away from the point.
>> In fact, it didn't help the Bangladeshi one bit.

>Why not? Lack of funding?
I doubt it.  Belgians are taxed to the max specifically for this kind of thing.

>At least it's an attempt to help people
>using the welfare of everyone. 
Help which people?  not the Bangladeshi.

>While you are so keen to compare population sizes with social
>welfare, I assume you have an explanation why all the Chineese
>have free medical services, and no public religion.
Yep I do actually.  Actually, I consider China to be full 
of public religion.  It's just not categorized very well.  I would
not even call it Buddhist or Taoist.  I'd call it the *Chinese* 
religion--something I'm quite familiar with and am struggling to
define.  It's far from compassion for the common man too.
[ok.  flame-suit on and ready...]
There is plenty of *ethical* instruction in China not quite
like what kids in this country get off TV.  You could just as well
coin it to be religious because they go about it so religiously.
I guess back in Finland, you say a lot of chaps are forced into
religious *ethical* teachings.  That still beats what people don't
get here in the US.

I'm out of time, gotta go.  Let's keep at this...

Terence

ps  where did all my other postings go?  is ths thing working?...
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Who wrote the bible?
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:10:24 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <fVqYBgx@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <BxvqEK.IFL@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> 
>jsv@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Julian Visch) writes:
>>With Richard Pitts example 
>>>Often in the Books of Moses (Gen - Deut) we see where it is
>>>recorded that God told Moses to write that down.
>>I have to ask if writing was even around at that time. 
>
>Ah, what time? The time of Moses? Well, Moses is probably a mythical
>figure.

Blasphemy!  Mythical figure?  Moses?  You mean that Moses was not the
man who wrote the five books of the Torah?  Particularly the last few
verses of Deuteronomy, where he describes his own death and burial and
the people's lament, and how they haven't had such a good leader to
this day?  Get real, man.  Who could come up with such a good account
of the funeral of Moses but Moses himself?  There is no doubt that he
is a historical figure, and that every word he wrote is true -- the
dead don't lie, now do they?

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:02:30 GMT

In article <11607@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>I think the the "law of the wild" is worse.  For example, Judges Chp 19?
>
>... and Ch 20 and Ch 21?  Let's see.  There is a number of events there,
>to wit:
>
>(1) A woman is raped to death by a crowd of men.  (That's odd to boot
>  -- the men are first said to be homosexuals, and I'm told homosexual
>  men don't care for women, but what do I know.)
>(2) Her husband carves her up into twelve pieces and mails them around.
>(3) The Israelites put the Benjamites to the sword, together with the
>  cattle and everything that comes their way.
>(4) A group of men are instructed to ambush a group of women and rape
>  as many of them as they can.
we can go on and on...
 (5) No one is out to welcome these weary travellers in the darkened 
     town square.
 (6) That's one SORRY host that takes them into his home.
 (7) Oh spare the male visitors.  Let the townspeople have the women.
 (8) The woman's husband demonstrates an amazing apathy when he steps
     over her the next morning.  "Rise and shine.  What's with you?
     Who cares if you've been raped for the duration of the night.
     Get up.  Let's go."

>So which of these is the law of the wild and which is the law of Yahweh?
>They all look appalling to me.  So much for this book.
Great stuff heh?  Maybe we should censor the Bible for its graphic
violence.

I think all three chapters are the law of the wild.
I think that a point [or the lack thereof] in the story
is the absence of Yahweh in any of it.

To be honest, based on my gut reaction, I'd almost prefer Yahweh
to drop in and smote them all; clean up the picture and start
all over.  What's right with the story?

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:37:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.194401.12158@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus22.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:

>the "daddy" thing must be from somewhere else?  are you familiar with 
>this?

The word "Abba" is used in Romans 8.  

Link Hudson.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Just a seasonal observation.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:04:28 GMT

In article <ksand-211192223246@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>I don't mind about telling children stories about Santa Claus
>and the Eastern Bunny. They are excellent alarm bells for 
>a growing skeptical mind.

Oh, you mean Santa Claus wasn't crucified?

Terence


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:01:55 GMT

In article <ksand-211192223728@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes in response to Gregg Skinner:
>Anyway, back to some more meaningful discussion. It seems 
>many Christians have the view that primitive barbaric tribes
>were atheist-oriented. I would like to know how this is the case,
>and how one could map for instance Attila with atheism?
Sorry that I ever brought up Attila.  I was being fecetious.
I actually find it hard to believe that anyone is free of any
kind of idol-worship in the *loosest* sense.  [here I go with
sweeping qualifiers again...]  Some people are on ego-trips if
you know what I mean, and others...

