HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Child custody
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:01:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: odin.1992Apr8.230143.11853
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <Apr.8.05.23.30.1992.314@dumas.rutgers.edu>, Charles Hedrick writes:
|The evidence I've seen (not just in this group) does sound like
|JW's don't place the stress on education that many Christian
|groups do.  I think that's unfortunate, and it might affect my
|opinion on where I think a child would be better off.  

An understatement.  The JWs, in fact, stress the evils they
perceive in education beyond the high school level.  They
pressure their children not to attend college.  They ostracize
people who do choose to attend college.  This is how the
congregation enforces the Society's wishes.

The general pattern:  The Society publishes a series of articles
about a behavior it wishes to discourage or encourage.  The
congregation absorbs the material in the articles.  Then it puts
social pressure on its members to conform.

You're 16.  You're bright, you're eager, you're motivated.  You
have all the normal plans for yourself, maybe even a major in
mind.  You study up to take the SATs.  Suddenly, all your
friends in the congregation stop talking to you.

|But the business about pioneers seems largely a matter of
|degree.  In many churches becoming a minister or priest is sort
|of an ideal held up to kids.  That doesn't mean you really
|expect them all to do it.

I think the JWs really do expect them all to do it.  This is
far more than an ideal to aspire to.  It is an expectation,
the only acceptable career goal.  That enormous social trash
compactor presses pretty hard.  Adults can see pressure &
manipulation as such.  I also assume that adults chose to be
a part of a congregation, and approve of its operation.  But
children have no such choice, and far fewer defenses against
manipulation & pressure.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs Child Custody booklet, and why a judge might have felt it promoted "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:02:58 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr8.132530.1676@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> 
> Rubbish.
> 
> 	Lately I've been discouraged to give one-word answers, so I'll do a 
> 	longer answer: 
> 
> 		Rubbish, you've invented the whole thing, there hasn't been 
> 		such booklet anywhere - if there is, it isn't published by
> 		the WTBTS, but our enemies, the Antichrist. 

Heh, I guess Anti-Christ is then working everywhere, including
the BBs all around the world. However, it's damned hard to pinpoint
him.

> 		Btw. publishing such material in BBS (that you've) done is 
> 		ILLEGAL, against the Finnish law of libel. So you can publish
> 		your crap anywhere else but not here. 

You know, the way to stop this is to talk with your admin and ask
him to stop receiving talk.religion.misc. Remember, the whole world
is connected to Usenet, and there's no way to follow all the possible
laws of the countries on the Net. The only way is to deliberately not
read or receive newsgroups.

I don't think that the Finnish laws of religious libel are directly 
usable concerning JW, more to the Lutheran faith and church. I don't
subscribe to this law either, it's not directly related to personal
religious freedom. But few countries have the same laws
about the separation of state and church as here in United States.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Jesus & God vs Mormonism vs Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 11:38:02 GMT

In article <167CA865F.HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:

>  2.  As neither M or C, I know more about both than you do.

How can you know anything about being a 'C' if you are not?  This is at least
as crazy as "knowing about" the piano inside and out, but not being able to
play...

>      Don't get in a flame war,  THERE IS ENOUGH MATERIAL available
>      to TOTALLY DESTROY modern CHRISTIANITY and it's concept
>      of Jesus and God.

Go for it.  Worse has been said and done by those who have so hardened their
hearts... BTW, I can defend my position rather well based on modern science
(chaos theory, ordered energy, time-mass distortion, etc.)  Come on... Lets
have a real humdinger. :-)

>  3.  Obviously, YOU DO NOT LIVE YOUR RELIGION, or you wouldn't
>      have posted what you did.

You admit you do not live my religion, so how can you know if I do or not?

>  7.  If you want to talk religious doctrine, try the proper way,
>      asking questions that leads to knowledge with a purpose,
>      NEVER NEVER TEAR SOMETHING DOWN WITHOUT SOMETHING BETTER TO
>      REPLACE IT WITH.

In light of this, what have you got that is "better" to replace Christianity
with, oh ye of little brain. :-)

>  8.  Given the choice of a Mormon God and yours?  Lets look,
> 
>       Mormon                      Yours
>       ------------------------    -------------
>       can see                     invisible (makes Himself known)
>       called father               just it (Almighty God)
>       has body                    has no parts (is beyond "parts")
>       has passions                none (cannot look on sin)
>       can touch                   incorporal (will come into your heart)
>       uses natural laws           fiat laws (made natural laws)
>       wants us to be like him     jealous, nobody else (loving, wants us back)
>       rules himself by same       can do anything anytime, can be
>         laws as children            like shifting sands -- trustworthy?
>             .                            .(never breaks a promise -
>             .                            . never changes His mind)
>             .                            .
>       ========================    ===================================
>       SOMETHING                   NOTHING (EVERYTHING)
> 
>      Hmmm,  now we have the Mormon God made of something, albeit
>      better than us; or your God of inmaterial matter.  Sounds like nothing
>      to me.  With your education, even you can deduce, ONLY NOTHING COMES
>      FROM NOTHING.

Which is why an all powerful God must exist.

