HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mtx014@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:31:50 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Plato's rest home for the incurably geometric


This is (at least partly) in response to a longish
article by Mike Siemon, in which he discusses (in
particular) Boswell's analysis of the NT "anti-homosexuality"
passages. 

Just on the off-chance that anybody's interested,
there's a book,
	Gay Christians: a moral dilemma,
by Peter Coleman (published by SCM/TPI, 
ISBN 0 334 00532 9) which considers this
topic in a fair amount of detail. He 
covers both Biblical (OT and inter-testamental
evidence is considered in addition to NT)
and social issues, and seems (to me) to be 
a pretty disinterested piece of work. 

As regards the NT evidence, his conclusion
is that the most reasonable reading of Paul 
is that he is pretty well against male
homosexual acts. (There is a moderately
detailed discussion of the interpretation
of the oft-quoted passages, including the
meanings of the much disputed words "malakos"
and "arsenokoites". I see no point in my
repeating the discussion here; his discussion
and the sources ar available to anybody
with the interest and background knowledge
required to follow them up.) Points worth
remembering here are that  (a) Paul was a product
of the Rabbinic tradition, within which the
Noachide commandment against incest was
understood to include homosexual acts and
bestiality, (and remember, the Noachide
commandments are binding upon Jews and Gentiles)
and that (b) in the ancient world
what we understand as homosexuality was
not a conceptual category. 

(To digress for a moment, in classical
Greece, it was acceptable for an male
adult to feel sexual attraction towards
a younger man, and common for him to be
the "dominant" partner in sexual acts--
however, interfemoral sex was the norm,
rather than anal; furthermore, it was
not socially acceptable to carry on taking
the submissive role as an adult. They
saw things rather differently from how
we tend to, and didn't conceptualise men
as hetero- or homosexual. Classicists can,
if they wish, expand on this.)

At any rate, as I mentioned above, the
most probable reading of Paul is that
he does denounce homosexual acts. The
real question is, what are the consequences
of that fact? The majority of the book is 
devoted to a discussion of this question,
examining what the consequences have been in
the past, and in considering the current situation,
where we have a goodly number of homosexual
Christians and many denominations are ambivalent
at best in their dealings with them.

Whichever side of the debate you are on, I
think it is a book worth reading. At the very
least, it provides references to much of the
relevant literature.





-- 
Robert Low  email(JANET): RobLow@uk.ac.coventry.cck
	    smail : Mathematics Department, Coventry Polytechnic,
		    Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, England.
Keep an open mind---but not so open your brain falls out.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:52:05 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <53207@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
> 
> Kent (ksand@apple.com) writes:
> >>>Sorry to state, but this is the carrot behind Christianity. Every religion
> >>>needs a cookie in order to gain followers, and the issue of eternal life
> >>>through Jesus was the solution in the case of Christianity. Sorry, but
> >>>personally I would never believe in such things, it's the same as the
> >>>issue of free lunches, someone is paying for them anyway.
 
> Kent got this right.  Jesus Christ paid the price.  Eternal life is a
> gift from God to those who beleive.

Then I don't want the gift, because I personally think that eternal
life is the ultimate expression of human egoism. We life for a while, and
that's it, let our children inherit our world.
 
Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Erin Anderson <erisande@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: The After-life
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 12:14:07 -0500

>>	Question...  If there is such a Being as God, or whatever they
>>call him now, IF he exists, Then how can Hell be posible?  My eartly
>>father would not want to punish me for the rest of my life, why would
>>the Heavenly Father (who MUST love me more than the earthly father)
>>put me in punishment forever? 
>
>He doesn't, Eric.   He wills completely the opposite.  In fact He has

	That's 'Erin'.  Kinda makes me wonder how fallable some info
is going to be after this.  But I will give it a fair shake.

>gone to radical extremes to prevent this from happening, even to the
>point of sending His own eternal Son to pay the penalty due us.
>
>> Even if it is because he wants you to
>>learn your lesson, isn't it a bit far to take it?
>
>Yes, I would say that it would be.  He is not trying to teach a lesson,
>He's in the business of loving and saving.  2 Peter 3:9 says that "he
>is patient with you, not wanting *anyone* to perish, but *everyone* to
>come to repentance."

	But once you do go to Hell, then you can't ever say, "I've
learned my lesson!"  (Of course God knows if you are lying or not), so
why wouldn't he let you out?  I just wonder why there has to be such
thing as Hell.  There is no real reson for it.  It's kinda like God
has no sense of pride when he looks and says, "If you don't live by my
rules, then you should be punished."  This to me sounds like slave to
master, and I thought if God was a true lover of people, he would let
them do what they wish, and complete their destinies without any after
hindrance.  Maybe I just believe that he put us here to do what we
have to do, or want to do.  Kinda like an experiment...

	I like your style so far...  It is good to talk with someone
that might be a bit more constructive.  I mean this post in no flame
whatsoever.  I like the discussion.  *Bow*
-- 
Erin Anderson    -    Socks    -    The Robe, The Ring, and The Romance.
ARC's Philosopher, Dreamer, & Stand-up Comedian.
		       (Lis's Hero on call 24 hours.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr10.193012.6932@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <adams.703020573@spssig>
	<1992Apr13.174423.10268@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:00:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.174423.10268@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

   Paul wrote quite a bit on  this subject, I Cor. 8, 10 and Romans 14. 
   Apparently, some in the church at Rome considered it a sin to eat meat.
   Probably, there was a chance that any particular piece of meat could have
   been offered to an idol.  Paul wrote of how that it was a sin for one who 
   had a weak conscience to eat the meat.  This kind  of person would consider
   eating meat a sin.  The other type of person is one who does not consider it
   a sin to eat meat sold in the marketplace.  This person would not be sinning
   against his own conscience.
   Paul also wrote of how those with strong consciences were to take their 
   weaker brothers' consciences into account and not eat meat.  Reading the
   chapter will explain it a lot better than I have here.

   I will quote two verses from chapter 14,
   "22 Hast thou faith?  have it to thyself before God.  Happy is he that 
   condemeth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."
   "23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of
   faith, for whatsoever is not of a faith is sin."

Let's see just how well you handle this one yourself, with the very
issue you cite.  Do you wear leather?  Do you eat meat?  Do you eat
dairy products?

I know people, Christians among them, who abstain from all these for
purely moral reasons.  How well do you bear up under this standard?



--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | Blessed is the King
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   who comes in the name of the Lord!
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | Peace in heaven,
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 |   and glory in the highest heaven!
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Andreas (was: JWs vs. Christians)
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:17:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr16.094800.13013@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>
>	So, it's the time of the memorial of the Christs' Sacrifice. It seem s
>	that this time you'll put ME to the torture stake. 


  I say this as an outside observer. From what I have seen, it is *you*
who has been tying themselves to the torture stake. I have seen you do
it over and over again. The thought has come to me more than once that you
are one of those folks who wants to see themselves as a martyr, even when
they are not.

	


	Love is the life force breathed
	into the Heart/Mind flower center
	of harmonious human relationships.
			Al Huang

	David Hatcher
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:32:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.005658.16324@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>Am I shoving this down your throat or is it what the Bible clearly says but
>you don't want to believe it...

Let's just say it's quite unbelievable.  I think individual chastity
can be admirable.  I don't admire people who adopt that out of a personal
neurosis and then try to force it on others.

>>How DARE you make the claim that my relationship with my lover
>>involves idols, or placing sex above other matters!  What evidence
>>do you have for this other than that deranged kernel of self-deception
>>which has managed to distort a God-given healthy respect for a person's
>>sexuality into something repugnant and to be avoided at all costs?
>
>I'll tell you the evidence that I have.  The very fact that you personalized
>my broad statements to _your_ relationship with _your_ lover is evidence that
>I hit a sore spot, especially since you are irate about it!  I NEVER said
>ANYTHING about YOUR relationship!!! I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO YOU ARE!


Right.  I want you to keep repeating this:

	I DON'T know ANYTHING about YOUR relationship!!!
		I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO YOU ARE!

again and again and again the next time you're inclined to
open your ignorant mouth about a gay person.

You said quite clearly that gay people lives revolve around the sex
act.  In fact, you wrote pages and pages of lies and misunderstandings
of what gay people like and are like.  I'm a gay person.  What am I
to assume, Johnny-boy?  That your comments somehow don't apply to me?
That outrage was an inappropriate response of mine?  Tell me that, you
so-called man of God?

You don't have the first idea what the experience of gay people is.
Shut up about us.  Try listening.

>>I recommend therapy.  Once you get this plank out of the way, you'll be
>>in a much better position to have a mature relationship with Christ and
>>the rest of the human race at the same time.

>All this in response to a something that was totally non-sexual which is
>quoted above:  Reaching people for Christ.

Right.  "Non-sexual".  I don't think I've read so many references to
the "sex act" as I have in your articles.  Your better reevaluate
what you think you're doing.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Myths Concerning Christianity #3
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<Apr.4.00.47.16.1992.22122@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>
	<adams.702418723@spssig>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:36:31 GMT

In article <adams.702418723@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

   [Discussion of the "Longer Ending of Mark" (16:9-20) deleted]

   Both of these, I have to assume, included the text so that it could be
   explained, since it is contained in KJV.

The NRSV contains the following footnote: "Some of the most ancient
authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8.  One
authority concludes the book with the shorter ending; others include
the shorter ending and then continue with verses 9-20.  In most
authorities verses 9-20 follow immediately after verse 8, though in
some of these authorities the passage is marked as doubtful."

(The "shorter ending" is a couple sentences printed between verses 8
and 9 in most modern translations, but was not present in the KJV.)
It seems, in fact, that there is a very ancient tradition of marking
the longer ending as doubtful, so it is probably quite accurate to
print it in exactly that state.  Mark cannot have ended at 16:8; the
grammatical construction is ended prematurely.  Both additions after
verse 8 are in very different styles from the rest of Mark; the
shorter ending is remarkably abrupt.  It is quite likely that the last
page was lost very early on in the history of the Gospel, and a
reconstruction of it, perhaps from memory, perhaps not, was added by a
scribe later.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | This is a virulent meme.  Whether or not you place
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | this into your signature file is irrelevant.  You
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | have already participated in its further trans-
			  | mission, and will doubtless continue to do so.
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:35:19 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr10.023852.28190@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <92100.181336QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim
Bieling) writes:

>>God made me gay, it's that simple.  The sin for me would be to lie to

>Tell me something...  Why would he do this to you?  If I thought God had
>made me gay in todays society I would probably be more than a little
>angry with him.

What foolishness is this? "If I thought God had made me black in todays
society I would probably be more than a little angry with him".
Well, go right ahead. How about black and a slave in nineteenth
century America? How about Jewish in Nazi Germany? 

>God doesn't do anything without a purpose, so I am wondering what this
>purpose is.  If it exists I realize that we can't know what God is
>thinking, but I would like to hear any thoughts.

You could start by looking at this newsgroup. It seems to me that the
gay posters here have a lot to offer, and some of this is because of
what they have experienced by being gay. 

Why would God want left-handed people around, for that matter?

>On that same note would God allow the Bible to become warped?

This used to be the excuse for murdering people in the name of God:
"Would God allow His Church to become warped? Of course not.
Therefore, the Church is always right. It is right when it says that
outside the Church there is no salvation, and hence heretics are not
only sending themselves to hell, they are dragging others with them.
Therefore for the good of their souls and the good of the Church and
society, we must torture and murder them in the name of God".

If your church or your Bible interpreations or your *anything* lead
you into sin, then it's time to think again about them!

--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 1 of 2)
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:23:26 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article: <1992Apr14.043303.8171@hellgate.utah.edu> 
jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) 
writes in a response to John Muehlhausen:

> We believe that YHWH, the "God of the Old Testament," was in fact
> Jesus.  We believe that he had all the attributes and qualities
> of Godhood before coming to earth.  

And in article: <1992Apr15.001935.26762@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) 
writes back:

> Mormons do not say Jesus is who Jesus said he was in the Bible: God.  


John, you don't seem to be comprehending what Jay is writing.

Just an observation.

-- 
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:23:03 GMT

In article <8044@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> dekorte@next2.scri.fsu.edu (Stephen Dekorte) writes:

   In article <1992Apr3.082542.5206@serval.net.wsu.edu>  
   wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:
   > 
   >       TOP 10 BIBLICAL REASONS FOR BELIEVING IN THE DIETY OF CHRIST
   ........
     Fine. Now give us the top ten reasons for believing the bible.

And here we see the problem with this sort of fundamentalism, as
practiced by Mr VanWeerthuizen.  The reason for believing the Bible (I
don't hold the Bible to be infallible, mind you) is that one has met
Christ.  Now, it is possible, surely, to meet Christ in the pages of
the Bible, but that is pretty rare.  Most likely, one meets Christ in
the lives and community of Christians.  

So, if I need to convince someone that Christ was divine, I'm going to
have to throw up my hands in despair, for I can do no such thing.  The
value of lists like Mr VanWeerthuizen's is that they can (but rarely
do) appeal to people who hold the Bible as infallibly true (like JW's)
but don't accept the deity of Christ (like JW's).


--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | This is a virulent meme.  Whether or not you place
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | this into your signature file is irrelevant.  You
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | have already participated in its further trans-
			  | mission, and will doubtless continue to do so.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:34:25 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <22508@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>  And they still live just as much as any other Christian within 
>the grace, glory, presence and spirit of God. I can't help but think
>that spiritually the formula that you offer is lacking some heart
>centered awarenesses of homosexuals and their relationship with 
>the Divine.

Disobedience does not please God.  The Nicolations taught that it was okay
to engage in sexual immorality.  Jesus warned them that He would come against
them with a sword.  Today there are people creeping up in the church world
who are comparable to those who followed the way of Balaam spoken of in
II Peter 2.  

The Scriptures are explicit that performing homosexual acts is a sin in
the sight of God.  God has the power to set people free from any sin, including
homosexual sin.
Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:28:44 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

I am preparing a detailed response to John's post.  This means I have
suspended preparation of the article on the loss of hidden knowledge
from Christianity, but will pick it up again.  But I should respond
here lest it be lost in the discussion.

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>> I am still confused as to who Jesus is in the Mormon faith.  A couple of
>>> things are certain though: Jehovah (same person as Jesus?) was with God
>>> during the creation, and he is definitely not the same person as God.
>>> He is not responsible for our salvation.

To which the response was made:

>>	Not true.  LDS doctrine is VERY clear that salvation comes through and
>>ONLY through Christ.  The Book of Mormon is very clear on this subject.

>My whole point was that this is NOT reflected in the Temple ceremonies!!!

You didn't state this as a point.  You discuss the position of Jesus
in LDS theology as a whole, the way I read it.  It was answered in the
context of LDS doctrine in general.  It wasn't clear that you were
speaking of Jesus in terms of the endowment.

Jesus figures very prominently in the temple cermonies, and his role
as Redeemer and Savior is made clear to participants.

>In them is salvation by the grace of God?  NO!

Yes.  Exaltation is also by grace, after being judged on our works.

>Is Jesus God?  NO!

Jesus is divine, but he is not the same as God the Father.  Everyone
knows this as part of LDS doctrine.

>What else do you need besides Jesus?  According to the Temple ceremonies
>quite a bit...  In fact he is not even an issue!

He is a very prominent issue.

>You could be a very good
>Mormon as far as Endowment is concerned and still not believe Jesus is
>your savior.

No.  You cannot participate in the endowment ceremony unless you
explicitly state that you believe Jesus is your Savior.

>Have you been through these ceremonies?

Yes.  Many, many times.  Have you?

The remainder of the points are covered my detailed response, which
should appear within the next 48 hours.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc