HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Who knows? (Homosexuality & the Bible)
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:31:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr9.213138.19790
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <92099.235607QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling) writes:
>I've seen lot's of back and forth - the usual it is, it isn't, it is, it
>isn't to the point that it makes me sick.
>
>My message to all Christians:  If you have a personal line to God, and he
>told you that homosexuality is bad, then fine, it's bad.  (Of course,
>you have to prove to me that you have this personal line to God, and then
>you have to prove that s/he said that)  That's a tall request, I know.
>
>The rule is, you're not allowed to rely on existing 'documents' - I only
>want to hear from those among you who have actually talked with God on
>this issue.  If you haven't, you are unable to take a position on the
>issue.

So the Bible isn't God's way of communicating with us?  Have you read what
the Bible says on the flesh and the Spirit?  To disregard the Bible and
instead listen to "voices" is a BIG problem.  See below.

>Seems simple, but it's not.  My talk with God was refreshing - I learned
>that I am gay because he wanted it that way for me.  I almost cursed
>but, i caught myself - it was sensed anyway.  "Humans are hateful
>creatures" was the reply.  "I created diversity, and you fight because
>of it" - I stared, dumbfounded.
>
>This may seem "stupid" on the surface, but WHO of you is willing to
>challenge that I didn't have a conversation with God?

I will.  The Bible is the word of God.  If you do not beleive this then I
don't see why you are a Christian.  If it is only based on the type of
experience you describe above then it could very well not be of God at all...
But anyway lets assume that you are a Christian because God revealed his
purposes to you through the Bible.  Now then, God does not and never will go
back on anything he says, which includes sexual mis-behavior.  He even warns
in Galatians 1:6 that even if an angel came down from heaven (or a demon
spoke in your head) that NOTHING shall be modified in the word of God, with
the penalty being a curse.  Not pleasant.  Because you spoke with something
that went back on what God has already carved in the very fabric of reality
it was not God.  Period.

You are not faced with a dead end though.  Trust me in that sex doesn't have
to be an issue for _anyone_ if they are right with God.  If you want to talk
to God and he to you than may I suggest that you pray in Jesus' name and look
for answers in the ONLY word of God that will ever exist.

>With him loving me as I am,

   but helping me to become all that I can be and rise above my fleshly
   nature and become the new person I can be in Christ,

John M.
From: ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: MORMONISM ??????
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:26:47 GMT
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte

In article <1992Apr7.222512.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this,
> but here goes......
> My girlfriend is a Mormon, and I'm interested in
> finding out more about the beliefs and all, that are related
> to Mormonism.  However, she's in New Mexico at the moment, and
> I live in Alaska, so it's a bit difficult to find out things,
> except through letters.  That's a bit slow.  Anyway, she sent
> me her book of Mormon and I've started reading it.
> My question is this....is there anything else out there that I 
> can look into to find out these things?  Anything that'll help,
> realy.  I'm new at this, and not sure what to look for.
> Thanks in advance for all help!                        ROG!

Hi ROG,

I was going to send personal e-mail, but I don't think my letter would
make it through the above path. (I'd have to modify the address for
my network).  

I'd like to discuss this with you a relative scale, but since I don't know 
about your beliefs in God, that's a tall order.  Mormons call themselves
Christians.  Most of the Christians that I know that are knowledgeable
(even marginally) about Mormom beliefs think that they are not Christians.
In order to be a Christian, you must accept Christ as God and Savior.
Since Mormons don't believe that Jesus is God, they are not Christians.
To be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ.  If you don't believe
that Christ is God, then you really can't follow him.

Instead, Mormons follow Mormonism.  A man named Joseph Smith claimed
he discovered a text (the book of Mormon) which says that Jesus visited
American Indians and ministered to them.  The "orignal" text has conveniently
been lost, even though Smith lived in the 1800's (it's not like these
things were lost over a period of a thousand years.)

The book of Mormon contradicts the Bible in several ways, with the main
heresy being that Jesus is not God.  In addition, it teaches things like
unlimited polygamy.  So basically, when you talk about Christianity vs.
Mormonism, it's not like talking about the difference between Methodists
and Lutherans or even between Catholics and Protestants. It goes much
deeper, as Mormoms are not even accepted as Christians.  

If you want to find out more, the best place to start is in the Bible.
One of the best places would be a Gospel, which are the books of
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  Mormons claim that they believe in the
Bible in spite of the fact that their book and beliefs strongly disagree
with the Bible.  Where the two collide, they believe  the book of Mormon.
So, by reading the Gospels, you can at least make your own conclusion
about whether or not the Bible and the Book of Mormon are in agreement
(that is, is Mormonism a rational belief, especially in light of the
Bible.)

Feel free to write.

Elizabeth
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:16:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Apr14.182146.1505@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.155311.21560@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>>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
>
>You may like to consider sheep, rocks, trees and fish as
>analogous examples, but I think they're extraordinarily feeble
>as well as leadenly repetitive: do all you people get the same
>dumb arguments from some central source?  And don't insult the
>Bible by trying to have IT take the rap for such silliness.
>We're not discussing rocks, trees, sheep or fish: we're discussing
>two adult human beings making a committment to each other for life.

True.  The Bible does not talk about men marrying sheep.  But those who
are mentioned in the Bible, who followed the law of God would probably
see the "silliness" of homosexual "marriage."  God did ordain marriage
 between man and woman, but he condemned homosex in the Torah.  I have
 yet to see your interpretation of Romans 1:27.  Do agree with me that
 it applies to homosexuality?  It is obvious.  What good reason is there
 for a Christian not to submit to Paul's authroitative teaching,
 seeing that he was an apostle, and God revealed the truth to the apostles.

>I don't know what you mean by "biblically get married".  It's
>clear that your notion of things bible-based is very different
>than non-fundamentalist notions.

What is wrong with what I wrote about Scriptural marriage.  Painting me with 
the fundamentalist stereotype does not change effect the strength or
weakness of my argument.

Link Hudson.




>
>-- 
>Steve Dyer
>dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Guarenteed Salvation (Re:Homosexuality and Christianity)
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:21:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.175348.11442@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <adams.703343852@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>>The Bible _guarantees_ salvation for Christians.
>>
>>[Matthew 7, NIV]
>>
>>   "(21)Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom
>>    of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
>>    Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in
>>    your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
>>    Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you.  Away from me you
>>    evildoers!"
>>
>>See anything wrong with your 'guarantee' now?  Looks to me like some
>>Christians will be condemned....
>
>It dependson how you define Christian.  If it applies to all who call 
>Jesus "Lord, Lord" including those who do not obey, then there is no
>guarentee.  If it refers only to the elect, who believe and obey, and whom God
>chose from the foundation of the world, then there is a guarentee.

This is a non-difference.  The semantic content of both cases is *identical*,
because in both cases, only those who believe and obey (*regardless* of
what you call them) will be "guaranteed".

>Link Hudson.


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)
From: reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:08:19 GMT

Ken Arromdee writes:
 
> David Hatcher writes:
 
>>  Is that why there are over 2000 different Christian sects, each of which
>>is following a different, but what to them is a factual image of that they
>>see in Holy Scripture?
 
>It's possible to be mistaken about facts.  At least 1999 of them made a
>mistake.  Just because sometimes people get their facts wrong doesn't mean
>things of a factual nature are unimportant.
 
Provided you can determine what the facts are, I think.  In the case of
whether or not a Jesus died on a cross and three days later was alive again,
and ascended bodily into heaven to sit at the right hand of God, well, that's
nothing that any one of us can personally confirm.
 
If I have to believe that before it is real to me, then on what basis is it
real ?
 
>>>By the way, here's an interesting idea: Imagine some powerful being, not
>>>Jesus, looking around to see what mischief he can cause.  He sees someone
>>>sitting, trying to "experience" God.  Now, this person is not experiencing
>>>God. However, our powerful being is pretty smart.  In fact, smart enough
>>>that he can figure out exactly what parts of the brain to stimulate to make
>>>his subject _think_ he's experiencing God.  He then takes his spiritual
>>>needle and pokes the poor guy in the "God experiencing" areas of the brain.
>>>Now, how could you tell this from a _real_ experience of God?
 
This is a rephrase of an argument that conservative Christians use against
ways to God that aren't literally based in Biblical authority.  Its purpose
is to destroy someone's confidence in their own conscience and their own
individual spirituality.  But ok.
 
The answer is that IT DOESN'T MATTER.  Since you grant that there is a place
in the brain where God can be experienced, you grant that it is a proper
and actual state for a person to be in -- really experiencing God.  We can
say, since we're imagining a scenario, that God put that area in the brain.
God will use it, then, when God wants to.  ANY opinions the person forms about
the experience will be completely irrelevant, because the purpose of that area
isn't to form opinions -- it's to experience God.
 
To use a somewhat off-color example, what's the difference between an orgasm
achieved by masturbation, and one achieved via actual intercouse ?  To the
mechanism that produces the orgasm, there is absolutely no difference.  The
same principle applies to your spiritual gedanken.

-- 
Perot for President.

Boycott Microsoft.
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Line and Verse PLEASE
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:44:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr6.204428.1454
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <92097.121025MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>

>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.

No, Exodus 20;13 says "Thou shalt not murder."  The Hebrew always has
said this.  KJV is misleading here, as it is elsewhere in OT.  Face
it, the state of knowledge of the Hebrew language was just not the
same 400 years ago as it is today.  True the KJV says "kill" but it is
manifestly wrong.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)
Subject: Death to the Infidels!
Keywords: angry young man
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:38:49 GMT

I'm a college student who has to decided to crawl out of the alt.hierarchy for  
a foray into the real.net.world.  Before I am labeled a coward:

Straight text email:  birdman@nwu.edu
           NeXTmail:  birdman@courtney.acns.nwu.edu
	   	      birdman@sally.acns.nwu.edu
	
I just find it interesting that there are any civilized-world types who buy the  
idea that god created the earth.  I'm not attacking Christian morals, mind you,  
(except insofar as they are inadaquate for dealing with reality, as are all  
ethical systems), but I am attacking anyone who believes that an old man with a  
long white beard rolled up a mudball, breathed on it, and created the first  
man.  This can be considered a Character Assassination (tm).

Also, if you are a Christian who believes yourself superior to loinclothed  
natives huddling around a fire, recite their crusty old creation myths to  
yourself and see if it really sounds any sillier than Genesis.

I realize that very few of the drooling fundamentalist types who this is  
attacking have the intelligence to operate even a Macintosh, so most of the  
people I'm talking about will never see this (damn and blast), but there it is.

Also, if you think that

	1) St. John knows more about life than Perry Farrell, you're wrong.
	2) Perry Farrell knows more about life than St. John, you're an idiot.
	3) The opinion of a celebrity on abortion, drug use, etc. is important,
 	   you have the intelligence of a bar of soap.
	  
Finally, a topics for discussion:

	Many cyberpunk/sci-fi novels portray a kind of future Orwellian  
				   
	nightmare world, where a sheeplike populace drools into the TV and 
	lives to go to shopping malls, completely spiritually dead. I propose      
	that this has already happened.
	  
	  
Looking forward to replies,

thankslaterbirdman
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: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:33:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.145521.26368@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>>	The religions of the Great Babylon, The False Religion. 
>
>>But what _are_ they?  Don't they have names?
>
>	Yes they have, in fact there are thousands of them. That is the reason,
>	why I don't list them.

How about the top ones on the list?  Who are the major religions of this
"Great Babylon, the False Religion", which teaches children to lie, steal,
etc.   Are the Jehovah's Witnesses on the list?  Is there anyone
besides the Jehovah's Witnesses who is *not* on the list?

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 1 of 2)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:27:17 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Apr14.152223.15869@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
[lots of circular arguments deleted]
>>Many things are required for entrance into this highest degree of
>>glory, including faith in Jesus as the Redeemer and the living of a
>>Christian life of love and service.
> 
> You are basically admitting here that Mormons are not Christian.
> 
	Once again, just what do you mean by Christian?  Do you mean those that
profess to follow Christ?  If so then Mormons most definitely are Christians. 
If you mean only those that believe in Christ the same way that you do (or that
main-stream Cristianity does) I would say that this is a VERY egocentric
position that you're taking.
	As was stated above, Mormons believe that faith in Jesus Christ as our
Redeemer and living a Christian life of love and service are necessary for
salvation.  How is this out of tune with what Jesus taught?  How does this make
them non-Christian?  

-Mark 
> 
> John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:47:09 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>>In article <1992Apr13.145521.26368@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
>>>>>>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.  ...
>>>>>	The religions of the Great Babylon, The False Religion. 
>>>>But what _are_ they?  Don't they have names?
>>>	Yes they have, in fact there are thousands of them. That is the reason,
>>>	why I don't list them.

>>So name some of them.  Name ten or so, if you don't want to bother naming
>>thousands.

>	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.

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7023 soc.culture.jewish:7998
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:44:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Apr14.184414.2487
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Apr14.180802.9353@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>To residents of s.c.j:  It seems there is a Jew-hater in talk.religion.misc.

It's nice to know that there's something that can raise the resident
skeptic to levels of irrationality not even seen in talk.religion.misc
among some of the true believers.

Jack, I would not advise following this up; it's completely off topic.
Why let yourself be dragged into someone's hot button?

Jack Carroll is not a Jew-hater or an antisemite, and it's
both obnoxious and ridiculous to make the charge.  It's especially
distasteful given the substance of his note which addressed the
horrific experience many gay people have had at the hands of Christian
parents.  He added the experience of gay Jews from his experience
with gay Jews.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:02:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr8.210212.7990
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr3.162328.10488@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

>My intent is to prod those who _do_ condemn homosexuality into a little
>introspection. Do they condemn it merely because the Bible (as they
>interpret it) does, or does their disdain have its root in personal fear
>and ignorance? There seems to be no doubt that the Bible contains more
>than a few prohibitions that most believers today wave aside and ignore.
>So why does homosexual love weigh so heavily on the minds of some, especially
>considering that it has no victims?

I think the homosexual who substitutes homosexuality for God (or anyone for
whom sex is their god - quite a few people) is a victim.  Lets assume that
homosexuality is still not accepted _at all_ instead of just a little in the
right circles.  Then someone who was homosexual would either go insane from
frustration or read Pauls letters and decide that they are called to be as
Paul was - single, of the Spirit and not the flesh, and devoted to spreading
God's word.  An acceptance of homosexuality allows them to go on worshipping
this god (as with food or money).  As with anything though, yanking
homosexuality out from under someone is disastrous unless you present the
godly (and beneficial) alternative.  God is not about the negative - rather
the positive.

John M.
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: PROMINENT IRANIAN BAHA'I EXECUTED
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:55:55 GMT
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual



I would like to convey my condolences and regrets overt the murder of
Mr. Samandari. I would also like to express my sorrow because of the 
persecutions and murdereds which were committed against those of the Baha'i 
faith in Iran or any other place.

May the Lord God soften the hearts of those who persecute others because
of race, religion, culture or country of origin.

With brotherly love,

		Frank
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Summary: according to Maimonides ...
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:30:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <3277@daily-planet.concordia.ca>, gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
(Gene Ward Smith) writes:

>                          On the other hand, the goyim are only held to
> the Noachic covenant. This includes not engaging in idolatry, but does
> not include anything about homosexual behavior. 

According to recent discussions in soc.culture.jewish on exactly this
point, there is at least one strand of rabbinic opinion, exemplified
in Maimonides, which holds that the Noachide prohibition of sexual
immorality covers (male) homosexual behavior.  Since I find the whole
rabbinic process of extracting a determinate sets of "laws" out of
the rather incoherent story (or stories) in Torah ultimately absurd,
this opinion strikes me as more amusing than useful (though obviously,
one who accepts the apparatus of halakhah will take it seriously.)

> idol-worship. Since Christians today don't seem to take this stuff
> seriously, it is hard to see the Biblical basis for hating homosexuals
> as being anything other than a phony excuse.

Most definitely.  Whatever reservations I have about Jewish halakhah,
it does at the very least insist that ALL the rules, explicit or inferred
must enter the halakhic process on an equal footing.  I cannot take
the anti-homosexual position seriously while its advocates insist on
totally ignoring everything around the texts that so excite them.
-- 
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."