Terence


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Keywords: mindless,politically-correct,use,your,head
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:51:50 GMT

In article <002977k.7.722531628@ace.acadiau.ca> 002977k@ace.acadiau.ca (RYAN GARNET KEDDY) writes:
>Wrong! "You" is both a singular and a plural pronoun. Or didn't YOU know 
>that.

Here in Georgia where the language has developed more than in most places:
You is singular, Y'ALL is plural! *grin*  Sorry couldn't resist, I've been
taking so much flack for saying it lately.

Cat

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
    Cat Stanton
    stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu
_______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Biblical error for the day
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:09:45 GMT

In <10700@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:

>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.

And in some places, like the ones pointed out in this post, it is clear
that "prophecy" in the present-day meaning ("prediction") is not what
it is all about.

But in the OT, a prophet was not so much a soothsayer as he was someone
who made some truths, many of them unpalatable, very apparent to the people.

For what it is worth, an evangelical minister friend of mine explained
Matthew's literary device like this:  [to take the example given below]
Judas "filled full" --hence "fulfilled"-- the words in Zechariah:

>   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.

>   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.

Yes, but if one thinks of the words "fill full", it's not such a bad
comparison.  Nowadays we would say, "Judas gave new meaning to the
words of Zechariah."

An even more obvious example of Matthew's is "Out of Egypt I have called 
my son."  The "son" in the passage alluded to was a rebellious one, and
Jesus is anything but rebellious towards his "Abba".  Again, however,
one can easily say that the return of Jesus with his parents from 
Egypt gave new meaning to, or "filled full", these old words.

Peter Nyikos


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21502 soc.culture.jewish:20497 alt.atheism:21628
From: ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish,alt.atheism
Subject: Mississippi governor's remark: People for the American Way response
Date: 19 Nov 92 07:01:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: r-node.1992Nov19.070158.20096
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto

Here is a press release from People For the American Way.

 People For the American Way Condemns "Christian Nation" Remark at
Republican Governors' Conference
 To: National Desk
 Contact: Carol Blum, Matthew Freeman, Mary Conway or Virginia Witt,
          202-467-4999, all of People For the American Way

   WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- People For the American Way
President Arthur J. Kropp today condemned Mississippi Gov. Fordice's
characterization of America as a "Christian nation."  Fordice's
remarks occured late yesterday at the close of a conference of
Republican governors.
   Following is the test of Kropp's remarks:

   We're hearing echoes of vintage Jerry Falwell -- who talked about
a "Christian nation" back in 1979 -- from the Republican Party's
elected leaders.  If Fordice is any indication, the GOP seems to be
practicing a systematic politics of exclusion -- first women are
pushed out, then gays, now Jewish Americans and others who don't
happen to be Christians.  This incident shows the stubborn staying
power of intolerance even in an era of change.

   People For the American Way is a 300,000-member non-partisan
constitutional liberties organization.
 -30-
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21220 sci.skeptic:19689 alt.atheism:21362
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:54:09 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Nov13.163130.14584@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>: In article <1992Nov9.213948.27071@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>: >ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>: >
>: >What about the ghastly commands of God in the Old Testament?  If
>: >I remember right, this is the same God that Christians have faith in.
>: >If the Bible is the word of God, I should be able to judge God based
>: >on his own actions as depicted in the OT and not just indirectly
>: >via his followers.  Is this a fair judgement?  Why not?
>: 
>: I guess I'm somewhat hazy on what you mean by "judge God based on
>: his own actions".  If you mean that you will read the Old
>: Testament and determine whether God acted in a manner consistent
>: with your belief of how God *should* act (where this belief is
>: derived from is another story), then odds are you might be turned
>: off.  

Actually it is a clear case of "Do what I say, not what I do".
Only the fool made us in his image.  Maybe God is just a bumbling
idiot satist(?God=Satan?).


>
>Maybe an example will be helpful.  Let's use an example from the
>beloved 10 commandments.  Ex 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to
>them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, *visiting
>the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth
>generation of them that hate me*.  God seems to have this nasty habit
>of punishing innocent people for the sins of others.  There is page
>after page after page of this stuff.  To say I am "turned off" by the
>actions of such a sadistic God is a gross understatement.
>
>:  I know, for me anyways, that only when I read the Old
>: Testament through the eyes of the New Testament was I able to
>: personally make sense out of it.  
>
>I must have missed God's rationalization of his actions when I
>read the NT.  Maybe you show me in the NT where God explains 
>the Justice of this outrageous policy.
>
>: And I'm still in the process
>: today... But that is my experience, as there are other people who
>: have had no problem with the OT at all. 
>
>Translation:
>There exist people who cannot think for themselves, therefore
>the God of the OT is just and loving.  Just a minute, let me
>get out my introductory logic book and check the validity of
>this syllogism...
>
>-- 
>> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
>> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
>> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc