HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:24:08 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Oh?  Does that include the US?  How much money would you like to put on
>this? 

	Yes it does. I'm sorry but we don't gamble. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:03:23 GMT


Ken Arromdee writes:
 
>More to the point, there are facts which are both true and unpleasant.  The
>best choice is to believe them, even if you don't like them.  If God sends
>you to Hell for not bowing to him five times per day, then you bow to him
>five times a day [....]
 
And just how is one to determine if that is a *fact*, Ken ?
 
>You have no way of knowing that this hypothetical brain-meddler hasn't meddled
>with the brain of all the prophets either.
 
Well gee; let's just start supposing any old stupid thing that we like, eh ?
 
Let's suppose that the Bible is the product of your boogeyman's friend Billy.
Let's suppose that YOU are not really a person at all, but another boogeyman
living on the wires someplace who likes to distract meaningful conversation
with diversions into groundless recursive suppositions.  Let's suppose that
the three of you are part of a larger party of, say, 14568987493823 beings
just like you who travel through the universe in polka-dotted purple and
pink underwear tormenting less advanced beings, and for your time and effort
you get paid in blue sea shells.
 
After a while, it gets really boring -- and you're left with what I, and I
believe David, have been saying all along: the only thing you know is what
happens to you.  You can be as certain of some things as it is possible to
be, and there is a distinct difference between those things and things which
are only true if you have to believe in them first.
 
> And because these experiences are private and cannot be compared against
> anything else, you can never tell, either.
 
You don't need to tell.  You just need to have them -- and they have to be
housed in a body and mind as free as possible from the need to cast them into
something that anybody else -- even your own self -- can understand.
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs Child Custody booklet, and why a judge might have felt it promoted "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:25:30 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

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. 

		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. 

		Seems you learnt nothing from Palovuori's case and use false 
		quotes against us. 

		How do you explain that I haven't seen any references to this
		booklet in our literature ?

 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr8.195454.27979@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<MIB.92Apr9094915@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr9.230017.2335@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:44:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.230017.2335@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

   >   I think it is _very_ clear that this was not
   >   intended behavior.  

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

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

Actually, my toolbox of proofs *does* include conviction, feelings,
and the like.  And, stunningly, my convictions, feelings, and the
like, lead me to a different conclusion from you about my relationship
with God.  Now, if you knew me, then we might discuss it, but you
don't, and yet, you *still* insist that I'm somehow not in-touch with
God's will for me.

--
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.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Quality of life
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:46:41 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr7.173648.12418@urbana.mcd.mot.com>,
dhammers@pacific.urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Hammerslag) writes:
> 
> In article <22427@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >I have a short and interesting note: Yesterday I realized that my
> >life is really nice, I don't need to worry about the original sin,
> >the devil, placement in hell, wheel of karma, tabuus about women,
> >sexist issues, ten commandments, kosher food, worshipping of 8-legged
> >gods, mantras, inner voices, holy wars or following the right path.
> >
> >What's the name of the religion I follow? It's is called NULL :-). I
> >really recommend it.
> >
> >Cheers, happiness, and joy!
> >Kent
> 
> That was indeed an interesting note.  It got me to thinking:  Like Kent,
> I don't worry about any of those things either.  And, like Kent, I really
> recommend my religion: Christianity.  

Speak about Jung and synchronism - after I posted the earlier note I
got a PBS "we want your money" post order catalogue. They sold T-shirts
with a motto from Campbell, which stated:

"If you follow your bliss, you put yourself on a kind of a track that
has been there the whole life, waiting for you, and the life you
ought to be living is the one you are living".

I think he was right, each one is able to create personal happiness,
some people like religions, other like a more skeptical view,
others a more trouble-free world to live in. My main point is that 
religion itself is not the answer - but personal happiness is the
key to have a great time on this planet.

Cheers,
Kent
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Radical departure
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:40:18 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <adams.702931279@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
> 
> >How about a new newsgroup for those of us (cheers, Kent!!!) who are thinking 

> >clearly? It could be called "talk.life." 
> So any of us who truly believe in God are not thinking clearly?  I don't
> understand how you can claim this to be the universal case.  I for one like
> science, and respect scientists.  Science doesn't get in the way of God any
> more than God gets in the way of science.  I like the physical sciences and
> accept most of the theories promulgated.  
> 
> Religion and science can coexist nicely.  They do not need to be at odds
> with each other.

..not even in the case of homosexuality, where the scientific clues 
point at the fact that homosexuality is hardwired into the brain
*before* the birth...

Cheers,
Kent
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 14:54:53 EDT
From: Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
 <GOEHRING.92Apr14151037@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
 <MIB.92Apr15095538@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
 <1992Apr15.160427.24104@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

One of my old roommates was from Thailand, so I asked him about
Buddhist teachings with respect to homosexuality.  He said he
was unaware of any.  Since he is Buddhist, I asked him what his
impressions of Christianity were, and he commented that he once
attended a Catholic mass once, and was confused that the people
were talking to someone who wasn't there...:) (Hey, that's
basically how he put it..)

When asked how Buddhists deal with homosexuality, he said that
while some people may not like or accept it, it was against the
teachings of Buddha to interfer with their life.  From what he
explained to me, I gained quite a respect for Buddhism.

One big difference I saw between Buddhism and Christianity is that
followers of Buddhism don't try to "convert" people - they talk,
explain, and it's up to the listener to accept or not accept
the teachings with no offense to the teacher.  Followers (believers
might be a better word) of Christianity seem to constantly need
to make converts, and inject their "morals" and "values" into
general society.  (IMO)

-Tim
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Why Mormon temple ceremonies are secret
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<MIB.92Apr10103210@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr10.115605.12435@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<MIB.92Apr10214951@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr11.185223.13793@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:30:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.185223.13793@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

   It's a rather irrelevant question.  You argue from the point of view
   that Christianity passed uncorruptibly from the apostles to the
   bishops to the Pope.  

I do?  My, thats a suprise.  Not at all.  I just don't believe that
either true Christianity has been horribly lost for a great period of
time, or that there has been a secret tradition parallel to the Church
throughout most of its history.

   I don't agree with this assumption, so I don't
   see why the fact that the knowledge is not present in the Catholic
   Church has any detrimental effect on a claim that it was present in
   the early Church.  I argue from a point of view that essential tenets
   of Christianity were lost relatively early in the history of the
   Church.

The problem is that without positing an additional authority, as, in
fact, you do, you can get nowhere.  But that does not help us address
the question of whether there is reason to believe that the early
Church possesed secrets whith were not passed on.  But, as you say, 

   Because, as goes the Mormon contention, there was much of Christianity
   which was not passed on after the death of the apostles.

then why would patristic sources be any help to your cause?  They
would have been as ignorant of such secrets as the Thomas Aquinas or
Martin Luther.

   Obviously, you don't agree with that, and as such expect all
   true Christianity to have been propagated through the Catholic line of
   authority.

No, not at all.  I think, instead, that there is no "big mystery"
covering the history of the Church.  Things are much as they seem to
be.  This is an essential premise to understanding history, I hold,
just as it is essential to trust one's senses to investigate physics. 

--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | Blessed is the King
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   who comes in the name of the Lord!
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | Peace in heaven,
			  |   and glory in the highest heaven!
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:12:00 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <adams.701967705@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> Well, that depends on your concept of Hell.  Actually, rather than a place,
> hell is probably better likened to a state of being.  It is the complete
> absence of God, which is the ultimate torture for a soul.  God removes
> himslef completely from those who are cast away.

Oh, if things where black-and-white. There are many, including me,
that have not need to believe in such Gods, and we don't have the
impression that we are tortured or otherwise tormented, quite the
opposite. I think the doctrine of heaven and hell is the
torture of a soul; thinking about this is certainly a torture for a 
believer always scared to end up in hell.

Cheers,
Kent
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Line and Verse PLEASE
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:25:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: geech.MIB.92Apr6142526
	<1992Apr6.171550.25842@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <1992Apr6.171550.25842@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

   In article <92097.121025MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
   >Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."  from the KJV
   >note that it is _not_ "murder," but is actually "kill."
   >So that's where it says it.

   The KJV is English, not Hebrew.
   The important question is what the Hebrew says, is it not?

Indeed.  I know no Hebrew, but the NRSV prints "You shall not murder",
with "kill" as a footnoted alternative.  Jewish exegesis has always
read it as "murder", and that is what I am told the best reading is.
Deuteronomy 5:17 has the same reading and footnote as well.

--
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
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Oaths & Fervor
Summary: We agree on the details.
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:30:41 GMT


Jay Windley writes about ex-LDS who reveal the details of the temple ceremony:

> I'm willing to concede that they might not be acting out of deliberate
> malice, but they are nevertheless being malicious (or at the least,
> improprietous) and I don't think they are justified in this. 

I do not think one can be malicious without intent; save for that detail, we
agree.  If you had restricted your comments to how their actions turn out,
instead of guessing about their motives, I'd have had no complaints.  People
with the best of intentions can do horrible things with no malice at all.


On his earlier postings about homosexuals, Mr Windley wrote:

> I realized that even though I disagreed with their lifestyle I had no right
> to judge them for it, nor was it my position to accuse them.  I was wrong, I
> admitted it, and made amends. I make no attempt to justify my improprieties.

If you have made such errors, how can you have no patience with others who do
the same things?  Have you forgotten how easy it is to judge and offend when
you are only trying to help?  Have you forgotten so soon how human pride and
impatience can subvert the noblest of goals?

I detected no malice in your earlier articles, but some probably saw them as
deliberately insulting.  You alone know what your motivations were; so it is
with the ex-LDS.  Attributing malice to the ex-LDS, or to you, is unjustified.
How can you be so harsh with people who have only made the same mistakes you
did?


Darren F Provine (kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu)
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
                    (I have no idea who said this; does anybody know?)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Child custody
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:18:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.152418.8179@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	I read the article about Child custody. Nothing was told about lying
>	in the court. 

When they say:

>Be careful that they don't get the impression that 
>they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly, when they
>would show that the first things in life are service and going
>to the Kingdom Hall.

After teaching them that the first things in life *is* service,
you find that honest?

When they say:

>Show hobbies, crafts, social activities,
>sports, and especially plans for the future.   Be careful they
>don't all say that they are going to be pioneers.  Plans can
>be trade, getting married and having children, journalism, and
>all kinds of other things.

After teaching them that the right thing to do is be a pioneer,
that they should put off getting married and having children,
and that they shouldn't waste their time getting a career,
you find that honest?

Why do they have to be careful not to say those things?  Because,
that is exactly what they have been taught to think!

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:02:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>Look around.  Look at society today.  Look at marriage today.  Before the
>sexual revolution, sex outside of marriage was looked down upon.  
Bwaaahaaahaaahaa!  Go read some American History...there was plenty of sex
to be had...much of it outside of marriage.  And before the sexual
revolution made it OK to talk about it in public...Go read about Benjamen
Franklin....he enjoyed the 'company' of 'ladies' very much....

>Notice that the divorce rates were very low.  Look at the divorce rate now.
Because divorce wasn't generally available.  And where it was, adultery had
to be *proven*.  Not a trivial task.  Wives were often thought of as
chattel...that's supposed to be good?  I'm not condoning divorce, here,
just pointing out that your assumptions are way off.  Heck, Jesus said that
divorce was rampant during his day.  Read his comments on divorce...

>Look at how many children are born without having a father present to 
>raise them.  Has this strengthened society.
This happened in the past, too.  Bastardy is not a new invention.
(Please pardon the technical term, no offence intended to kids of single
moms)

>I don't know how many Christians would even agree with your premise that the
>laws God gives are detrimental.  Sometimes it is possible to suffer for
>obedience.  Take martyrdom for example.  Several martyrs refused to deny
>Christ.  They paid with their lives.  Though there were consequences for
>being obedient, the negative consequences for disobedience were greater, and 
>the rewards for obedience is also great.  I suppose many of the martys 
>refused to deny Christ because they loved God, rather than because of
>reward or punishment.
Yes, but God does not require all of us to be martyrs.  And Peter certainly
denied Christ.  Is he roasting in hell because of this?

Is it OK to violate a 'law of God' to save another persons life?  Is it OK
to violate a 'law of God' to save your own life?

 -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: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:53:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Apr14.021759.24826@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>
>Most gay couples would be happy to marry each other.

I don't know if this is statistically accurate.  But from a Biblical perspective
there is no such thing as a same sex marriage.  Marriage that God ordained
and Christ taught about involves a MAN cleaving to his WIFE.  

Suppose there was a man who was "in love" with his sheep, but he did not
want to fornicate with it.  Could he Biblically get married to a sheep?
Can people marry rocks, fish, or trees?  You can perform a ceremony and
call it a "marriage' but this is not what God ordained as marriage

Link Hudson.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:55:20 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <adams.702136431@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> 
>> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> 
>> >Jesus never personally talked with Paul - still he is the key person
>> >in Christianity. That already would make my brain tick.
>> 
>> According to Acts, He did.  Jesus spoke with Paul on the Road to Damascus.

>NOT! Paul had a vision where a voice spoke to him, and he assumed this was
>Jesus. That's a big difference compared with personally speaking with a person,
>something that the disciples of the original church did.

But this all depends on what you mean by personally talked to.  Jesus spoke
with Paul, Paul answered and Jesus spoke more.  Paul had a conversation
with Christ.  Did Paul meet Jesus before the crucifixion? No.  Does that
mean Paul couldn't speak to him?  No.

 -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: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:20:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr14.020618.11476@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>
>Where DID you get this crap, anyway?  A while back you showed SOME sign
>of willingness to listen -- was that a rhetorical ploy, or what?

I am listening, but all I am hearing is the likes of this:

>You have completely taken leave of any reality recognizable to ordinary
>human beings.  I suppose that you still offer a valuable example when
>well-meaning but sheltered individuals suggest that we do NOT face a huge
>threat of bigotry.

If you will tell me "why" I am so far gone...  Or is this a clever
ploy to avoid the issue?

John M.
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:34:19 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <adams.703270029@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	The Lutheran Church, the E. Orthodox Church, the RCC, Jews, Muslims,
>>	Hindus, Buddhists, the Anglican Church, Calvinists etc. etc. 
>
>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.
>

  I'd like to know where Buddhism teaches lying, stealing, ect...




        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