HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:02:38 GMT

In article <53896@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>There is a way that seems right unto man,
>    but the end there of is death. (Proverbs)

Does the path you choose seem right to you? Are you a man?


uh oh.


It seems then that the true, saving faith must be based on something so
absurd and disagreeable that nobody in their right mind could believe in it.
If you don't follow it, you're dead. If you _do_ follow it, then it has
become "right unto man", and you're still dead. Oh dear. Perhaps the time
would be better spent finding a way to deal with one's impending death.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |         Laden e-mail runs
Academic Computing Center       | Bumbling, creaking through the net
University of Virginia          |         Sysadmins tremble.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Buson
From: towfiq@FTP.COM (Mark Towfiq)
Subject: Re: Why is free will so necessary?
Reply-To: towfiq@FTP.COM
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:54:25 GMT

>>>>> On 11 Apr 92 21:48:04 GMT, davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David
>>>>> Choweller) said:

dc> You say that "to be perfected" we *must* endure hardships and
dc> experience the effects of evil.  I don't see why we *must*.  An
dc> omnipotent God could have created us perfect.  Do you see my
dc> point?  If indeed there is a rule that we *must* endure hardships,
dc> who made this rule?  Didn't God make the rule?  Why doesn't he
dc> rescind it?

  This is an eternal question which has indeed been the obsession for
mankind for many years.  Baha'u'llah explained this idea in the Book of
Certitude:

     Meditate profoundly, that the secret of things unseen may be
   revealed unto you, that you may inhale the sweetness of a spiritual
   and imperishable fragrance, and that you may acknowledge the truth
   that from time immemorial even unto eternity the Almighty hath tried,
   and will continue to try, His servants, so that light may be
   distinguished from darkness, truth from falsehood, right from wrong,
   guidance from error, happiness from misery, and roses from thorns.
   Even as He hath revealed: "Do men think when they say 'We believe'
   they shall be let alone and not be put to proof?" (Qur'an 29:2.)

	-- Baha'u'llah, The Book of Certitude
--
Mark Towfiq, FTP Software, towfiq@FTP.COM, W:+1 617 224 6275, H:+1 617 488 2818

O YE SEEMING FAIR YET INWARDLY FOUL!  Ye are like clear but bitter water, which
to outward seeming is crystal pure but of which, when tested by the divine
Assayer, not a drop is accepted.  Yea, the sun beam falls alike upon the dust
and the mirror, yet differ they in reflection even as doth the star from the
earth: nay, immeasurable is the difference!
		-- The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah
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 16:21:47 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>OH BULLSH*T!  Please explain to me, a member of the Evangelical Lutheran
>>Church of America, exactly where my religion teaches lying, stealing, etc.
>>And where it is 'allowed.'  Come on, Antti, let's see it.

>	Here about 86 % of people are 'Lutheran', baptized as children. About
>	2.5 % of them go regularly to the church. The church taxes everyone of
>	it's 'members' that have been forced to join this dark religion. The
>	church is like a mafia, owns land and has political power. Lutheran 
>	priest blessed the soldiers in Winter War 1939-1940 causing a massive
>	bloodshed. Eljas Simojoki, a Lutheran priest, was one of the major 
>	characters of fascist IKL (National Patriotic Movement). 
As I suspected, your real problem is with the status of 'Lutheranism' as
the official state religion.  Take this up with the secular authorities.
We had a bit more forsight on this matter here about 200 years ago...

>	As mafia, the church blackmales money from companies. You pay to the 
>	church from every litre of milk. 
I don't.  You do.  Our society has had the good sense to restrict the
control of religion by the government AND the control of government by
religion.  Do not blame the failures of a State religion on followers of
Lutheran theology.

>	A true follower of Christ doesn't take part to this Satanic intrigue.
Well, since I don't, I'm not.  Guess I'm in good shape!

 -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: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: TRADITION IS NOT THE BASIS FOR CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:46:40 MDT
Organization: Utah State University


John, why have you resorted to SHOUTING (ie: all caps) and
breathless (ie: !!!!!!!!) subject headers of late?  

-- 
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.comics
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: SANDMAN: LUCIFER'S NAME
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:24:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.182932.8819@eskimo.celestial.com> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
>    Well over 99% translated? NOT!  What's the reference for the English
>language version of the Dead Sea scrolls that I can just run out to my
>local bookstore and buy?  I don't happen to know which version of Genesis
>the Scrolls contain.  (Anyone know fer sure?)  But certainly the Dead Sea
>Scrolls are much older than the traditional Old Testament / Torah stories
>and thus the MOST ORIGIONAL existing versions.
They are pretty much the same text, actually.
The differences are pretty minimal.

>    I have heard references to Sumerian stories similar to Genesis which
>are more similar to the Gnostic version than the currently accepted versions
>which indicates that the Gnostic versions may indeed the closer to the
>origional.
Not that I've heard of, and I've read the Sumerian creation myth.
I would be rather surprised if the Gnostic myth weren't a later
creation, considering how ornate and complex it is.

-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:25:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.132146.18013@apollo.hp.com>, smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
>In article <1992Apr10.113257.26239@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	Jesus explained that a false tree grows false fruits and a right tree
>>	grows right fruits. 
> 
>That must mean that since so many JWs have fallen into immorality and been 
>disfellowshipped for it, the JWs are a false tree?  And that since Mother 
>Theresa is a product of a Catholic upbringing, the Catholic Church is a right tree? 
> 
>Is it really that simple?  :-)  <- for the humor impaired...
> 
Of course not, take the appropriate "Andrea" answer from the following...
  a) Everything you just said is rubbish, and a conspiracy against the JW's,
     you false fruit you!
  b) prove it.
  c) yes
  d) no
  e) No JW has ever been disfellowshipped!
  f) Those that were disfellowshipped were not really JW's to start with.
or my personal favorite
  g) Yes and No.  What you said is all rubbish but no JW's that were 
     disfellowshipped were ever Jw's anyway and you can't prove it so 
     n'yah, n'yah.
(Insert Andrea's Sig here)
---
Stephen McLeod     
The Eternal Student
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:34:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.203348.11660@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>I _did_ say that homosexuality has
>more negative consequences than many sins, the biggest of which is a focus on
>being gay rather than on serving God.

Where do you get off making a statement like that?
What do you know about being gay OR serving God?
All I see is a lot of ignorance around both.

>If you admit that homosexuality is a
>sin, but do not believe it is any more serious than eating certain meat,
>_then_ your argument holds.

Any gay person who believes their state or actions to be _a priori_
sinful has a lot of work ahead of them.

>But can you honestly say that being gay won't
>keep you from living the way God wants you to live?

You haven't been listening, have you?

>Tell me something... Do
>you get more upset when people slam your sexuality or when people slam
>Christianity?  I hope it is the latter, and if not - your interests are in
>the wrong place.

The only people I hear who slam Christianity are people who are
reacting, quite legitimately, to the kind of Christianity best
exemplified by someone like you.  This, of course, is not a
slam against Christianity.  It's a slam against misguided people.

>After all, I am not an authority on anything,
>just presenting what the Bible says to me.

No, you are not an authority on Christianity, sexuality or homosexuality;
we've established that.

>I do not doubt that you love this person more than anyone could love
>anything.  BUT (you knew that was coming :-) this type of love does not have
>sex in its plan from everything that I have been convicted of while
>researching this topic.

Er, exactly what WERE you convicted of, and was it a suspended sentence?

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:56:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.151716.7806@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	No you didn't. You promised the send the list, but you haven't sent it.
>	Nevertheless, it's not important. 

So why'd you even bring it up?  Blowing smoke again?

>>What I told you I would do is tell you which JW book contained the prediction
>>for the year 1925.  It was "Millions now living will never Die", written by
>>then JW president, Joseph Rutherford, published by the Watchtower Bible and
>>Tract Society in 1920.  
>
>	Would you be surprized if I've stored all mails you've ever sent to me ?

Not in the least.  I wouldn't be suprised if you told me little green men
with pink elephants chained to them are following you, either...:-)

>	OK, a photocopy will do. 

You're a JW, you know where to get the whole book:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
25 Columbia Heights
Brooklyn, NY 11201   

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:52:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.052931.5892@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>OK, OK... I give up.  I know that homosex (to borrow the term) is
>wrong, and everyone who does it knows its not wrong,
Hasn't it occurred to you that someone must be wrong here?
And it strikes me that you have to show that homosexuality IS wrong.
If you can't support it, perhaps you should admit of the possibility
that your gut feeling is wrong and that homosexuality is ok.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how it would be wrong
even if you were a non-believer.

>I have lost ground, but one think remains untackled (call this a
>last ditch effort):  Assuming (which I do not) that homosex is
>allowed by God, isn't it also confined to two lifetime partners?
Perhaps. Is that the case with marriage? There seems to be some
disagreement about this.

>If not, then its hopeless.  I just hope you guys come around sooner
>or later.  Now to the Mormon thing...  :-)
Great. Now that you're done insulting gays[I'm told by at least
one gay man that gay applies to both gay men and lesbians,
so don't flame me if it doesn't just gently chastise me,
well...maybe you COULD discipline me just a bit....] you're
going to insult another bunch of people who probably haven't
done anything to you. Wonderful.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Creationism and Schools
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:44:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr17.034446.4973
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net


Creationism...evolution...creationism...evolution...

	On and on and on and on........

	First, the term "evolution" is a mis-nomer.  the reality
is a concept called "natural selection".
	Natural selection supposes that if a living thing is able
to survive long enough to reproduce, it will pass on its genes.
If it does not, it will not.  This natural process serves to
eliminate undesirable (or insurvivable) traits.  Examples of
natural selection appear in all facets of living things!
	ie:Spray insects with an insecticide.  Some of the
insects may survive to breed, passing on whatever trait it was
which protected them from the poison to the next generation, which
will be even more resistant to the same poison.  Thus, the poisons
need to be periodically reformulated to remain effective.
	ie:A maple tree's seedpods have "wings" on them to allow
the seeds to float on the air, and avoid landing directly beneath
the parent tree, where its chance of survival would be considerably
less.  Samples of Maple tree seed-pods from the past are measurably
shorter, on average, then those of today.  This suggests that the
seedpods with the longer wings had survived better than those with
shorter wings, thus passing on their traits.
	There are many, many examples in nature, or in any good
biology book.
	Evolution, on the other hand, suggests an internal change
inside a living thing, for no obvious reason, but always producing
a result in the offspring that is somehow superior to the parent.
	There is no objective evidence to support this theory.
	Creationism is a psudoscience, as is astrology.  It is
the biblical story of creation dressed up in scientific terms and
presented as a science, but it fails the two most basic definitions
of science:
	1) It presents no objective evidence to support its theory,
	2) It will not stand up to the rigors of scientific method.

	A more serious problem with creationism, though, is that
it presents a narrow version of the origin of the world, at best.
It also demands an acknowledgment of the divinity of the bible.
	The constitution clearly states that the government will
make no laws regarding the establishment of an official religion.
Teaching creationism in the schools would be in clear violation
of that statement, unless the creationistic stories of all the
worlds religions were given equal time.

Kelley L. Miller
ae642@yfn.ysu.edu
-- 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: acadams@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.comics
Subject: Re: SANDMAN: Lucifer's name and the end of Season of Mists
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:42:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: aplcen.1992Apr9.014238.16733
Reply-To: acadams@aplcen (Arthur C. Adams)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

This thread has ceased to have anything to do with comics. 
Please remove rec.arts.comics from the posting list.
-- 
The world is not analog. The world is digital, just
with an incredible number of bits.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Arthur C. Adams - E-Mail acadams@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Summary: short note
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:53:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T


I apologize that I did not notice my article included the tail end of the
one I was responding to.  However, I feel that the quotation from Paul,
and John's own concluding remark are NOT an inappropriate envoi to my own
observations.  What I will conclude with is a "challenge" to John -- 

suppose you assume that I read the passage you cite from Paul in much the
way you do.  We are, after all, both Christians and both have the tradition
behind us that grants meaning to these words.  *Please* try to understand
that someone might assent to these statments and still disagree with you
on the question of what is, or is not, proper sexual behavior.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr10.193012.6932@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <adams.703020573@spssig>
	<1992Apr12.205812.12909@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<GOEHRING.92Apr14151037@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:55:38 GMT

In article <GOEHRING.92Apr14151037@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:

   I too have the feeling that there's something wrong about gay
   Christians, in that they're Christian.  As far as I'm concerned,
   there's nothing wrong with being gay.  However, I cannot see why
   someone who was gay would choose to be a Christian, considering how
   badly Christians treat gays.  

It so turns out that non-Christians have been more than willing to
persecute gay people just as well as Christians.  Iran is more than
willing to kill people for being gay.  It isn't restricted to Western
religion; gay people in China face precisely the same problems, from
Confucian believers, Taoists, and Buddhists alike.  

It isn't even restricted to religion in general.  Gay people didn't
too well under Stalin or Hitler, Voltaire or Rousseau.  Basically,
throughout most of human history, gay people have been attacked by
whatever the dominant social groups happen to be.  In the US, those
structures have historically been Christian, so you see Christianity
as responsible for the attacks.  

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | The Lord God helps me;
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   therefore I have not been disgraced;
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | therefore I have set my face like flint,
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 |   and I know that I shall not be put to shame;
			  | he who vindicates me is near.
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:46:27 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr7.073434.9253@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>Our first and foremost goal is to see others come to know Christ
>(Great Commission).

Wrong. Our first and formost goal is to love God and our neighbor.

>There is also some verse which states that we are to be acceptable
>members of society so that the gospel will be well received.
>Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is "right", if it is not
>accepted by the lost people that the homosexual Christian is trying to
>reach then it should not be practiced.

Well, there are a lot of people who will not find you as acceptable a
messager if they think you are completly straight. Are you going to do
your Christian duty by them and sleep with men?

What is it about this topic which seems to almost compell people to
say utter nonsense? First Mike Sellar wants me to make some woman
very, very happy by marrying her, and now this.

>I am heterosexual in urge only - I abstain from all sexual behavior.
>I know all about overcoming the desires of the flesh and how hard it
>is.

Well, I know all about it too. And what I discovered is that it is
*not* the key to living a godly life. In fact, it is a complete wrong
emphasis to think this. What is important?

>All I have to say is that their would be no problem if all Christians
>were intent on seeing the gospel spread instead of bickering about how
>much immorality they can get away with.

This is important--not saying such things nor thinking such thoughts.
Do you think you are living an especially godly life if you abstain
from all sex but look upon others as cesspools of iniquity? Sorry, but
it doesn't work that way. That is how you become a blind guide, and
fall into a ditch.

You sound like a person who is serious about the spiritual life--very
good!  But I am a bit concerned that you are not applying your
energies in entirely the best direction.
 














--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:13:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.152254.8046@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes...
>smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Apr6.102851.5857@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>	Indeed I have thought. We don't teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>	loot and terrorize like many others do. That is not natural, its 
>>>	extraordinaire. Judge was, perhaps, worried how these children could
>>>	survive in the world. 
> 
>>( I can just picture this conversation in that Kansas courtroom....)
> 
>>OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>loot, and terrorize?
> 
>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
> 
Which animals fly?

Simply the animals that do fly?

I'm not saying that there are no religions that advance the cause of lying,
stealing, etc.  I am saying, you are not answering the question.  My opinion
of JW's started off neutral but it is dropping steadily as I read their posts.
On the Lionel Tun scale, they are up to about a 6.3 and advancing towards a 10.
---
Stephen McLeod
The Eternal Student
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Saddam Hussein still has a job. Do you?)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Franciscans down a F117A with a prayer ...
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:58:02 EST

In article <1992Apr1.213754.16453@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, zazen@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (East Coker) writes:
> In article <1992Mar31.174515.17622@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>  
> the plane crashed because of error though. 

yeah, but when it comes to causes, "error" is pretty flat beer.
what caused the error?

   ando.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc