HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: suopanki@stekt1.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:34:12 GMT
	<1992Apr7.152254.8046@cs.joensuu.fi>
	<1992Apr7.191335.11003@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>
	<1992Apr8.130845.1203@cs.joensuu.fi> <adams.702748565@spssig>
	<1992Apr10.113031.26090@cs.joen
Reply-To: suopanki@stekt.oulu.fi
Organization: Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia
In-reply-to: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi's message of Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:30:31 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:30:31 GMT, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) said:

>Huh?  Just because someone claims a certain religion doesn't imply that the
>religion sanctions their actions.  I bet there is at least one JW in
>prison.

Antti> 	None in the so-called civilized world. 

rubbish
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:22:06 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Apr6.020538.4029@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>In article <53590@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
>writes:
>
>	a whole lot of irrelevant garbage; I have seldom seen such an
>	attempt to back-and-fill to avoid the clear consequences of
>	one's previous statements.

I would be able to take your criticisms more readily, if you disputed the
arguments I used and rather than disclaiming them.  Especially by the use of 
words as "irrelevant garbage", "such an attempt", and as Mr. Low is
prone to use "bogus".

Thanks for your follow up posting on your views on and the interpreting
of scripture.  Although I may not agree, it helps understand your position.

>> In article <da8gbgzf@cck.coventry.ac.uk> mtx014@cck.coventry.ac.uk
>(Robert Low) writes:
>
>> >Re: Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9,
>
>> >In article <53188@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>
>> and that he (LUKE) knew what happened and was recording the SAME story?
>
>Well, *one* conclusion is that Luke *didn't* know what happened, and so
>tends to waffle on the basis of what *he* was told, which was contradictory.

I would not say Luke waffled, but it is understood by some inerrantist, 
and I believe even myself, that the book of Acts does not teach theology 
per sa, but records what happened (i.e., it is a historical account.)
The point being is that some things that happened as recorded in Acts are
not necessarily the norm or the advocated Christian practice.

>> For my benefit, I looked up some definitions.
>
>	[ There follows simplistic standard defintions of grammatical
>	  categories, none of them undermining Mr. Low's objections. ]

Another word "simplistic", which was not needed.  

My educational background is not in greek nor languages, as I'm sure 
it is not for most people in this group.  Therefore, I look up some 
foundational definitions pertinent to the discussion. 

Yet, you glossed over the information from Vine's, who quoted Cramer.
This was the meat of my post on the topic at hand.

>> Does the above suffice?
>
>No. You have completely failed to understand the point Mr. Low raised.

I don't think I failed to understand, for I presented another scholar's
view point on the interpretation of the same passages - or was this not
the point in question?  Mr. Low responded to this and if I can, I will
respond to his post.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Line and Verse PLEASE
Date:  6 Apr 92 19:14:52 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>In article <1992Apr6.025907.8226@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just
>drieux) says:
>>
>>1. where does it say 'thou shall not kill'????
>>are you referring to the ten commandments where it
>>says that thou shall not commit murder....

>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.

Yeah, except KJV is a poor translation in many cases.  From the NIV,
including the footnote:

[Exodus 20, NIV]

  "(13)You shalt not murder*"

* 20:13. 'murder' - The Hebrew for this verb usually refers to a premeditated
and a deliberate act.

So while you might have a claim to 'kill', NIV says that the Hebrew verb
usually means 'murder.'  There is a BIG difference.  Other supporting
verses are those that prescribe death as the penalty for violating certain
of God's Laws.  If it is read 'kill,' how then can the penalties required
in God's Law be carried out?

>It is possible to claim that a christian can't kill in any way from this...
>perhaps they shouldn't even eat anything they killed themselves...
Wrong.  You can't just yank this line out of a poor translation, and remove
all of the context.  Look at God's Law in Leviticus.  Tell me that man
isn't allowed to kill.  In fact, man is ordered to kill.

Look also at what God told the Israelites to do to the inhabitants of
Cannan.  Read the book of Numbers, especially Numbers 31, where God
commands the Israelites to begin a holy war with the Midianites.

 -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: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Secrecy (was Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM'))
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 04:10:13 GMT

>	Why should one have to defend his/her religious convictions?  If
>	I were asked to defend mine, I would not be able to do so on any
>	scientific or logical grounds.  I have participated in many 
>	discussions that focused on personal beliefs; it seems that
>	religious convictions in particular are next to impossible to
>	defend, simply becuase of their personal nature.  Explaining 
>	matters of faith in any other context is simply not possible.
>
>	Very little, in matters of faith, can be justified, or proven, in 	
>	any arguable context.  If this were otherwise, there might just 
>	be a clear choice, rather than hundreds of different choices.  
>	Personally, I have heard very convincing rationale behind many 
>	of the beliefs that are characteristically Mormon.  Most of them, 
>	however, could not be proven scientifically.  But, neither could 
>	most of them be satisfactorily refuted.

Why should one have to defend his/her faith?

Try 'cause God says so:

(1 Peter 3:15)

     15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in
   your hearts, always being ready to
   make a defense to everyone who asks
   you to give an account for the hope
   that is in you, yet with gentlness and
   reverence;

I think there is conclusive scientific evidence for Christianity, and even
better philosophical evidence for Christianity.  However I do think that the
various Christian cults (Mormons, JW's, Christian Science, etc) would have a 
problem with this.

John M.
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs vs. Christians
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:10:06 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>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.


		Rubbish.

Or I've been told not to answer with only one word, so 

Rubbish. Rubbish. Rubbish. Rubbish. Rubbish. Rubbish. Rubbish. Rubbish. Rubbish.
Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense.

	Your strategy seems to make small things look drastical. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
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 11:46:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.045914.14379@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>The _Acts of Thecla_ (cf. Brown, or Fox's _Pagans and Christians_) strike
>us a very weird -- and that is itself a measure of HOW DIFFERENT our world
>is from that of Thecla (or her hero Paul.)
Note: I don't think Thecla is actually IN Brown, though it is in
the NT apochrypha.
It is usually pointed out in this context that Thecla was a heroine
of the early church, and that the replacement of Thecla with Mary
as the primary female heroine seems to represent a shift from the
idea that women should be active evangelizers to passive examples
of virtue. [Yes, I'm aware of the RC stories about Mary as an active
follower, but I see no reason to doubt that early Christians,
as most modern Christians, would have seen Thecla as substantively
more active than Mary.]
-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: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:56:46 GMT

In article <2304@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:
>I believe that children are an integral part of the family.  There
>is no substitute in life for raising children; anything that leads
>people away from this, I believe, is not a good thing.

Loads of gay people have children.  Many have them from earlier
marriages.  Many adopt.  Still others (women) arrange for
artificial insemination.

-- 
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: Gay teens, suicide, and Christianity
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:11:34 GMT

In article <92106.114646SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>I am surprised that not even one person has been willing to give
>an example of how they would treat a homosexual child vis-a-vis
>their religious tradition and how they would seek to ensure that
>the child involved did not become a suicide statistic.

That might be because to "moderate" Christians, the idea of rejecting
your child because he is homosexual is revolting.  At least to me it
is.  I admit, if my daughter turns out to be homosexual, I won't be
happy about it.  But she is my daughter first, so even if I may
not be happy about it, I'd love her just as much.  

Actually, that's sort of the way I view our relationship with God...

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: TRADITION IS NOT THE BASIS FOR CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:55:26 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr14.232011.20823@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <MIB.92Apr14151531@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>>As I become more attuned to the depth of the Christian tradition, and
>>its meaning, I have realized this more and more.  Christianity without
>>the Bible is possible; Christianity without the tradition is not.
>
>This is getting ridiculous.  A religion based on what man dreams up about God
>(traditions) does not in any way compare to THE religion which was
>communicated to man by God.  Someone back me up here.

  I'm sorry, but when I look about me, I do not see a single religion
which was communicated to man by God. They all, with out exception,
are greatly influenced by what man does dream up. Please note that I
do not say this lightly because I AM a lover of my Beloved God. But 
by the very fact that all religions have their dark side is more than
enough proof to me that what I am feeling is true. But also, with out
exception, every single religion that I'm aware of has transmitted it's
images of the Divine married to a spiritual tradition. 




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

	David Hatcher
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:00:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <adams.703343127@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>Romans 1:27 condemns men who abandoned 'normal' relations with women and
>were inflamed with lust for one another, and performed indecent acts on one
>another (NIV).

or "in"one another, or "among" one another.

>Sounds like a clear condemnation of lust to me.  And fornication.  As for
>'homosexuality', it may or may not condemn it.  It's not clear to me.

The verse is self-explanatory.
How do you define homosexuality?  

Link Hudson.



> -Steve
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<MIB.92Apr8111651@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <23251@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:05:17 GMT

In article <23251@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

   In article <MIB.92Apr8111651@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
   (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
   > Further, Jesus didn't follow the Sabbath laws himself, and, further,
   > the Torah was never intended for any but the Jews.  Whether Jesus
   > abrogated the Law for Jews is all but a null issue today; it never
   > applied to Gentiles in any fashion, before Jesus or after.

   So why did then Jesus follow the Sabbath rules and attend temple
   ceremonies - just for fun?

He *didn't* follow the Sabbath rules, he *did* attend at least some of
the temple ceremonies.  He followed them, as much as he did, because
that is where he saw authentic Judaism and authentic service to God.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | I give you a new commandment, that you 
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | love one another.  Just as I have loved 
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | you, you also should love one another. By
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 | this everyone will know that you are my
			  | disciples, if you have love for one another.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Catholic Killer on the Loose!
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:25:36 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA


	I think that the Vatican's position on AIDS and sex education
is something like those who objected to lightning rods when Ben
Franklin invented them. Certain clergymen charged that they would help
people escape God's wrath by defusing lightning. When there was an
earthquake in Boston, a certain Rev. Dr. Price delivered a sermon on
how God decided to send an earthquake to punish the people for
attempting to evade his judgments of them with their lightning rods.
However, the popularity of this effort to escape God's wrath has
continued to this day.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Abuse, Persecution, Silence and Closets (was homosexuality)
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:57:27 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

> 
> >The anti-homosexual (biblical) position on homosexuality has been offered
> >many times in this forum.  The pro-homosexual position has also been
> >offered.  There is a fundamental disagreement over the place of the Bible
> >in this matter.  I'm simply here to remind folks that we still disagree,
> >and I personally don't want to see homosexuals is position of power and
> >influence in the church of Jesus Christ.

Sorry, but these individuals are already hiding inside the church of 
Jesus Christ, waiting for the day when homophobia is finally moot.

Cheers,
Kent
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:58:25 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <8044@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> dekorte@next2.scri.fsu.edu (Stephen Dekorte) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.082542.5206@serval.net.wsu.edu>  
>wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:
>> 
>>       TOP 10 BIBLICAL REASONS FOR BELIEVING IN THE DIETY OF CHRIST
>........
>  Fine. Now give us the top ten reasons for believing the bible.

A good reason is that he Bible is not one book, but a compilation
of many books, which were written over many years by many authors,
of which some knew each other, but most did not know each other.
These authors focus on God's plan, which was determined before the
world began.

The Bible from beginning to end speaks to God and his involvement in 
the history of man.  Specifically, how he had a plan for the people
who would follow him.  In the Old Testament, it is told how God
was going to bring a Savior to be the Leader/King of his people. 
In the New Testament, we see the Savior being here and at the end
(in the book of Revelations) we see him coming back to be the King,
the victor over all his enemies, including death.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: International Rights Question (was JW booklet)
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr1.181033.626@gboro.glassboro.edu>
	<1992Apr4.090517.13891@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:53:45 GMT

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

   To me it seems that as USA has much harsher penalties for various
   non-violent crimes such as "computer crime", wire fraud,
   "conspiracies" etc.  apparently designed to be used or at least being
   used against dissidents I'd be surprised if the U.S. laws weren't at
   least as harsh.

The US libel laws are very relaxed by European standards.  In order to
prove libel against a private person, you have to prove that they said
something false (if it is defamatory, but true, there is no penalty),
defamatory.  Libel is ever harder if you are a public person; you then
have to prove a reckless disregard for the truth.


--
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,soc.culture.jewish
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:06:46 GMT


Justifying the hysterical flames that greeted Jack Carroll's earlier article
about homosexuals, Leon Gross writes:

> [S]ome charges are not worthy of answering.  [...]  A response that "this is
> just nonsense" is appropriate. 

If religious Jews have abused homosexuals -- and some certainly have -- then
Mr Carroll's comments are not `nonsense'.

If religious Jews have opposed gay rights legislation, essentially approving
of discrimination against homosexuals -- and some certainly have -- then
Mr Carroll's comments are not `nonsense'.

Homosexuals in the US face a lot of needless grief, for no reason having to do
with public safety or welfare.  Opposing efforts to relieve these problems is
tantamount to endorsing them.  Jewish & Christian groups have been opposing
gay rights legislation, and will probably continue to do so for some time to
come.  If I were homosexual, I would be wary of Jews & Christians myself.

As I said, I'm a Christian: everything Mr Carroll said about Jews he said
about me.  If I can understand why he feels that way, and recognise that other
Christians have given him good reasons to be unhappy with Christians, I do not
know why none of the Jewish people participating in this thread can recognise
that some Jews have given Mr Carroll good reasons to be unhappy with Judaism.

Do you really believe that no Jews have been vocal in supporting oppression of
homosexuals?  None at all?  If someone's perception of your religion is skewed
(as I believe is the case for both Christianity and Judaism), denying that any
of your fellow believers has caused any problems won't help.  Like it or not,
we're both saddled with with members of our respective religions who behave
badly toward homosexuals.  Distancing yourself politely and indicating that
you think those other members are misguided/a minority/idiots is a better way
of responding than insulting people whose perspective of your religion is
influenced by those other believers.  Flaming somebody for his perspective is
`just nonsense'.

Ken Arromdee asked:

> Someone claims I'm a bloodthirsty killer, and I'm supposed to respond to it
> _meaningfully_?

If he called _you_ a bloodthirsty killer, he also called _me_ a bloodthirsty
killer.  If I can respond without flaming, why can't you?

In retrospect, though, I have an answer for the question based on what I
learned from this thread:

    No, you're suppose to flame hysterically and call people names and wail
    about how persecuted you are.  This is a sure-fire way to improve the
    perception of your group, and illustrate how tolerant you really are.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Radical departure
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:58:24 GMT


A significant question....

	What if, for the sake of argument, science discovered
and isolated a physiological cause for homosexuality, say a certain
gene combination or chromosomal pattern.  
	Would the church still be against homosexuality?

	Kelley L. Miller
	ae642@yfn.yse.edu
--
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:22:21 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr8.201632.17913@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>Try to resist the Bible-reach reaction:

  It sometimes seems like some people don't even have their own thoughts. 

  What ever happened to the gathering of ones own wisdom through 
the act of actually going through the spiritual growth process
as one is drawn ever closer to the Divine?

  Or, is all one can hope for are "correct beliefs" as interpreted from 
a book for the total sum of their spiritual knowledge?



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

	David Hatcher


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc