HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Look at the Father through Love
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:46:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <sbuckley.712398594@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>David Hatcher writes:
>
>>Stephen Buckley writes:
>> 
>>>  exactly.  that is the message of the new testament--that jesus will 
>>>reconcile us to god.  this covenant replaces the one of laws in the old
>>>testament.  the new covenant is accepting jesus as our saviour.
>
>>  Which is an act of love and which is why love is also the essence of the
>>new covenant. 
>
>  which, then, is the higher priority for you?
>
>   1.)  getting in touch with the spirit of christ which you see as love
>
>                  or
>
>   2.)  inviting the person of jesus into your heart as the personal 
>        manifestation of god, thereby knowing god's love through jesus.



    The highest priority for me is to grow as close to my Beloved God
as I can, in this life time, where it is needed the most.







        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
                                        Thomas Merton


	David Hatcher
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:07:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.215656.20946@macc.wisc.edu> stmarys@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ted Babcock) writes:
>
>But, while a homosexual orientation by itself is not a sin (to the 
>extent that it is not under one's control), it _is_ considered a 
>physical defect, and so we may conclude that Jesus was not a 
>homosexual, either in practice or "merely" in orientation.

Mind presenting some evidence for this view point? 

If homosexuality was a defect rather than beneficial evolution would
have removed it long ago. There is simply no way a trait that results
in 10% of the population not reproducing will survive unless it enhances
the survival chances of the population as a whole.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Minor Theological question for the UnixForChristGang
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:33:32 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Jul27.032342.27585@wetware.com| drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|] 
|] 	Getting oneself neutered would be an even better solution. No
|] willpower necessary. Jesus Christ himself recommended it -- read
|] Matthew 19:12 on how there are eunuchs who have made themselves
|] eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.
|] 
|] /Loren
|
|
|Minor concern here then,
|
|since the bible Says it,
|do you believe it?
|
|And if so, have you followed this command?
|
|Or are you just another of the SwissCheeseTheologians
|who pick and choose their theology as their Idolatry leads them....
|

  Loren's an atheist, oh-so-quick-with-the-misguided-abuse.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Leviticus study (was sin of shaving?)
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:00:53 GMT
Organization: SPS

(Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>Do you shave your beard?  If so why is it ok to sin in this way? 
>(yes shaving your beard off is against the teachings in leviticus)
 
(Norman Kraft) writes:
>Now I realize that some Christians are fond of saying that Christ in
>the New Testament abrogated these laws, and instituted new laws that 
>they are following.

Paul's teaching in Galatians 3:23-25 applies in this discussion.
Paul tells the Galatians that the Old Testament Law no longer applies to 
them, that they are under a new covenant, one of faith.  Many have concluded
from this that any Old Testament commands not specifically repeated in 
the New Testament no longer apply.

(Norman Kraft) also writes:
> Christ ... in several cases confirmed that the Old Testament laws are still
> fully applicable:  [quotes Matthew 5:17-19]

Christ talks about the law "...not to abolish but to complete them." and 
"not one ... shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved."
I would suggest his aim here is not to keep the O.T. law in force for future 
generations, but to focus on his accomplishments in regard to the O.T. law.
He claims to "complete" them, and implies that the "purpose" of the law is
"achieved" in himself.  By achieving this purpose, he can then usher in a 
new covenant, not of law, but of faith.  Paul then expounds on this in Galatians.
Agree?

For your consideration,

dbw
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Just Curious
Keywords: Luke 14:26
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:05:53 GMT
	<12574@inews.intel.com> <1992Jul30.174555.26702@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>

>>Yes, it is all a matter of playing with words. And these issues you raise 
>>cease to be significant if one is not dogmatic, don't they? Why not "believe 
>>large _parts_ of all religions" as you say? Why not interprete for yourself 
>>the meaning of the written words. 

In article <1992Jul30.174555.26702@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>There is nothing wrong with "believing large parts" of religions.  But be sure
>you know what you're doing.

Of course I know what I'm doing, how could there be any other case? I know I
have the right as a free individual to know what I am doing.

>When you say that you can believe _all_ of certain religions, rather than just
>the significant parts, I'm going to call you on it.  Don't say "all" unless
>you mean "all", not "large parts".

How do you define "all"? Whose interpretation of each religion will be held up
as the standard by which to judge all? Can you really deny that I believe all
of my interpretation of the scriptures of Christianity? Remember, we are always
talking about words written by humans, possibly enlightened humans, but still
humans. When Jesus says in Luke 14:26 that a follower should hate all, what
does that mean? Is that a command? Is that something that must be taken 
literally? Or is it a test of the individual? Follow Him and be free? Isn't that
also a test? What is so difficult about believing all of all religions? It all
depends on who is doing the interpretation, doesn't it? Could it be another
test to see how one can believe all of all religions and not be contradictive?
This dogma stuff is a very tough prison, if one let's it be so. For a free
individual, dogma is for learning, not for literal interpretation, that would
be dogmatic. The free individual is not dogmatic, the free individual is not
constrained by any dogma. There is no prison of dogma, it is only an illusion
put in place as a test. Now, will you follow me and be free?
From: John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:29:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University Medical Center

It's in the genes?

David and Jonathan?

Jesus of the house of David.

Jesus too?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders)
Subject: Re: Ego & belief  (was: Definition of an addict)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:55:38 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <15bpckINNl63@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-*----
>In article <1992Jul30.222021.25223@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>> ... I'd guess you [another person] also reject the higher 
>> power aspect [of 12 step programs], since many people with
>> advanced degrees are atheists with inflated egos. ...
>
>Belief or its lack in the gods has no more to do with "inflated
>egos" than belief or its lack in Santa Claus, "qi," or the
>earth's orbit about the sun.  When believers cannot give a good
>reason for their belief, they resort to attacking those who do
>not believe.  
>
>Russell

Well said.  Thank you, Russell!

Alice
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Slamming the LDS (was: Structure of Time)
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:03:58 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Jul30.130842.57671@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu writes:
> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM writes:
> [...]
>> The 'Space Potato' story is no more or less assaulting to the senses
>> than, say... Joseph Smith's fable concerning the Garden of Eden
>> being located in Missouri, or Noah sailing his ark from the
>> Carolinas.
> 
> Oh no, here we go again.
> 
> Couldn't you used Aesops fables, Norse, Greek, or Mayan mythology
> instead of trying to indirectly slam the LDS?
> 
> I've never heard the one about Nolaunching the Ark from the
> Carolinas before, but Garden of Eden, Missouri, USA I have.
> 

	I believe it comes from the book _The God Makers_.  I have no idea 
where they got this reference, since it has never been taught in the LDS
church.

Take care,

-Mark
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: FOLLOW ME AND BE FREE
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:41:38 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <12548@inews.intel.com>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
> The day of the autocracy of government and religion has past. The time of
> the individual, the time of self interpretation has come. Don't be fooled
> by mere men, especially those that are alive, who claim to have direct word
> from god or the only valid interpretation of religious dogma. It is your
> right and responsiblity to interpret all dogma for yourself. You are the
> individual, now be it. There are many tests along your path on your
> journey, don't be fooled into thinking they are rules. The hardest tests
> are those that appear to be rules and truth. The hardest tests are those that
> appear to come from authority. But the only authority is the authority of
> the individual. Only the individual knows the way. Only the individual can
> pass the tests. Now here is a test: FOLLOW ME AND BE FREE!
                                             ^
                                             |
|--------------------------------------------|
v
Who is "ME". Sounds like the old deceit of the devil to me.

The only authority is that of God and His Word.


	How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you
	are cut down to the ground, you who have weakened the nations! For you
	have said in your heart: `I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my 
	throne above the stars of God..' Isa 14:12-13a NKJV


-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay      
================================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 05:39:36 GMT

In article <Bs5ts9.C6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>Unfortunately, this paragraph has several problems.  First, I believe
>that more recent estimates of the percentage of homosexuals in the
>(U.S., I believe) population are much lower - like, around 2% or less.
>This is pure hearsay, however.  Anyone have more trustworthy data?

It depends how you define homosexual, you can go any where from 3% to
37%. However if you want to look at people who won't reproduce 10% is
probably a good number.

>Secondly, your claim about evolution and homosexuality makes the
>assumption that homosexuality is a genetically-determined state.
>Even despite the evidence supporting this stance which has arisen of
>late, it is far from decided one way or the other.

While there isn't complete proof yet there is significant evidence
for the genetic argument and very little for the environment side (if
its there people arn't presenting it). The only environmental factors
that would be consistant with the twins studies is the conditions in
the womb, however this could still be genetically determined.

>Thirdly, you are resorting to a group selectionist argument for
>the maintenance of homosexuality by evolution - if homosexuality
>doesn't somehow benefit the individual (by benefit I mean solely
>reproductive benefit), it will _not_ spread through natural
>selection.

Extreme group selection is present in many insects such as bees where the
vast majority do not breed. There is no reason why it should be absent in
higher animals. 

>That said, I should say that there is a possibility that this
>reproductive benefit exists.  E. O. Wilson, In _On_Human_Nature_ (a
>very controversial book, I should add), presents a mechanism
>by which homosexuals serve as helpers within kin groups, thereby
>allowing homosexuality to spread via kin selection.  See 50% of
>the columns ever written by Gould for an alternative viewpoint.

Do you know who publishs this? I'm curious if any one has tried
to work out a model that could be tested by comparing its results
to those of various animals.

>[Disclaimer:  None of my statements above are meant to express
>any judgement regarding the morality or "correctness" of
>homosexuality]

Well I won't disagree with that :)

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Going Back in Time to Meet Jesus Christ -- What Would You See?
Originator: lip@s1.gov
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:42:23 GMT


	I decided on this idea because I think that a lot of
theological debate is too rarefied -- what would one actually have
seen?

	Imagine that one was using a souped-up DeLorean, such as the
one featured in _Back to the Future_. First, one takes some crash
courses in survival skills -- how to purify water, how to act
inconspicuous, and other such things. One also takes some crash
courses in the languages that people were likely to have spoken --
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin -- certainly not King James English
:-) (the ancestor of English at the time was an early Germanic dialect
spoken on the North Sea coast of Holland and Germany, a dialect which
would have been uintelligible) -- not, perhaps, to the standards of
the classical Greek and Roman rhetoricians and writers whose work has
survived -- but just enough to get by, like "Where is the nearest
town"? or "How much is that wine?" or "At that price? No way."

	A souped-up DeLorean is probably inadequate; one may need a
similarly souped-up RV. Or even a yacht.

	One somehow gets one's vehicle to Israel, and somehow gets the
time-machine part past Customs. Unless the car was already in Europe,
one would have to send it by ship, and unload it at one of Israel's
ports. But even if it _was_ already in Europe, it would have to be
driven through some countries not exactly friendly to traffic with
Israel.

	Once there, one drives it to the spot where Jesus Christ had
been known to be, probably Nazareth.

	I don't know if any modern Israeli roads follow any ancient
Roman ones, but it makes for good dramatics:

	Late at night, you get in your DeLorean with your buddy and
you start it up on the road. Somewhere down the lines, there are the
ruins of a Roman fort. But you will be going back in time before we
reach the ruins, if all goes well. You drive along, and rev up the
engines at the appropriate point -- 60 mph, 65, 70, 75, 80...

	There are flashes of lightning

	And one notices that the road feels much bumpier, and even
looks lower-quality. You keep on going, and a Roman fort starts to
appear in the light of the headlights -- looking brand new. You drive
past, hoping you don't attract attention, and you drive to an area you
expect not many people to go.

	You two sleep off the rest of the night, and the next morning,
you two put on contemporary clothes and fill your packs with supplies
and walk down the road.

	I was just writing this all out to give some concreteness to
the thought of time travel for exploring history.

	One can certainly consider this question for other possibly
interesting historical events, also.

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:51:42 GMT

John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu writes:

>There is only ONE disciple who was known as the disciple who Jesus loved.

>There is only ONE disciple who is discribed as laying his head on Jesus breast.

>They had a SPECIAL relationship, that is, unlike the relationship between Jesus
>and the other disciples.  Face it.

  so what's the ultimate conclusion?  that god is a homosexual?  so similarly
if i embraced my father in that way, you could conclude that he and i are
homosexual, even though we aren't?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 13 Jul 92 19:33:38 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <1992Jul8.151514.9831@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>
>If he just waved his hand, where would justice be?

Where was it before?  How was having Jesus pantomime human suffering
and death any more complicated or any less trivial than simply waving
his hand?  Omnipotence, eh?



-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:58:55 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:

>		1) The gospels were written by 4 unknown persons - the names
>		Matthew, Mark Luke and John being added later.
But not much later.  Tradition ascribed authorship of the books to men by
these names from the beginning.  This is not to say that these people
acutally wrote the books, but authorship was assigned by the early (2nd
century) church.

>		2) The gospels were written by apparant uneducated persons as
>		there was no punctuation or paragraph separations.
So what?  Just because someone is uneducated doesn't reduce their witness.

>		3) They were written 50-100 years *AFTER* Jesus died! What kind
>		of "eyewitness" testimony is this?
First of all, the LATEST date of any of the Gospels is aprox 100AD, making
it no more than 70 years after.  Early dates for Mark put is around 50, but
not much later than 70AD.  So the real range is 20-70 years.  As for
eyewitnesses, clearly 'Luke' makes no claim to be an eyewitness, but to
have investigated his sources, much like a reporter.

>		4) They are rife with contradictions and plain mistakes (forj
>		example in geographic locations). BTW where is "Calgary"?
'Calvary' you mean?  There are alternate sites.  So what?  As for
geographic misqueus, this would be easily understood if the authors are who
we think they are - John Mark, for example, was writing outside of the
area, and had not travelled with Christ.  His Gospel appears to be straight
from Peter's preaching.  I doubt he consulted a map when he put together
the Gospel.

>		5) The 4 that were included in the "official" Bible are not all
>		the accounts we have - the others from Jewish and Egyptian
>		sources show an even different account of Jesus's life and
>		personality.
Yes, there are.  But they were not accepted by the early church.  They are
avaiable if you want them.  All 'canon' does is establish a yardstick by
which documents are included or excluded from the main collection.  The
canon varied over the years, and the Protestant, Roman Catholic and
Orthodox bibles all differ in canon.

>		6) Why should I accept these accounts as accurate when the Jews
>		that were there at the time did not? 
Faith...that's the only answer!

>		7) There is good reason and evidence to support the fact that
>		Paul was indeed the real founder of Christianity and responsible
>		for much of the myth and folklore surrounding the real Jesus.
Perhaps, but there is no conclusive proof.  Hyam Maccoby built a house of
cards on simple conjecture and some assumptions that are not necesarily
true.  I read "The Mythmaker" and found it to be very weak, and would
collapse under scrutiny.

 -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,talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:37:56 GMT

In article <sbuckley.712397662@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>>Mind presenting some evidence for this view point? 
>
>>If homosexuality was a defect rather than beneficial evolution would
>>have removed it long ago. There is simply no way a trait that results
>>in 10% of the population not reproducing will survive unless it enhances
>>the survival chances of the population as a whole.
>
>  does this mean then that you worship the sanctity and certainty of
>the great god "evolution"?  

Unlike religious people I don't take things on faith I believe in evolution
because it has been observed and can be tested. Please take a look at 
last months Scientific America, or the program I posted to comp.programming.
When religion passes the tests evolution does I might reconsider being
an athiest.

>to claim it is authoritative would be to do so.

Does that mean if I use the elevator in a sky scraper that I worship the
sanctity of the great god "archatecture". I am much more certain of
that evolution works than I am that the archatect wasn't stoned out
his mind when he designed the building.

>do you really have this much faith in evolution?

No I don't have faith in the X-tian sense, I'm not afraid to put
evolution to the test, I don't believe in evolution because someone
told me to , or because I think I will go to hell if I don't.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc