HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The After-life
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:43:30 GMT

In article <18285@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>Kent Sandvik (ksand@apple.com) writes:
>You've prepared for the worst?  If you were to die today,
>and found yourself at the gates of heaven, and God were to
>ask you why He should let you in, have you prepared a 
>decent answer?  Have you been through this situation enough
>times to know how to handle it?  
If you were to die to day and found yourself at the gates of
heaven and Cthuhlu were to ask you why He should let you
in, have you prepared a decent answer? He seems kind of
pissed that you believed in this God fellow instead
of him.

This is just Pascal's wager, and it's quite bogus.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:21:24 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <MIB.92Apr13111119@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
(Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>> 
> Now, my question is, where is your source?  Are you just adding on
> guesses on guesses?  Robert Scheaffer's book fails miserably because
> he didn't bother (apparently) to read the primary sources with much
> depth, preferring to quote and re-categorize secondary and tertiary
> sources.  This isn't history; it isn't scholarship; it's guesswork.

I'm basically using Acts as the source, where it is mentioned
that the original Church members attended Temple ceremonies,
including Paul (BTW). Then again we don't know if Acts is 
guesswork or not, because it could have been re-edited many
times, so you are maybe right.


Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:07:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:

>dams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>Sex simply for sex sake, outside of marriage, is fornication.  As
>>such, it is to be avoided.

>Why?  What besides the holy text of the Christians justifies this
>restriction on behavior?  Who is harmed by sex for sex's sake, inside
>or outside of marriage?

Excuse me, rephrase that to say that Christians should avoid it.  As for
you, you are certainly free to conduct yourself within whatever moral code
you chose, within certain societal limits.  (ie, you can't murder, steal, etc)

 -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
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why is Free Will so necessary?
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:52:54 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller) writes:
> So, Free Will is necessary for us to "become like him."  In other words,
> "becoming like him" is worth all the suffering and evil in this world.  If
> God wanted us to become like him, why didn't he just create us just like
> him, instead of putting us through all this torture?

Roughly speaking, this is the difference between walking across the country
and flying across, or between creating a sculpture and being given one.
The destination is not the same place if the travels are different.

n
e
w
s

f
o
d
d
e
r

--
                    Mike Sellers       mike@isgtec.com
                        User Interface Team Leader
                    ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
            "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Just thought I'd ask...
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:13:28 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada



What is love?
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:09:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: apollo.1992Apr9.140958.28631
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Apr8.215020.11495@meaddata.com> jeb3@meaddata.com (Jennifer Bing) writes:
> I think it is safe to say that Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost act and speak in
> agreement. God said "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it
> is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 Read also Romans 1:27.

Jennifer, can you explain what makes homosexual sex sinful?  And how about
some of the other things that have been talked about?  (oral sex, different
positions, etc.)
From: vm0h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent J. Matsko)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Gay teens, suicide, and Christianity.
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:31:36 GMT
Organization: Doctoral student, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Statistics now show that gay teens are three times as likely as their
non-gay counterparts to commit suicide (I apologize for not having a
reference, but it was newsworthy several weeks ago).  Many of these were
partly a result of intolerant, ostensibly Christian attitudes at home,
resulting in rejection, being kicked out of the house, etc.

How is the issue to be addressed?  How are teens to be counseled? A
"loving the sinner but rejecting the sin" approach advocated by many who
believe homsexuality to be wrong may sound great in theory, but this
underlying and detectable rejection may be the straw that breaks a
teen-ager's back.

In particular, how would those who believe homosexuality to be wrong
counsel a son or daughter they found out to be gay or lesbian? What
steps would such people take to prevent their son or daughter from
becoming another statistic?

Vince Matsko
From: corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1 Cor 6:9
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:03:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-cs.1339
Distribution: usa
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana


     Pertaining to the discussion dealing with homosexuality and
the bible. I have been refered to a book called "Christianit,
social tolerence, and homosexuality. I have not yet been able to
get the book from my library(overdue and charged), but I am curious
as to wether I could get some info from others who have read the book
or know something about the topic addressed in the book. I am told that
the argument stated by boswell is that the word translated as homosexuality
is incorrectly translated. I am wondering if this is something that has
in recent years been cleared up or if it is just ingnored by those who know
of the argument. If anyone has any thoughts or Ideas on the subject would
you please let me know. I find it hard to fathom that God would allow the
bible to mean other than the truth, so I am asking for others thoughts on
the topic. Thanks!

-Vette

"He who has the knowledge of God knows it to be truth, there is know believing
 to it! He is also  open to all opposition for how could what is true be false."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  send me some mail! I like mail.....:)
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs vs. Christians
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:33:01 -0700

In article <1992Apr8.125402.530@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>I'm not interested in the Witness position on blood transfusions.  I
>>know what it is and I know the rationale for it.  What I have been
>>looking for (and still am) is a justification for YOUR statement that
>>the Witnesses' committee on blood transfusions is better equipped to
>>judge in the matter than those who actually practice medicine.
>
>       A-ha, that is the point. You see, there's no doctors (as far as I know)
>       specialized in this subject. The members of the committee are.
>
        *Think* about what you are saying.  There are perhaps thousands of
blood transfusions a year, yet no doctors specialize in it, the only ones that
do are members of a JW committee.  My response - rubbish!  What I am saying,
with all respect Andreas, is that you might find it more advantageous if you
could qualify statements like the one above.  What you wrote isn't going to
convince anyone - in fact you yourself say here that you really don't know if
there are any other doctors who specialize in blood transfusions.  This being
the case, how are you qualified to compare them to another committee?  It seems
that you are assuming that since you don't know of any doctors who specialize
in this area that none must exist.

-Mark

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7055 soc.culture.jewish:8008
From: hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:06:38 GMT
Organization: AT&T Migration Systems

In article <MIB.92Apr14160646@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>Much though Ken Arromdee might not like to admit it, the Orthodox
>Jewish community has been right up there with the right-wing Catholics
>and the fundamentalists fighting every gay-rights issue that comes
>into the popular press.  And, just like the more outspoken Catholics
>and the more outspoken fundamentalists, some even call for gay people
>to be killed.
>
>The Reform Jewish community, by noted contrast, has been very
>accepting of gay people in general, and the Conservative Jewish
>community has, not surprisingly, been somewhere in the middle.
>

This part is definitely not true.  A thread which went through
s.c.j a short time ago addressed the issue of practice versus
"orientation".  Orthodox Judaism believes that one must follow the
laws of the Torah.  Sexual laws must be followed just as much as
laws of honesty, kashrus (food laws), Shabbat (Sabbath laws), and
laws of family purity.  In any case, these laws deal with the
actions a person must perform not how they must think.  When
someone comes into a shul we do not have him sign an affidavit that
he is a sabbath observer or keeps kosher but if he comes in and
start telling everyone else that it is proper to violate the
sabbath or eat non-kosher food, then he is not accepted.

>
>The Reform Jewish community, by noted contrast, has been very
>accepting of gay people in general, and the Conservative Jewish
>community has, not surprisingly, been somewhere in the middle.
>
>--
>Michael Innis Bushnell    | Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu
-- 
_______________________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz        |    Im ain ani li mi li             |
| H_Markowitz@att.com     |    Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha      |
|_________________________|____________________________________|
From: andrew@cm.cf.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: jesus's name
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:44:25 GMT
Organization: Univ of Wales College of Cardiff

In article <1992Apr14.174904.8382@meaddata.com> jeb3@meaddata.com (Jennifer
Bing) writes:
>Can someone help me on the names of Jesus. I know that Jesus is greek for 
>mesiah.
Actually, Christ is the greek word meaning Messiah.
Jesus is used in the New Testament to refer to the Old Testament
character Joshua (Hebrews 4:8).

>Is Emanuel Hebrew?
Yes. In Isaiah 7:15 (Old Testament, Hebrew), the name Immanuel occurs.

>What was Jesus's proper name? Was Jesus a part of his proper name?
Jesus is a proper name. Sometimes, He is referred to as Jesus; others
as Jesus Christ; others as Christ Jesus; others as the Lord Jesus Christ;
others as the Lord; others as the Son of Man; ...

To those who are Christians, the range of names attributed to the Lord
Jesus Christ is a fascinating, exciting study.

Andrew.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Context (was Re: JWs Child Custody booklet)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:58:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.120037.27154@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	I've not checked the WT quotes, but John has. He said that they've 
>	been taken out of context.

Oh, that's original...the ultimate fall-back.  When in doubt, claim it's
out-of-context...so tell me, how can things like:

   "With this kind of guidance and example, it is not suprising that
   the moral climate among church members is no better, if not
   actually worse, than that among the population as a whole."

and

   "We have examined the fruits produced by the world's religions in
   just 2 areas - morals and war - and what we have seen is nothing less
   than shocking and disgusting."

be taken out of context?  You really feel that sort of thing teaches
JW children to respect other's religion?   How about this:

   Truly, then, directly or indirectly,Babylon the Great - the great harlot
   and world empire of false religion - must answer to Jehovah not only for
   'the blood of prophets and holy ones' whom she has persecuted and killed
   but for the blood of ALL those who have been slaughtered on the earth.
   Babylon the Great does indeed carry an appalling bloodguilt.  Good
   riddance when her final destruction takes place!"
   (Revelation, Its Grand Climax at Hand, 1988, p.  271)

This "out of context" baloney is just that, *baloney*.  

>	The booklet is your imagination,

Sure...

>but the quotes from WT are correct, 
>	although out of context. 

Equally true as your previous statement...statements like
"shocking and disgusting", etc, state their meaning quite
clearly.  

Let's see how inaccurately I've taken them, Andreas.  Answer these
questions, and provide (if you can) references to JW literature
on the subject where appropriate.

1) What view does your church encourage children to take towards
   a parent who is not a JW?  How about if he is a disfellowshipped
   JW?  How about if he tries to share non_JW teachings and
   practices with you, like holidays, communion at church,
   going to church, etc?

2) What view does your church take towards people of other religions?

3) Does your church teach that young people should learn only about
   the JWs religion?  If not, how should they learn about others?
   What does your religion teach young people about other churches
   and the people in them?  (see #2)

4) Are there substantial differences between basic principles if morality
   as taught by JWs and the Catholic Church?

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:02:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr9.220213.24154
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr9.135500.28051@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.003701.3902@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.221210.20447@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>>How about oral sex, a man fingering a woman to orgasm,
>>>a woman giving a man a "hand job", a woman using a vibrator,
>>>or a man using one on a woman?  For that matter, how about
>>>sex between 2 women?
>>
>>Yes, yes, yes, yes.... Bad in that they are indulgent in nature and fleshly
>>in origin.  I equate all these things with getting wasted.
>
>"Getting wasted"?   
>
>All I can gather from them being indulgent/fleshly, is that they do not
>cause procreation, wheres "normal" sex does.  We keep coming back to
>that.  Do you feel that is the case?  

I feel that the main purpose for sex is definitely procreation, but I also
think that God intended it for enjoyment between man and wife.  These people
are each others property by Gods plan, whereas homosexuals are not.

>How about different positions?  Is it OK for the woman to be on top?
>How about "doggie" style, or "on the edge", etc.??

See above.

>>All of this assumes that the homosexual has no choice in the matter which I
>>am NOT convinced of by any stretch of the imagination. (If you respond to
>>this also respond to the above please out of courtesy.) 
>
>I think the jury is still out on the nature/nurture aspect.  Even assuming
>it is strictly by choice, we are still left without a clear explaination
>of what makes it sinful.

What makes it sinful is that it is a lifestyle that revolves around sex.  You
say "No it doesn't - there are many gay couples who are not dwelling on the
sex act..."  This is precisely my point:  these people are not the homosexuals 
of todays society, and should not "come out" as such.  If loving other men
means being gay, then by golly I'm the gayest person you ever met (kinda
makes one long for the old definition).  It does not though, and those people
who are sexually enslaved _are_ homosexual in societies view.  To those who
are not, why bother with the stereotype?  You are merely good friends (or
"pure lovers") in my view and this is where the sin comes in.  To jump on the
homosexuality bandwagon and fight for something that has no substance is
_not_ what God has planned for your Christian life, making it a sin.  In the
same way fulfilling fleshly desires is not in the plan for the new you in
Christ.


John M.
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:00:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr9.230017.2335
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>
>   I think it is _very_ clear that this was not
>   intended behavior.  
>
>I doubt seriously that you've thought much about it at all.  You sound
>a lot more like you've had a gut reaction, and you're trying to pass
>it off as fact.  Remember math class, where "the remainder of the
>proof is intuitively obvious" is sarcastic shorthand for "I haven't
>the faintest idea how to prove this"?  The simple fact is, it isn't
>very clear at all.  What, with the presence of male dolphins and
>sheep, it seems that it's just part of God marvelous creation.

