HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:16:01 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <adams.702136513@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> 
> >In article <adams.701193927@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> >> The Levitical Laws were a covenant between God and the Jews.  As such, I am
> >> not a part of that covenant.  I'm a part of the New Covenant, in Christ's
> >> blood shed for me.
> 
> >And Jesus explained this himself in the New Testament? Didn't he explicitly
> >state that he was not going to break any existing laws? Don't you 
> >break the laws stated in the Old Testament just now?  And wasn't it
> >*Paul* (him again) that introduced the idea of a separate covenant
> >for the gentiles, it was needed in order to move the religion into
> >new cultures?
> 
> Jesus in fact overturned some Levitical Laws, cf Matthew 15:16-20 and Mark
> 6:18-23.  In another case, though, he made them stricter, cf Matthew 5 and
> Mark 10:1-12.
> 
> See also Luke 10:25, where Christ speaks of what is needed to gain
> salvation.

Something that many modern Christians don't realize is the strict
adherence to the law of Moses that the original church with James
and Peter adhered strongly to. For instance Christians attended
the Sabbatical temple ceremonies every week.

See my long document about Paul, the Acts and the real beginning
of Christianity, posted real soon now.

Cheers,
Kent
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:57:03 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <adams.701966671@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> >Your thesis is broken on one point - Jesus refers constantly to the
>> >scriptures of the Old Testament as his basis.
> 
>>   There are a number of verses in the Bible where Christ modifies the Old
>> Testament Law.  In some cases He strengthens is, in others He discards it.
>> Look at the verses on divorce, and the verses on clean foods as examples of
>> this.   While the Law is the basis for Christ's teachings, He Himself says
>> that the most important things we can do are love God and love our
>> neighbor.  His comment is that everything in the Law hangs on these two.

>In other words (deleting the twisted meanings in the sentences below) he
>does not throw out the law of the Old Testament as a useless doctrine. I.e. this
>is what we have talked about all the time, Paul is the person who created
>the concept of the new Covenant, not Jesus. It would also imply that
>*real* Christians should follow the laws of the Old Testament. And 
>'real' Christians don't do this.

No...his audience was Jews.  He taught along the lines of the Covenant Law.
That law *never* applied to Gentiles.  We were covered by the Noahide
Covenant with it's set of seven laws.  If a Christian *wants* to follow the
Covenant Law, there is nothing stoping them.

 -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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: More on Mormon temple ceremonies
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:22:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.141243.26267@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>Maybe instead I should take a look at statements made by _both_ pro- and anti-
>>Mormon writers and decide from them?  You seem to want me only to consider one
>>group of possibly biased people, and ignore another.
>
>That's because our anti-Mormon authors haven't given us any reason to
>believe they know the pertinent facts.  You would trust them to be
>able to reason correctly about the secret elements of Free Masonry
>when they aren't Masons?

Fine, thank you, but I'd rather decide that myself.  You wish me to totally
ignore the anti-Mormon writers but to accept the Prom-Mormon ones.  Sorry.

If the anti-Mormon writers really didn't know _any_ facts, that'd be different.
But even you admit they know something; you just claim that facts are omitted
and that explanations are distorted.  Of course they claim the same thing about
you.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:12:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr11.003528.16805@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.191301.4386@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu
>(John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> Ephesians 5:3 -
>
>> "But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed _EVEN BE NAMED AMONG YOU_,
>> as is proper among saints;"
>
>and how, without begging the question, do you conclude that "immorality"
>or "impurity" characterize my life or the life of an of those you think you
>can dump on with impunity?  *What* impurity? *what* immorality? *what* greed

Whether or not it is immoral doesn't matter - if someone claims it is then we
should not exhibit it.  Keep in mind that the average person tries to get
away with as much as they can so ridiculous "immoralities" would not tend to
pop up...

Over all though your points were deserved and well taken.

John M.
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:55:59 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.152258.27058@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	You said that they are DISFELLOWSHIPPED, that is, no longer a JW. 

>Ah, so if the "tree" cuts away the "rotton fruit" that it has produced,
>it is no longer responsible for having produced it?   

	You have understood the point. 

>>	I didn't say that. The only conspirator here is Walter Smith. 

>And one of my major tools in my lie was saying that the custody booklet
>was produced by the JWs, RIGHT, Andreas?  =8^O  We all know it was
>REALLY produced by the Anti-Christ as part of his conspiracy, right
>Andreas?  Maybe the boy has a point, now that think about it...:-)  

	Yes. It's not conspiracy to have a debate, the conspiracy means that
	you make false charges. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:03:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

tony@tex.nde.swri.edu (Tony Benitez) writes:

>The verse you refer to is talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of
>heaven is here now. It is a reference to Jesus' Church as mentioned throughout
>Matthew and the other Gospels.  Not everyone will enter the Kingdom, but I
>can gaurentee you that Jesus will bring every Elect Child of God to Eternal
>bliss. Whether you believe or not is inconsequential to the work God
>performed before the foundation of the world!  I personally have never
>understood the fundamentalists position of a "less than omnipotent God" 
>I belive that Jesus saved his family on the cross. If you enter the Kingdom
>(Church), then a timely salvation awaits you... comfort. This is probably
>just too simple, however, I find that the scriptures appear to bear
>out this "belief"

I don't think Scriputre bears this out.  Specifically, Jesus has said that
He will separate the people, the goats from the sheep.  The sheep will be
saved.  Additionally, in the verses I quoted, He says some who proclaim Him
Lord and prophesy in His name will be turned away and disowned.  In the
first, He also states that the kingdom is to come, and will be inherited at
the second coming...

These verses are : Matthew 7:21-23 and 25:31-46.

How do you explain these verses (and others)?

 -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 & the Bible
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:39:28 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <2292@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:

>My belief is that it is wrong because it leads people away from what
>can lead us to the greatest happiness, and thus away from what can lead
>us to an understanding of the divine.  
>  Nevertheless,
>for any given state of happiness for an unmarried person, they could be
>happier still if they were in the right marriage.  Both the OT and the NT
>teach of the importance of pairing off, man and woman.

In the NT we are told that "there be some that have made themselves eunuch's
for the kingdom of heaven's sake."  (Most people don't take this to the
literal extreme, although, in his youth, Origin is said to have taken this
literally.)  Also, Paul wrote that it was good not to marry in I Corinthians
7.  He wrote of marriage and celebacy that everyone had his gift from 
God.

I don't believe Pual would have had a happier life if he would have
married.  Celebacy was his calling.  True joy is to be found in a life
submitted to God.  It would have been difficult to have a wife through
all of his difficulties.  Imagine how bad it would have been for him
to see his wife beaten.  It must have been tough to be beaten himself,
and to see his companions beaten.
Perhaps Paul would have been happier on the earth if he had married.
But even though he had the right to a wife, and the right to be paid for
his work (I Cor. 9), I believe by sacrificing this for the greater good,
he earned a greater reward in the next life.   

Link Hudson.
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:10:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr9.231002.4011
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr8.194025.9703@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>I have recently read a book writtten by David Wilkerson called The Vision.
>If I remeber correctly, it was written in or before 1973.  Wilkerson
>told of how homosexuals would be given places of authority in churches,
>and be recognized by religious establishments.  This would be done under the
>guise of love and understanding.  He wrote that a day would come when in
>nearly every major city, there would be a church that catered to homosexuals
>and lesbians.  Sunday school literature would describe homosexuality as
>a valid means of sexual expression.  He also wrote that it would not
>be long (from when he wrote it) that homosexuals would begin to flaut 
>their perversion on national tv talk shows.  
>Instead of offering to help homosexuals, churches would tell them to accept
>their weaknesses as "gifts from God."
>
>Nearly every one of these things has happened or started to happen.  I heard
>of a homosexual church opening up in Washington D.C. not long ago.

Doesn't suprise me in the least...  I think (know) we will see more of this
as time wears on.

John M.
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The Only World In Town
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:43:10 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

There was a WATCHER  And the watcher was always watching  But He was also a
creator.  The consummate and immortal artist, His poetry could be seen in His
ultimate creation, MAN  Man  And the Creators breath was inside each man,
yet outside, each was a unique canvas  And man became a glistening CITY awash
in light  And the ebb and flow of perfect love thrived in that town  And it
was beautiful to the Watcher  But a mastermind lurked outside the town.  He
was responsible for forever death  And he wished it on the city  Meanwhile,
the city grew to be a WORLD  But the world of the mastermind also increased
outside the city and began to war against the Watchers Creation...  And the
Watcher saw the beautiful lights of His now great city begin to dim  And there
was little or no love in the city  So the Watcher sent a mighty wind through
the city  And there was new life in this breeze  Some noticed - some did not
 The senses of the inhabitants were slowly dulled as hearts hardened and
things changed  And the city forgot the Watcher was watching  And the world
outside the city grew enormously as many inside joined them  And the Watcher
watched  And the world of the mastermind surrounded the city and prepared to
take the city and bring forever death through its gates  And the Watcher was
grieved.  He sent His Son to the town  And the multitudes raised their hands
to the Son, the Rescuer, and cried out...and suddenly  they remembered what the
Creators love was like  And all those who gave themselves over had their
names written in stone and were taken to a safe place with the Son  And the
WATCHER, and the SON, and the WIND returned and became destroyers  And they
destroyed those on the outside  Forever  The town was made to glisten again
with a light brighter than all the heavens  And those whose names were written
in stone returned  The Son returned, riding on the wings of the Wind...to rule
there  There was great joy  and the Watcher watched  And He was pleased 
And once again, like in the beginning, the was only one WORLD...only one MAN 
Forever  ...And it was THE ONLY WORLD IN TOWN

Jag
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 15:22:58 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774) 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? 

	You said that they are DISFELLOWSHIPPED, that is, no longer a JW. 

>>Is it really that simple?  :-)  <- for the humor impaired...

	Satan changes himself to the angel of light sometimes...

>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!

	I didn't say that. The only conspirator here is Walter Smith. 

>  b) prove it.

	No proof needed.

>  c) yes
 
	Not that simple. 

>  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.

	Perhaps I can answer myself better. 

>---
>Stephen McLeod     
>The Eternal Student

	Your colleague, 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:48:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.ynxj9hc
Distribution: na
Organization: Living in a satellite fantasy, waiting for the night to end.

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>It is interesting that almost no-one has responded to my "sexuality graph"
>with anything other than "thats BS".

I missed your "sexuality graph" but if it's at all similar to what you say
below I'm surprised you haven't gotten responses a lot more vehement than
"BS".

> Why?  Most gay couples are masculine-feminine

Some, maybe . . . but "most?"  This is a ludicrous stereotype.  If you
state this from personal experience, you have a very limited range of
experience indeed.  At best, your chain was being yanked.  

> Is it so absurd to suggest that feminine gay males are initially
> attracted to other males for their masculinity, and then direct their
> sexual interests in that direction as a result? 

It's not absurd to suggest it in the course of trying to understand
homosexuality from an outsider's point of view; it becomes absurd once you
insist on repeating it in the face of facts to the contrary from people with
more first-hand information than you have.

> Is it so absurd to suggest that this same person might be attracted to a
> masculine woman (although more rare than masculine men), as far as
> personality is concerned? 

No less absurd than the suggestion that masculine straight men can easily
redirect their affections towards feminine gay men if the opportunity or
need arises.  Are you willing to stand behind that presumption as well?

> Lets face it, the pleasure of the sex act is gained (for the male) from
> the orgasm accompanying ejaculation.  The recipient might as well be a
> hole in the wall as far as this is concerned. 

Are you generalizing this statement to straight sex, male-male gay sex, or
(gads) both?  If the former, I really feel sorry for anyone *you* have sex
with . . . if the latter, you're obviously speaking from the vantage point
of someone who's not on particularly intimate terms with their prostate
gland.  

> Therefore anything "special" in the homosexual relationship _must_ be
> above physical sex, which I proffer one can also find in that rare breed
> of female... 
>
> Someone please tell me why this is so absurd. 

Because it's wrong for just about every gay male I've ever known.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

"Let's save the virgins!"
		"Awww, let's help DynaPink."
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:22:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr9.202238.10209
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>>If I truly love a non-believer do I sit back and watch him grow farther from
>>God or do I try and reach him for God?  
>
>  The problem here is that you can not do a thing. The bottom line here is 
>that it is only between the self, and God. 
>
>  If you truly do love a non-believer, I think that it would be much 
>more helpful if a person were to open their heart to them and help
>them in the ways that they need it. One need not even talk about 
>God to be teaching a unity with God.
>
>  It's just loving them the way they are. 
>

I _do_ love people right where they are at, but I still desire a _change_ for
the better in their lives!  Just exactly where are you coming from?  It is
quite clear in the NT that Christians are to reach others for Christ.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:58:43 GMT

In article <adams.703260182@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
[...]
>There is no unforgivable sin.  

Oh?  What about the "sin" of not believing?  Is this, too, forgiven?  If
so, then we atheists have nothing to worry about, do we?

Unless, perhaps, we still refuse to believe even when face-to-face with
God.  But I don't know *any* atheist that would be *that* stupid.

So: when I'm face-to-face with God, *then* I'll believe in him/it.  And
at that point, my "sin" of not having previously believed will be
forgiven, right?

>The Lutheran Order of Public Confession in
>fact says 'We confess we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves.'
>The absolution says that 'God, who is merciful and just forgives you all
>your sins.'  Since Luther taught Justification by Faith, there are
>absolutely no works that I can do to help me gain salvation, nor can I
>possibly avoid all sin.  Remember, Paul was a sinner.  So am I.  So are
>you.  None are hopeless except those who do not hope.

None?  What about those who do not believe?  Those who *cannot* believe?

> -Steve


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 07:34:34 GMT

My $0.02 about homosexuality and Christianity:

It is very clear that we are to flee the things of the flesh and
pursue the things of the Spirit (see Paul's letters).  Our first and
foremost goal is to see others come to know Christ (Great
Commission).  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.  Don't cry
supression because heterosexuals are supposed to save themselves for
one wife in marriage BUT Paul says it is even better to remain as he
was (unmarried) so that we can concentrate on the work of God.  I
think that homosexuals are blessed because this decision has been
made for them (if it is a state of being and not a choice in the
first place).  Remember that a gay relationship w/out sex is just a
friendship, and I would not hasten to call it homosexual.  To be
homosexual a SEX ACT MUST OCCUR.  To love others of the same sex one
must only be a godly individual...  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.  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. 

In Christ,
John Muehlhausen
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
	<92100.181336QAA@psuvm.psu.edu>
	<1992Apr10.023852.28190@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:50:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.023852.28190@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

   In article <92100.181336QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling) writes:
   >
   >God made me gay, it's that simple.  The sin for me would be to lie to

   Tell me something...  Why would he do this to you?  If I thought
   God had made me gay in todays society I would probably be more than
   a little angry with him.  God doesn't do anything without a
   purpose, so I am wondering what this purpose is.  If it exists I
   realize that we can't know what God is thinking, but I would like
   to hear any thoughts.

Gee.  Do you go around telling Black people that they should be angry
with God for making them Black in today's society?  *Think*.  *Think*.

	-mib
--
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.