> 10.  Be happy, your god loves you--to death.

I am!

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Arians, Donatists, Gnostics, O My!
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 17:45:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Apr6.200505.4843@ac.dal.ca> hyde@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>	Despite the persecutions of Constantine and St Augustine,
>	the sect survived in the back country of north africa,
>	and helped make the roman/byzantine hold on that province
>	insecure.  In return for some promise of toleration, they
>	aided the (arian) Vandals in their conquest of the province.
>	I do not know how well the promise was kept, but the
>	Arian germans tended to be far more tolerant of the
>	orthodox than vice versa.  

Yes, Gibbon records how the Donatists, enlisting the aid of the
Vandals against persecution by the "Orthodox" in
Rome, even provided boats to ferry the "barbarians" across
Gibraltar. And having done that, Rome effectively lost control
of its African provinces, never again regaining them. Deprived
of grain from Africa, Rome's economy went into a tailspin.
As soon as Rome became Christian, it started to self-destruct,
which I am sure was *not* an unintended result  on the
part of the "other-worldly"!


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
       
                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:25:07 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
> In article <2265@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:
> >In a homosexual relationship, no procreation can occur.
> 
> Very good. So what?

I believe that children are an integral part of the family.  There
is no substitute in life for raising children; anything that leads
people away from this, I believe, is not a good thing.

> >In addition, the individuals have their desires turned toward one with 
> >whom they can never conceive a child,
> 
> Do you imagine that people who don't breed are somehow unfulfilled?

As an extremely broad-brush statement, yes.  Disclaimer-city:  Many
people who have kids are less happy than those who don't.  However,
for anyone who is in some given state of fulfillment, it could be made
better by having and raising children under the right circumstances.

> What's the difference, in God's eyes, between a
> couple that won't procreate and one that can't. 

It's a difference of intent.  Are you doing the best you can with what
you have, or are you being selfish with it?

> How about between
> a homosexual couple and a sterile heterosexual couple? 

I would say that, much as the family is an integral part of our happiness,
and as children are an integral part of the family, men and women are also
best off in the proper relationships together.  Before you stretch this 
out into all sorts of logical absurdities, please re-read my disclaimers
above.

> The bottom line is that the "perversion" in
> homosexuality rests solely on the fact that its existence bothers you.

What do you base that on?  Who's generalizing about someone else's life now?

> >and thus are turned further away 
> >from anyone with whom they might build a heterosexual relationship.  
> 
> Do you imagine that homosexuals are really just heterosexuals gone
> astray? That if they really, reeeeeally try they can go "straight"?

Despite what is popularly bandied about today, an adult's sexual 
orientation is by no means frozen.  People move among and between a
whole host of sexual orientations all the time.  Just as people who 
have enjoyed heterosex for years sometimes begin to enjoy homosex, there
are cases of those who have gone the other way (and many other ways too).

> Sometimes I wonder if these feeble anti-gay arguments (inadvertently)
> serve a sort of world-inoculation process. You know, introduce a weak
> pathogen to stimulate antibody production.

Exactly what do you find so feeble about what I believe, other than
the fact that it clearly bothers *you*?

> Peter M. Yadlowsky 



--
                    Mike Sellers       mike@isgtec.com
                        User Interface Team Leader
                    ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
            "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:24:25 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <MIB.92Apr6094718@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

>Koff, koff, koff.  There are at most a half-dozen texts in the Bible
>which could be read as opposed to homosexuality, and that by a very
>relaxed criterion.  On the other hand, participating in the worship of
>idols is lambasted hundreds and hundreds of times.  
>
>Michael Innis Bushnell	 

I am rather sure that there are more than a half dozen references to
homosexuality in the Bible.  Some of them are duplicated in more than one
book, like, He that lies with a man as one lies with a woman is worthy of
death, or Cursed is he who lies with a man as one does with a woman.
Both of these are probably mentioned about two or three times each, I would
guess, since they are mentioned in different books of the Torah.

Also, there is the account of Sodom.  The people probably thought they
were trying to sleep with men of the same sex.  I think there is a
similar story in Judges, in which some peopl of a town wanted to sleep with
a guest.  Then, you have to look up all the references to a particular
usage of "dog" as it applies to male prosititutes.  There are 
condemnations of homosex among the Hebrews in the Old Testament, that 
declare it to be a sin worthy of death.  

The New Testament also condemns homosexuality.  The criterion need not be
relaxed.  
Look at Romans 1:26-27  (I only have a KJV with me.)
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women
did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
their lusts one toward another: men working with men, that which is 
unseemly, and recieving in themselves that recompense of their error
which was meet."
In verse 25, Paul describes such things as "to dishonor their own bodies 
between themselves."

Paul also condemns homosexuality in I Corinthians 6, where he
writes that they who practice this sin, and other sins will not inherit the
kingdom of God.

Does anyone know if the word translated "effiminate" in the KJV 
( think it is something like "malakos" in Greek) can refer to a catamite,
or "submissive" participant in homosexuality.  I have seen it
translated as male prostitute.  Does anyone know the background of the word.
Link Hudson.
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:58:57 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr11.042221.25307@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>>It is not a matter of the "morality
>>of homosexuality", as if the only issue is that gay people stand
>>accused, and the question is, can they get off?  To me it is also a
>>question of the morality of the kind of judgmental and condemnatory
>>attitude you bring to the issue.

>I think you are thinking of someone else.  Never have _I_ said that gay
>people were damned for their gayness, or that they could not be
>Christian, or that they needed to be reached for Christ.  I have wondered how
>effective _they_ can be for Christ, but if you read my later posts you will
>see that I have "mellowed out" quite a bit.

You seem to think this means I should not be addressing these issues
with you because of this--whereas, this is precisely why I am. You do
not seem to me to be from my point of view a hopeless case--you aren't
precisely singing the Horst Wessel Lied on this issue, and also seem
to be really serious about your religious life.

What you show no signs of doing so far as I can see is rethinking your
unquestioning assumption of moral superiority and a right of judgment on
this issue, which is what I was talking about.

>I have learned quite a bit through this discussion, but never did I dwell on
>sin or judgement - rather on not living the fullest life for Christ.

Well, perhaps you think I have been too harsh myself, but it seems as if
you are almost unaware of the meaning and implication of the things you have
said. Have you wondered at all at the anger which has greeted ypur remarks?



--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date:  9 Apr 92 19:21:10 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:

> [[ Ok there are some religious practises that are regulated by the government
>    However, there isn't a Minstry of Religion  ]]

Sure there is!  It's a joint venture of the ACLU and the Supreme Court! 

:-) (for the humor impaired!)

 -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: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:20:30 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

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

>>You remind me of the Gospel Pharisees, those blind guides who slam the gates
>>of heaven in mens' faces and yet fail to enter themselves.

>	In what way ? 

In that you proclaim my denomination not only to be false, but one of
"Satan's favourites."  You are slamming shut the kingdom of heaven when you
yourself will not enter...

 -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: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:05:06 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <18284@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>I don't believe it is possible to be totally vulnerable like
>this without Christ.


  Yet, there are an awful lot of people who are. 




	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:44:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr16.132047.16186@umbc3.umbc.edu>
shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:

>Christians in the US do not have a long history of being victims of
>blood-libels; thus, it is easier for Christians (than for Jews) to
>let such accusations pass as rhetoric.  If you were living in a country
>in which Christians had suffered because of such rhetoric, you would
>be more sensitive.  (Not meant as a flame,  but as an explanation.)

This response fails to ask the question of who your enemies are. The
idea that gays are going to be inflamed by this kind of talk to the
extent of being dangerous is a little bit silly. So far as any kind of
protest activity has happened, it has been directed at the Catholics.

On the other hand, most if not all of us are living in countries where
gays have suffered from our own version of blood-libel. And we see the
same faces pop up producing the libel. As you may or may not be aware,
there is a self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi on the net. Aside from defending
Hitler, his favorite activity seems to be attacking gay people. Do you
think this an accident? Synagogues are defaced or burned down from
time to time. So are gay-positive churches such as MCC. Is this an
accident? What kind of people do you think the real antisemites
are--people angry about their Catholic upbringing, or the kind who
burn down churches and synagogues or defend Hitler?

People who care about antisemitism might bear in mind that these same
people are likely to be anti-gay. And it isn't an accident. Nor is it
an accident that the suicide rate of gay teens is so much higher than
straight ones. This is a serious issue, not one that should be swept
aside as not important.


--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 11:11:15 EDT
From: Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible
 <1992Apr2.185906.14832@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <2304@isgtec.isgtec.com>
 <92097.072747QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> <ku1r0pINN32a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>

In article <ku1r0pINN32a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hyperon.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric
Marsh) says:
>
>In article <92097.072747QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling)
>writes:
>>In article <2304@isgtec.isgtec.com>, mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) says:
>>>
>>>[...]
>not have children, and choose not to have children. There are those
>such as Tim who believe that {children == bliss}, and they seem to
         ^^^
[...]
>claim it is. People like Tim can talk all they want, but I'll settle on
                          ^^^
>the emperical evidence myself.
>

Eric,

Please get the attribution right - Mike was the one pushing the
children == bliss train of thought.  I agree with your post, and
know a number of couples without children who are very happy, and
some with children who aren't.

-Tim
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Just A Thought:Needs no reply.
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:53:43 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Mar29.155816.2025@stat.appstate.edu>, grs02502@stat.appstate.edu
writes:
> 
> In the beginning .... (fill in the blank with your answer).
> Now, it is obvious that you base your entire life around the answer to this
> question by the choices that you make.  Now, prove this statement.
> Can anyone, whatever the answer might be?  Is anyone willing to live or die
> with the consequences if they are wrong?  In other words, atheists, agnostics,
> or whatever live their lives bases on **FAITH** in something.  This something
> may be faith that there is no God, but it is faith none the less.  As a
> christian, I choose the faith that there is.

I choose the faith not to believe in Christianity based on a big pile
of personal selection statements. As such, what's so special with faith
anyway, I don't think humans are finite state machines?

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc