HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:52:56 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <22815@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <53207@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
>writes:
>
>> 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.

You don't have to take it - it is your choice.

Our children do inherit our world, but one day this world will be gone
and there will be a new one where only those bought by the blood of the
lamb, Jesus the Christ, will be able to live.

Eternal life would be human egosim, if it was an extension of what we know
today, but it will be different. 

     WE WILL BE CHANGED - WE SHALL BE INCORRUPTIBLE.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:38:15 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <17795@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
writes:
> In article <22583@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> Jeremiah circa 629 B.C.:
> Behold the days come, says the Lord that I will make a new 
> covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of 
> Judah. (Je 31.31)
> 
> Hosea circa 785 B.C.:
> ...and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was
> said to them:  You are not my people, there it shall be said
> to them:  You are the sons of the living God. (Ho 1:10)
> 
> Now, did Paul really make this up?

No, he implemented the new covenant, something that even Jesus
didn't dare to talk about that much. Remember his promise
not to break any of the existing rules of the law (how *many* times
do I need to repeat Jesus' words?).

Cheers,
Kent
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
	<1992Apr8.020203.12162@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>
	<1992Apr8.195454.27979@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:49:15 GMT


I'll leave it to others to point out that not all gay people have anal
sex.  Oops; I just pointed it out myself.  Never mind.

To address your sentences, one by one:

In article <1992Apr8.195454.27979@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

   So God intended for some males to stick their !@#$!@ up another males
   #$@#$234.... 

Well, yes.  In much the same way God intended for some males to stick
their !@#$!@ up a woman's #$%($##.  (Gee, isn't using infantile
cicumlocutions *fun*?)

   To what end?  

Why, to the same ends as straight couples' sex: for the enjoyment of
yet another part of God's glorious creation, and for the furtherance
of loving relationship.

   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.

   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.

--
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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: International Rights Question (was JW booklet)
Originator: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
	<1992Mar31.102359.6713@cs.joensuu.fi>
	<1992Apr1.181033.626@gboro.glassboro.edu>
	<1992Apr4.090517.13891@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:54:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.090517.13891@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>In article <1992Apr1.181033.626@gboro.glassboro.edu>, kilroy@gboro (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>>1) Does Finland really jail people for libel?

>You can get a jail sentence for disturbing religious belief if you put
>to shame something that's held sacred in a religious group in Finland
>or for spreading infromation insulting a certain ethnic or racial or
>national group, so it does seem quite possible that people could be
>jailed for libel (I haven't checked for the laws).

I just did.  Yes, it is possible: up to two years imprisonment
or fine.  Wow.  I don't think anybody has actually been imprisoned
for it anything like recently, though.
--
Tapani Tarvainen    (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, and Christianity
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:58:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.175349.29910@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>I really love how you reach for the heart of the matter, Ken.
>Now, do you have anything meaningful to say about Jack's article?

Meaningful?  Someone claims I'm a bloodthirsty killer, and I'm supposed to
respond to it _meaningfully_?  Get real.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:46:44 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In article <xqdHjzmm6@cs.psu.edu>, kiledal@lisp.cs.psu.edu (Erik Kiledal)
writes:
> There is no controversy between the creation story and science. The
> virgin birth was a miracle, not an error. [The virgin birth cannot be
> _proven_ to be either true or false.]

Kent Sandvik (ksand@apple.com) writes:
>Thus the virgin births of Mitras and Buddha were also miracles, or what.
>They can't neither be proven true or false. If my wife tells me that
>she is expecting a baby, and we have not had sex for 9 months, then 
>I guess it's also a miracle :-).

Yes.  It would be a miracle Kent, especially if someone nearly eight
centuries before you predicts that your wife will be expecting and
also predicts what you will name that child.  How would we know that
those predictions (or prophecies) pertained specifically to your child?
...maybe if your child does fulfill many many other prophecies down
to small ones like none of his bones would be broken even though his
method of death specifies breaking of bones if death does not occur
by a certain hour.

Terence
From: 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:05:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sgrliINNn30
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <xqdHjzmm6@cs.psu.edu>, kiledal@lisp.cs.psu.edu (Erik Kiledal)
writes:
> There is no controversy between the creation story and science. The
> virgin birth was a miracle, not an error. [The virgin birth cannot be
> _proven_ to be either true or false.]

All kind of statements can not be _proven_ to be either true or false.
As for instance: " Mother Teresa is a Martian". However, just because they
can not be proven either way, there is no REASON to believe in them. 
We may WANT to believe in them, and then we say we had a REVELATION, which
is fine ! We have all kind of rights in this country, why not then the
right to experience a REVELATION? There is though a deep controvery between
science, which says:"immaculate conception has not been observed and is 
apparently impossible" and religion, which says:"since one can not_prove_ it
does not exist, then it MUST be true that it does" - and, if you happen to
doubt it, you'll rot in hell...      


Cheers!

-- 
Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
Department of Economics
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:51:03 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <54098@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
> Oh, you might note that the Son, Jesus, is called God here in Hebrews 1.

.. by Paul.
 
> Sure we can have our own thoughts, but what makes them worth while?

Maybe staying alive on this planet?

Cheers,
Kent
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 00:25:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.225148.857@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>I don't know what your definition of normal is, but non-penile-vaginal sex is
>not natural.

Says who?

>Sex five times a day?  No, because this also is not normal (I
>realize normal will be different for different people) and is what I mean by
>getting wasted [in fleshly desires].

Straw man.  The only person who even imagines such "getting wasted"
is you.

>But of course!  They are one!  All the same do I masturbate just because I am
>all my own?  Would this be the best use of God's time which he has given
>me?  Do you see that even within marriage on can get carried away?

Yeah, so what?  The biggest problem in most marriages is not
"getting carried away" but "getting carried" at all.

>Normal means whatever God convicts you of, but some things I know God would
>not convict anyone of because it is not coherant with the nature of himself
>which he discloses throughout the Bible. i.e. homosexuality and some
>heterosexual acts.  There is something to be said for just "knowing its
>wrong" you know - in fact there is your conviction.

That seems to be YOUR conviction, but you're not going to impress
me if you just say "I know it's wrong".  Keep it to yourself, please.

>Do you think that anything goes then?  (I am genuinely interested in
>opinions, and my mind has been changed before, believe it or not :-)

WHY are you so focussed on "anything goes"?  Talk about "a lifestyle
revolving around sex".  It's truly perverse.

>Not bad, but less than the best.  The "new man" in Christ for some means
>giving up all fleshly desires and following the calling of the Spirit without
>the cares of the world (don't have my Bible here or I'd quote).  In fact, it
>is for any who don't feel that God's plan of marriage is for them.  Getting
>back on track - wouldn't you say that homosexual individuals (assuming they
>ARE and not CHOOSING) are called in this direction?

Not all people are called to celibacy.  That is a charism, or gift of
the spirit.

>I guess it becomes
>rather important whether or not they are just that way.  I cannot point to a
>verse that says "God did not make anyone homosexual by nature" but
>_everything_ that I have learned about God's nature in my Christian walk
>points to this being the case.  Any thoughts welcome, as usual.

Yeah.  God said something else to me.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:33:21 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <adams.703197674@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> Why?  Because Leviticus does not apply to Gentiles.  We're not covered by
>> that Law.  And as for Paul, my understanding of the texts is that the Greek
>> is unclear, and cannot be translated directly to 'homosexuality.'  Perhaps
>> one of the NT Scholars who does NT Greek can be of assistance here.

>So if you are only covered by the worlds of Jesus (and Paul), how do 
>you then deal with this cite:

>Mark 16:17-18:  
>"And these signs shall attend those who believe: in my name they shall 
>cast out devils; they shall speak in new tongues; they shall take up 
>serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them..." 

When these things are needed by God for his work, they are provided.  The
Roman Catholic Church will still perform exorcisms, BTW.

As for the last two, I cannot demonstrate them out of hand, since to
attempt to do so would to be testing God, which I am forbidden from doing.

Is this rational enough? :-)


>It should also reflect something about how the
>church has problems with homosexuality and many other new issues which 
>pop up in our complex modern society. There are no direct and clear answers.
Again, note well that some Christians *are* dealing fairly and tolerantly
with homosexuals, just as we would any person, as instructed by Christ.
Please don't paint all of us with the broad brush...

 -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: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:09:12 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

> 	False religion can only produce works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21 :
> 	"fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of        
> 	spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, 
> 	divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like 
> 	these." and the true religion produces fruitages of the spirit  
> 	(Galatians 5: 22,23 : Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, 
> 	goodness, faith, mildness, self-control."). 

Kent Sandvik writes:
>So if you follow the true religion, why are you then so angry and sad?

Kent,
Why do you and so many others believe that for a religion to be true,
following it will put a permanent smile on your face?  You seem to
be looking for a drug not a religion.  Religion may simply liberate
someone to be "transparent."  Honesty and courage are required to
freely disclose anger or sadness.  Strength is required to conquer
that anger or sadness too.  It would be difficult to maintain
a relationship of sorts with God (or your spouse for that matter)
by having a need to hide anything.  For me, God (especially Christ) has 
become a LIMITLESSLY abundant source of strength to be "transparent."
I don't believe it is possible to be totally vulnerable like
this without Christ.

...And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
(Mt 28:20)

If He or any of His servants are sad now, maybe it is because you're 
rejecting the abundance of life that He has won for you.

Terence
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs vs. Christians
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:44:26 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Mar30.162148.19567@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> 	Then, if you seek magazines that are FOR transfusion, you'll surely 
> 	find many of them. The only problem is that they're outdated or 
> 	contain old information. When a surgeon does his decision, he must 
> 	have the benefits and drawbacks of blood-transfusion constantly in 
> 	his mind. Usually he does the easy, but dangerous operation to the
> 	patient instead of using the newest knowledge and new equipment. 
> 	Our literature tells that operation without transfusion is more 
> 	challenging to the surgeon, but it's better to the patient. Doctors 
> 	are human, too: They don't want to be told what they should do. 

Andreas, we are *not* talking about magazine articles, or Bible cites.
We are talking about people whose life has been saved with the help
of a blood transfusion, not with the word of God. 

Try to walk around with 10% of your blood left in the body, I guess
you really need a miracle then.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:10:32 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

>In article <22966@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>   In article <54098@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
>   writes:
>   > Oh, you might note that the Son, Jesus, is called God here in Hebrews 1.

>   .. by Paul.

>Nope.  Hebrews is anonymous, certainly not written by Paul, most
>likely written by someone acquainted (or part of) the Jerusalem
>Church. 

Support for Mike from the intro to Hebrews in the NIV:


"    ...The earliest suggestion of authorship is found in Tertullian's `De
Pudicitia`, 20 (ca 200), in which he quotes from 'an epistle to the Hebrews
under the name of Barnabas.'  From the letter itself it is clear that the
writer must have had authority in the apostolic church and was an
intellectual Hebrew Christian well versed in the OT.  Barnabas meets these
requirements.  He was a Jew of the priestly tribe of Levi (Acts 4:36) who
became a close friend of Paul after the latter's conversion.  Under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church at Antioch commissioned Barnabas and
Paul for the work of evangelism and send them off on the first missionary
journey.

     The other leading candidate for authorship is Apollos, whose name was
first suggested by Martin Luther and who is favored by many scholars today.
Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth was also a Jewish Christian with notable
intellectual and oratorical abitilies.  Luke tells us that 'he was a
learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures' (Acts 18:24).  We
also know that Apollos was associated with Paul in the early years of the
church in Corinth (I Corinthians 1:12, 3:4-6,22)."

  -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: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs vs. Christians
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:27:04 -0700

[stuff deleted]
> 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.
[...]
> Answer this question, please, directly:  Do you still maintain that
> the various Witness committees who study the medical viability of
> blood transfusions are more competent to judge in that question that
> any medical expert or profession I might name?
>
> If so, why should I believe that?
>
> I say this because I have already read a great deal of what the
> Witnesses have written on the subject of blood transfusions.  I find
> it to fall into two distinct categories:  Biblical exegesis and
> pseudo-medical tripe.
[...]

        Please Andreas, please answer the ORIGINAL question.  You made a
statement that JW experts reading medical journals are more qualified than most
doctors in the area of blood transfusions.  Several people (myself included)
have asked for you to qualify this statement, and have yet to see any results.
If you have no plans to qualify your original assertion please tell us so, but
might I suggest that you do not post statements as facts if you do not or
cannnot validate them.

-Mark
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: More on Mormon temple ceremonies
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:46:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.175453.11361@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>But if I am given a choice between an opinion which is informed but
>possibly biased and one which is UNinformed but possibly biased, I'll
>take the informed one.

Maybe instead I should take a look at statements made by _both_ pro- and anti-
Mormon writers and decide from them?  You seem to want me only to consider one
group of possibly biased people, and ignore another.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: MORALITY IN GENERAL...
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:30:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.105303.12969@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <MIB.92Apr15100626@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>>Basically, it comes down to this: if I take steps to avoid pregnancy,
>>STD's, and emotional scarring, and none of them in fact result, does
>>that make sexual promiscuity OK?  If not, then you have not yet
>>answered the question about why it is harmful.

[speech deteled for space]

Wow John, I'm not sure where to start...how about:

>Lets face it - we _need_ the Bible!  I cannot express how
>dissapointed I am to see so many of God's own turning away from the most
>precious gift He has given us next to Jesus Himself...

You need to remember a few things. Not everyone views the bible as inerrant,
not everyone agrees with your translations, and mostly, not everyone
understands what they read the same way you do.  You have yet to come
even close to answering the question Mike asked above, all you've done
is fall back into bible-thumping mode.   

Just because people don't accept your fundamentalist approach to the
scriptures, doesn't mean they don't respect them.  Just because 
people don't accept your fundamentalist interpretations, doesn't 
mean they don't care what God thinks.  

Did you ever think that maybe this whole subject is like the old
'meat sacrificed to idols'?  Acts 15:20 forbids it; yet Paul says
there is nothing wrong with it, it is just meat.  

Just as there was really nothing wrong with the meat, you and
the other fundamentalists who have posted on this topic have
not shown that sex, either homosexual, or hetro in ways you
find "unnatural" (like oral) is bad.  

Just as the Pharisees followed the law to the point of injuring
others, I feel you do the same to homosexuals.  

If you could approach the subject from the point of view of
those you are trying to reach, your work might be worthwhile.
But you seem totally unable to approach the matter from 
anything but a fundamentalist, bible-thumping view; thus,
you are totally unable to reach those you want to reach.                     

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com