Actually, I have thought about it quite a bit, lost much sleep, dropped
letter grades, etc, _and_ been associated with gay individuals.  You're right
- I can't prove this to you because your toolbox of proofs does not include
conviction, feelings, and the like.  (Which reminds me of a clever "proof" I
made up that made all atheists instantly agnostic - have to post it
sometime!)

>
>   As always I refer only to the sex act.  Sorry to be
>   graphic about it.
>
>Using punctuation marks instead of English isn't graphic; it's more
>like little kids tittilating each other by using "obscene" language.
>

OK I deserve that.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: More on Mormon temple ceremonies
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:04:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.151943.29028@hellgate.utah.edu>,
jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> 
> >Fine, thank you, but I'd rather decide that myself.  You wish me to totally
> >ignore the anti-Mormon writers but to accept the Prom-Mormon ones.
> 
> Only in this case.  I wish you to consider the comparative authority
> of each source.
> 
> >If the anti-Mormon writers really didn't know any facts, that'd be
different.
> >But even you admit they know something; you just claim that facts are
omitted
> >and that explanations are distorted.
> 
> Wait a minute.  Let's go back to the question, because you don't seem
> to get the picture yet.
> 
> Our authors made a statement that "Mormonisms secrets come from Free
> Masonry."  Now in order to make that statement with any authority, one
> would have to know both the secrets of Mormonism AND the secrets of
> Masonry.  We can surmise that, as temple workers, our authors know the
> secrets of Mormonism.
> 
> But what of Masonry?  How can this be a valid comparison unless it can
> be shown that our authors have some knowlege of the secrets of Masonry?

  Not to bury myself in the fray, but the "secret" ceramonies of the Masons are
well known.  The first book listing them that comes to mind is "Big Secrets"
published about 5 years ago.  (It also lists KFCs secret ingredient, etc).

  Masonry, since it is a large organization, has been putting this stuff in
books for a while.  It is not hard to get a copy of the book, even if you are
not a Mason.
                                   -Kurt
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Gay Marriage (was: Homosexuality and Christianity)
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:17:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Apr17.201702.21181
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <12643@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>Paul Hudson Jr apparently didn't care for my mention of Boswell and the
>Christian wedding rites for 6th century Gays:
>
>> The 6th century is hardly the time of the Bible.  But even in the time of
>> the apostles there were those who taught false doctrines.  Paul, for 
>> example, showed his disgust with homosexuality in Romans.
>
>Paul, you seemed confused on two different points.  
>First I pointed out that I wasn't using it a evidence for biblical support,
>but rather I clearly stated I was using it as a "counterpoint" to your
>assertion that homosexual weddings are not Christian.  Apparently (if Boswell
>is correct) some Christians who lived much closer to the time of Jesus
>disagreed with you on the subject (not that this is proof, but Christianity
>does tend to give a lot of credence to the views of early Christians and
>Church fathers). 

If it does turn out to be fact that a church or churches under the 
Roman bishopric joined homosexuals in some kind of union before, this has
no bearing on what is written in Scripture, or what the apostle Paul
wrote.  There were people who actually lived during the time of the
writing of the New Testament who disagreed or did not follow the teachings
of the apostles.  Your message alluding to this information did not 
present any evidence that this was common practice in the church, or
that it had anything to do with the interpretation of the pertinent
passages.  As we see in Scritpure, there were false teachers among the
apostles, and Pual prophesied that more false doctrines were yet to come.

>Second, you again repeat your assertion about Paul being anti-homosexual in
>Romans, as if that assertion is supposed to be compelling to me.  On several
>different occasions Michael Siemon and Charles Hedrick (among others) have
>presented a detailed exegesis showing why the statements in Romans are quite
>ambiguous and are not restricted to the interpretation that you would force on
>them.

I have read one message from Charles Hedrick, I know.  I may have missed
these messages if they were posted before I entered the discussion.
I have seen no message refuting the translations of the words translated
in the KJV as "vile effections," and "that which is unseemly" to 
describe homosexual lust, and male homosexual sex.  IMHO these phrases
show disgust for homosexual lust and homosexual sex.  I have not seen
any evidence to the contrary on the net.  

You have not replied to any of their points, or shown fault in any of
>their arguments,

I have responded to CH's arguments, but I may or may not have responded
to MS's messages.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc