HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<22567@zephyr.ens.tek.com> <1992Apr9.202238.10209@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:32:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.202238.10209@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

   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.

But I *have* been reached by Christ!  Who are you to try and
second-guess God?  

--
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: 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: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:36:15 GMT

57910
Richard Pitts writes:
 
> Richard Huddleston writes:
 
> >In the Muslim view, Christians perverted the message and meaning of Jesus'
> >visit here, by ascribing a son/father relationship between the two.  This,
> >the Muslim believes, is blasphemy.
 
> That is my point.  They believe it is blasphemy, but the works written about
> Jesus confirm what the Muslims believe to be blasphemy.
 
I guess what you guys believe, then, is a function of the belief system you
grew up under.  Human beings that like to argue about these types of things,
I assert, should really take more responsibility for determining WHY they
believe the things they do.  Aside from spinning like a dervish around the
non-reason, "because it's TRUE!!!" that is.
 
My point here is that I can't see what value spirituality has if it is built
upon "belief."  Certain things are facts, and these things take place whether
or not one believes in them.  If one doesn't believe in the tennents of
Christianity, then THEY AREN'T TRUE.  (You've demonstrated dozens of times
that this point goes right over your head -- so I expect a certain kneejerk
reaction from you at this point.  As an example, take the assertions of Islam
about Jesus.  You don't believe them, and they aren't true to you.  Get it?
It works both ways!)  One doesn't require a belief in, say, the process of
digestion for it to take place.  Digestion is a fact.  I would say that valid
spirituality might be along those lines, but I don't think it's appropriate
to discuss with you the possible forms of said spirituality.  I don't sense
that you're into spirituality, I sense that you're into being "right."  These
are very different things.
 
> It is hard for me to tell - Is this your view or is it the Muslim view (that
> there is no contradition?)
 
I don't speak for Islam.  Neither do you speak for Christianity, but I sense
that it might be quite some time before you realize it.
 
Richard Huddleston

-- 
Perot for President.

Boycott Microsoft.
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 15:17:04 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:

	(buncha deletia)


>Irrelevant. The reverse logic applies here; your case requires that a *good*
>tree can't have *bad* fruits and hence if the fruit is bad, so is the tree.


	Yes, but the case is not mine, Jesus himself said it (Luke 6:43,44).
	"For there is not a fine tree producing rotten fruit; again there is
	not a rotten tree producing fine fruit. For each tree is known by its
	own fruit. For example, people don't gather figs from thorns, nor do 
	they cut grapes off a thornbush."

	False religion can only produce works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21 :
	"fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of        
	spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, 
	divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like 
	these." and the true religion produces fruitages of the spirit  
	(Galatians 5: 22,23 : Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, 
	goodness, faith, mildness, self-control."). 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr10.033217.3373@spdcc.com>
	<1992Apr10.041703.10698@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:11:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.041703.10698@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

   In article <1992Apr10.033217.3373@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

   >You don't have the first idea what the experience of gay people is.
   >Shut up about us.  Try listening.

   OK, what am I going to hear?  Here's a prediction:  What is "right" or
   "wrong" is relative to every person and there are no absolutes when it comes
   to a relationship with God.

   Is this what I will hear?  It is what I have heard so far.

This is what you will hear from me.  The only two absolutes are these:

``You shall love the Lord your God with all your heard and with all
your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and
your neighbor as yourself.''

All conclusions drawn from these are relative to the particular people
involved, the particular situation, and the particular social context.

--
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: emarsh@hyperon.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:26:01 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hyperon

In article <92097.072747QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling) writes:
>In article <2304@isgtec.isgtec.com>, mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) says:
>>
>>[...]
>>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.

>For YOU, and your family.  You are once again making a broad generalization.
>This is the third time you've repeated this line.  There is more to a
>happy, content, and close family than raising kids.

I will second this motion. I think that my wife and I have a better
than average marriage, and to a large extent this is _because_ we do
not have children, and choose not to have children. There are those
such as Tim who believe that {children == bliss}, and they seem to
be unable to comprehend that this just isn't always the case. In the
case of my (beautiful) wife and myself, becasuse we choose not to have
kids we not only are acting in a manner that we believe is the most
environmentally responsible, but we can afford a much better than
average lifestyle. 

We have had friends with a number of children who are just barely able 
to make ends meet because of the overhead of taking care of the kids, 
and in all cases it has been evident that these people are not as happy 
as we are, and their marriages are not in nearly as good a shape as
ours is. Further, in the past both Janet and myself have been involved
with SO's who have had kids, and the experience has not been all people
claim it is. People like Tim can talk all they want, but I'll settle on
the emperical evidence myself.

One observation I've made is that most all of those people who are
as insistent in claiming that {children == happyness} is that the are
evangelicals. Considering that this is the motto of the "Pro-Family"
movement, which is pushed on an hourly basis by the Christian media,
I believe that they are simply spouting what has been passed on to 
them by their leaders. This does not impress me at all.

Eric

--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: No such thing as atheism...
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:02:50 GMT

Fancying that the reader will find him clever, John Muehlhausen writes:

>I would like to say that an athiest cannot prove by any method that
>there is no God, so he is agnostic (looking for the truth).  The atheist then
>says "Well then there can be no religion but agnosticism, because no religion
>can _prove_ their claims".

He proclaims:

>Wrong.

apparently on the basis of a rather peculiar understanding of "proof",
equating it with personal conviction. Well ok, let's go with that.

>No religion can prove their claims with
>the atheist's tools - logic, reason, science, etc.  However I do not doubt
>that many (if not most) religious people would say that they are convinced
>100% of their religion and that to them it is proven true, which it is.

...as long as "proven" here is understood as "proven only to themselves",
which doesn't mean very much, does it? But that's ok...

>The
>fact that they have emotion and respect for intuition and feeling in their
>toolbox does not make it any less proof _for them_.  So then the atheist says
>"I have those things too".  Well that may be but in order to use them in

"may be"? Are you possibly characterizing atheists as being meat-clad
computers?

>defense of atheism you would be resorting to the tactics of any common
>religion!

You mean proof by personal conviction? Well, proof is proof, m'boy.

>In using these things the atheist has undermined the basis of atheism,

which you seem to think is the proof of God's non-existence by
reason and scientific means. To use your word, Wrong.
atheist: one who denies the existence of God. hint: denies != disproves.
Here, try this on for size:
The (a)theist cannot (dis)prove God's existence, but believes it extremely
(un)likely.

>Guess what?!?

You've been caught in youthful ignorance again?

>All you atheists do not exist!  You are agnostic, so face it.

Leaving aside the fact that you're wrong, what does this belief
buy you? What do you gain for yourself by mentally erasing the existences
of people you dislike or have strong disagreements with?

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |         Laden e-mail runs
Academic Computing Center       | Bumbling, creaking through the net
University of Virginia          |         Sysadmins tremble.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Buson
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:08:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: odin.1992Apr8.230817.12117
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr8.195454.27979@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, John Muehlhausen writes:
|So God intended for some males to stick their !@#$!@ up another males
|#$@#$234.... To what end?  

Uh... pleasure?

|I think it is _very_ clear that this was not intended behavior.  
|As always I refer only to the sex act.  Sorry to be graphic about it.

How do you feel about anal-genital contact when
practiced by a married couple?  Oral-genital contact?
Is your opinion any different?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"A moment's thought would have shown him, but a moment is a long 
time and thought is a painful process." -- A E Housman
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: No such thing as atheism...
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:45:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.143009.18514@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:

|> >	You missed one minor point in your disection of the major
|> >thesis of the article.
|> >	The gentleman claims we atheists are trying to disprove
|> >the existence of God...not so...
|> 
|> Right. I believe I said as much. So what minor point was it I missed?

>As far as I know, atheists are NOT trying to disprove the existence of God,

um, are you contesting an erroneous reading of my position, or are you
just echoing a correct understanding of it? The 'Right.' above is in
response to the '...not so...', in case there's some confusion.

>but instead are looking for proof of his existence.

Not necessarily. This atheist isn't seeking in either direction.
I've found that often the best response to the insistent believer
is not "prove it", but silence.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |         Laden e-mail runs
Academic Computing Center       | Bumbling, creaking through the net
University of Virginia          |         Sysadmins tremble.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Buson
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: JWs Child Custody booklet, and why a judge might have felt it promoted "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:05:35 GMT

For those who have been following the related thread, I've managed to find my
copy of the booklet in question.   In my original post (that started the thread)
I wrote that a judge in Kansas had ruled the JWs booklet recommends "untrue"
testimony under oath.  I do not know for sure which parts of the booklet the
judge was citing; I do have the booklet, and see parts *I* believe recommend
"untrue" testimony.  I imagine they include some of the parts the judge cited.

The booklet is 64 pages long, with sections on sample cross-examination questions
that JW parents might face, and sample answers to them; sample cross-examination
questions to ask the NON-JW parent, sample questions that might be asked of
an elder, with responses, and (the most interesting section) sample questions
and answers for JW children.    There is also another section in the end
on how to handle psycholigical examination that would likely go along with
the custody hearing.  

I plan on going over the sections that could be construed as recommending
"untrue" testimony.  This will involve reproducing portions of the booklet,
and referencing other JW literature that relate to the subject.

I hope this will:
1) Show why the judge in a custody case might rule that the Jehovahs' Witnesses
   are recommending that their followers give "untrue" testimony, through
   their "Preparing for Child Custody Cases" booklet.
2) Give some insight into how the public "face" put forth by the group
   doesn't always mesh with the reality inside.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:44:50 GMT

In article <18101@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>Humanists, heh?
>Well, the late Albert Einstein was a good example of a great
>What is your secular authority on the existence of a God with respect
>to Albert Einstein's?
>I could quote Einstein, but it is well known and should be available
>for looking up.

Or better yet, this quote posted by Doug Graham some time back:

    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religous convictions,
     a lie which is being systematically repeated.  I do not believe in a
     personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
     If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
     unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
     science can reveal it."
--
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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:13:38 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <53191@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
> In article <22272@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >would that we a very good objective event? Most likely you would 
> >define me as a political person, especially when I said that Jesus
> >told me to change Christianity, to make it more attractive to the 
> >Asian cultures, or what.
> 
> The two accounts of this event are the original (Acts 9) and Paul's recount
> of it (Acts 22.)  Both times it is clear that the directive for Paul
> from Jesus was that he (Paul) was to be the vessel, the messenger, to take
> the name of Jesus to the Gentiles, non-Jews, the rest of the world (Acts 9:15
> and Acts 22:14-15.)

Yes, the original church, including James and Paul, didn't exactly like
this Paul fellow that suddenly wanted to revise and change the religion
to become a Gentile oriented one. Read Acts.

> He did not say "CHANGE the message."  
> 
> Kent, if Paul said he was to change Christianity, give a reference.

Gladly, I wrote last night a 5 page document about Paul and early
day Christianity which I will post ASAP. It should clearly describe
my personal views about Paul who changed the course of the small
Jewish cult into what we have today.

Any time someone asks for evidence, I will post this document
personally to him/her :-).

Cheers,
Kent
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:36:05 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <54906@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <22966@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>In article <54098@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
>>writes:
>>> Oh, you might note that the Son, Jesus, is called God here in Hebrews 1.
>>
>>.. by Paul.
> 
>I have a feeling that if I or another had said that 
>the book of Hebrews was written by Paul, people would
>be up in arms says that Paul did not write it, huh?
I believe Michael Bushnell did in fact point it out.
I thought about it, but decided it wasn't worth it.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Line and Verse PLEASE
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:15:50 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

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?
-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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, and Christianity
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:52:14 GMT

In article <92105.163242SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>(This is a small excerpt from Mr. Arromdee's article, essentially
> he feels that my characterization of the Christian Old Testament/
> Hebrew scriptures is anti-Jewish and would incite the killing
> of Jews.)

Not only that, it _has_ been used to incite the killing of Jews; this isn't
just theoretical.

>The content and tone are clearly the responsibilty of persons long
>since dead, the fact that at this point in time that the gruesome
>events, the slaughters, butchery, etc. are considered laudable
>events inspired by a deity and worthy of praise is the fault of
>those who _now_ in_ the_ present_ take this point of view.

Didn't this just get discussed in alt.atheism?

Judaism does not teach that slaughters are worthy of praise; you could only
think so if you are unaware that Jewish traditions do not use the Old Testament
alone, but include commentaries which tell what lessons should and should not
be learned.

>As is the
>application of _any_ of the brutal mentality in either the Jewish
>scriptures or the Christian New Testament the responsibility of those
>who apply it now.

This only applies to Jews if you think the Old Testament is the entire body of
Jewish law, which it is not.

>The example which began this thread was homosexuality -- this
>is little more than a detail in the entire panorama of violence
>which is venerated as holy by many Christians and Jews.

As I suspected.  Your statements did not sound like those of a person merely
condemning Jewish attitudes towards homosexuality--just condemning Judaism,
period.  Homosexuality merely formed a convenient starting point.
--
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)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc