HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<22575@zephyr.ens.tek.com> <54098@hydra.gatech.EDU>
	<22966@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:44:50 GMT

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.

Nope.  Hebrews is anonymous, certainly not written by Paul, most
likely written by someone acquainted (or part of) the Jerusalem
Church. 

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | Blessed is the King
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   who comes in the name of the Lord!
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | Peace in heaven,
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 |   and glory in the highest heaven!
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:32:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.001434.25229@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>Paul tells us to flee the flesh and pursue the Spirit, avoiding marriage (not
>very popular) unless one would "burn with passion".  If this interpretation
>is wrong please tell me.  (I don't want an opinion, but rather something from
>God's word).  So what if a homosexual "burns with passion"?  See the
>hypothetical situation below.

John, as far as I can see, your 2 examples (hetro-vs-homo) don't offer
the same thing.  The hetro couple can have sex and it is OK, the homo
one can't.  (I realize, I'm stressing the obvious here)

This discussion can't seem to get itself out of the "THE BIBLE SAYS SO!"
rut.  The NT also says that women must not speak out in church, and
must wear headcovering.  

It would be useful if you could explain WHY homosexual relations are
inherintly evil and sinful.  Murder is obvious, stealing also.  But
why is homosexuality a sin against God?  

That was touched on earlier in the discussion, but when it seemed
to be headed down the ol' "sex is only for procreation" trail,
no one wanted to touch it.  It would appear that it is socially
acceptable to say homosexual sex is wrong, but not to say sex
for pleasure is wrong.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Mormon FAQ (part 1 of 2)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:25:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.111534.4293@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, wcsa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:
> 
> This  file does  not represent  an official  position of  The Church of Jesus
> Christ of Latter-day Saints. I accept full responsibility for its contents.

So why bother? Nothing is ever an official version.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date:  9 Apr 92 13:57:27 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:

>But, let me start from the beginning.

>1. It is claimed that when Christians tell others they are wrong, that
>   they are 'judging' others..
>2. And that Jesus told Christians NOT to judge others.
>3. Therefore: Christians are hypocritical ad wrong to tell others they
>   are wrong.

>This is utter nonsense, though.  To discern right and wrong is clearly
>a Biblical concept, and even to warn others of their error.
Wrong.  You may discern what is right and wrong, but you may not judge
others unless you are willing to be judged by the same level of
strictness.  Additionally, as you say below, you must first remove your own
sins.

>When Christ condemned judgement, he condemned the sentencing of others.
>That is to say, somehow punishing the other because of their fault.
>To includes censorship, racism, deprevation of basic rights, ect.
Exactly.  And the problem with completely condemning a homosexual is that
this tends to deprive them of their basic rights.  They are denied jobs,
housing, etc. because of their sexual orientation.  This is judgement.

>And even at this, though, he never really condemned judging anyway.
This is nit-picking.  Since none of us are without sin, none of us are
permitted.

>Rather, he taught "judge not, else YOU will be judged."  Which leaves
>the judging to those who have no faults of thier own.  "Let him who
>is withougt sin cast the first stone."   And those who by granted authority,
>and merit are in a position to judge, are commanded to be discerning and
>grant pardon to the repentant.
Who are these who are granted authority?  Political leaders?  Judges?  What
happens when their authority is used in a way that goes against the God's
Word?

>I do warn you though, the Lord will judge the homosexuals.
I have news for you, the Lord will judge you, too.  I hope for the sake of
your soul you can withstand a test as tough as you use on others.

 -Steve (who is a sinner, and therefor cannot cast any stones)
--
 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: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:53:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.233232.5687@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Speak for yourself.  You may think it's pretty clever talking about someone
>else's religion like this, generalizing to Jews from your experiences with
>Christians.  I am reminded more of the times when not only was Judaism
>condemned as a bloodthirsty religion, but then this was used as a reason for
>non-Jews to murder all the Jews they could find.
>I think you were totally out of line here, especially considering even the
>subject line mentions only Christianity.

I really love how you reach for the heart of the matter, Ken.
Now, do you have anything meaningful to say about Jack's article?

In any case, gay people are scorned no less in the Jewish
tradition, as any lesbian or gay Jew can attest.  Perhaps
Jack was being insufficiently inclusive in limiting his sentence
to these two traditions.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:39:34 GMT

In article <parsons.703317754@harry.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>
>>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>> 
>>> True - I am relying on the Sackets research.
>>> 
>
>> Could they be....biased?  Would it be too much to ask of you to get
>>some more information from a different (and I might add more reliable) source? 
I don't get this position.  It seems that if something disagrees with
mormonism, then it is biased, but if it agrees it is thourough research,
objectively done, and highly credible.  So, if I point out that Mormon
big-shot Brigham H. Roberts said that the Book of Mormon is the product
of Joseph Smith imagination with help form the KJV Bible and Ethan
Smith's View of the Hebrews (as published in "Studies of the Book
of Mormon" published by the University of Ill. Press (with original
manuscripts available at the University of Utah library), this is
poo-pooed as unreliable, or that he was playing "devil's advocate" and
you can't take his conclusions seriously.  Well, I'd say B.H.Roberts
was unbised, and that he did his research to prove the BoM, but in
the course of that research, he came to conclusions to the contrary.
Because his conclusions as to what is true do not match people's desire
for what is true, then he must be wrong?  People (perhaps on both sides?)
are all too eager to discount evidence because they percieve it as comming
from some sort of biased source without even taking the time to examine it.
This is shoddy at best and stupid at worst.  (See proverbs 18:13).
If someone presents evidence that you don't like, don't be a fool and
discount it as biased until you examine it.  It could surprise you and
be solid!  It may be a bitter pill, but you can't reject the cure to 
a fatal disease because the pill doesn't come in the color you want or 
because it doesn't taste the way you want it to.


-- 
| Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com        |
| Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then |
| Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.               |

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: towfiq@FTP.COM (Mark Towfiq)
Subject: Re: The After-life
Reply-To: towfiq@FTP.COM
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
	<1992Apr10.202524.26862@tc.fluke.COM>
	<1992Apr11.121413.15892@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:39:49 GMT

>>>>> On Sat, 11 Apr 1992 12:14:07 -0500, Erin Anderson
>>>>> <erisande@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> said:

ea> But once you do go to Hell, then you can't ever say, "I've learned
ea> my lesson!"  (Of course God knows if you are lying or not), so why
ea> wouldn't he let you out?  I just wonder why there has to be such
ea> thing as Hell.  There is no real reson for it.  It's kinda like
ea> God has no sense of pride when he looks and says, "If you don't
ea> live by my rules, then you should be punished."  This to me sounds
ea> like slave to master, and I thought if God was a true lover of
ea> people, he would let them do what they wish, and complete their
ea> destinies without any after hindrance.  Maybe I just believe that
ea> he put us here to do what we have to do, or want to do.  Kinda
ea> like an experiment...

  Erin, I agree with you--instead of thinking of "Hell" as a physical
place with fire, etc. etc., think of it as the state of living with
the consequences of one's actions.  That is, Hell is the result of not
"living by the rules".  Then, at that point, the rules are not rules
so much as guidance for the best way to live one's life.

  Heaven then becomes the state of being closer to God, as a result of
having developed "spiritual qualities", such as justice, mercy,
honesty, etc.
--
Mark Towfiq, FTP Software, towfiq@FTP.COM, W:+1 617 224 6275, H:+1 617 488 2818

O CHILDREN OF ADAM!  Holy words and pure and goodly deeds ascend unto the
heaven of celestial glory.  Strive that your deeds may be cleansed from the
dust of self and hypocrisy and find favour at the court of glory; for erelong
the assayers of mankind shall, in the holy presence of the Adored One, accept
naught but absolute virtue and deeds of stainless purity.  This is the day-star
of wisdom and of divine mystery that hath shone above the horizon of the divine
will.  Blessed are they that turn thereunto.
		-- The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: True Christianity vs. The Myth of Mormonism
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:24:00 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

In article <1992Apr14.054814.10915@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
|dali@milton.u.washington.edu (David A. Lee) writes:
|>      In 1832 Smith prophesied that a temple would be built in
|>Independence, Missouri, "which temple shall be reared in this
|>generation.  For verily this generation shall not pass away until an
|>house shall be built unto the Lord" (Doctrine and Covenants, 84:4-5).
|>To this day there is no such temple.
|
|Define "generation."

I'll try, with the help of Webster: "a group of individuals born and living
contemporaneously".  What do you think Joseph Smith meant by this prophecy?
What definition of "generation" would cause it to be fulfilled?
-- 
 Jim Gillogly | Actually the Bush administration is just preparing the public
 jim@rand.org | for its planned confiscation of Panama under RICO. Dan Eldred
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Creationism and Schools
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:32:03 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Hi,

First, it seems the creationist agenda has several components:

	1)	To try to establish a scientific foundation for 
		Biblical creation -- in support of fundamentalist
		doctrine of inerrancy;
	2)	To try to point out weaknesses in evolution, which
		contradicts the accounts of Biblical creationism;
	3)	To provide a competing description of the creation,
		that can 'get the Bible back into the classroom.'

Is this assessment essentially correct, or is there another
motivation that I've missed?


Also, if the Bible IS returned to the classroom, who gets to write
the material that's used to describe the Biblical accounts?  For
example, shouldn't such an account include a discussion of the
scholarly debates of the sources of the Biblical creation events
(Babylonian mythology -- Tiamat and the Gilgimesh epic, etc)?

Dan
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:50:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23447
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <54389@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
> Jesus told us that we are to be salt and light.  The light is to shine
> before men - it reveals things hidden by darkness/sin.  The salt is to
> purify.  No we are not to fix the world, but we were given a command
> by Jesus to GO INTO ALL THE WORLD, BAPTIZING THEM, AND TEACHING THEM TO 
> OBEY EVERYTHING HE COMMANDED.  Matthew 28:19-20.
> 
> Do you think it is wrong for us to present the gospel?

No, but it clearly shows that this religion is not based on personal
experience, instead it relies on political style lobbying and
social pressure, IMHO. That's one of the reasons gnostics had to
disappear from the religion.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen)
Subject: Re: The Bible
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 14:12:26 GMT

In article <22820@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>Could you explain why I have a great time just now, and no religious
>needs?

Why should you have religious needs?  I'm not a Christian because I need
to be.  I'm a Christian because it is right.

Do you have any inherant need to obey civil authority?  Like, if you were
on a desserted island alone, would not having civil authority to follow
be a problem?  If you were supreme in authority over over the world? 

I don't NEED to be an honest person.  I try to be honest because I know
it's right.

The whole idea of a religious need, is a presupposition made by those 
who want to explain religion while denying it any validity.  They say
people believe in God, for instance, as a way to explain the unknown.
This is true is some cases, but not universally.

That fact is, not all people are religious due to psychological needs.
Some are religious due to physical need (for instance being in a place
where non-believers are severely persecutted.)

But, Biblically, we are to worship God because it is right.  Not for any
other reason.

I'm a Christian because I believe it to be right.  Regardless of whether
Christianity is or isn't true.  I'm a Christian because I believe it is.
Not for any other reason.

 
-- 
Wayne VanWeerthuizen | wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu | Christian, X-trinitarian
205 Scott Hall       | (509) 335-1835 (voice)      | Physics ugrad, 21yrs old
Pullman, WA  99163   |    <<< Thank You Cards For Sale, $10.00 each >>>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: True Christianity vs. The Myth of Mormonism
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:34:43 GMT

In article <adams.703283256@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>The Bible has been transmitted at the very least somewhat more
>>accurately than any other ancient literature we know of, and at best
>>idea for idea.  Its popularity has kept it accurate. 
>
>What?!?  The Roman Catholic Church maintained tight controls over the
>document until the Reformation.  The Reformation, along with printing-
>press developments, moved the Bible into the hands of the people.
>
>The Vulgate contains errors in translation from the Greek.  And the LXX
>documents contain errors in translation from the Hebrew.  The King James,
>or Authorized, Version contains numerous errors along these lines, because
>of the source documents.  Now, a number of translations are become available
>based on early documents, not on these two error-prone, and oft-quoted
>texts.

The very fact that we know these errors exist is not reason to believe that
there are errors which have gone undetected.  Trust God a little, man.
I am confident that He will make known any errors that pop up.  You must
admit that the Bible is unique among all books both as far as circulation and
individual translations are concerned.  The goal of the Catholic church was,
and is, to keep what was written accurate.  I am aware of the control tactics
of the early Catholic church, which is why the Bible was kept out of the
hands of the commoner.  This does not mean that they changed the Bible, and
in fact there is every evidence that they maintained the Bible to the best of
their ability.

>So the idea that 'popularity' protected the meaning of the Bible is
>ludicrous.  It wasn't popularly available.  Heck, most people couldn't
>have read it, if it had been available.

There are now billions of copies, most of which have been laboriously checked
and cross-checked and researched until they turn to dust and all of them
(with _very_ minor errors) preach the same gospel.  There is some element of
faith needed in accepting the infallibility of the Bible, but no more than is
needed to accept Christ as Savior and Lord....

>If you want some more info, I have a posting that was made to
>soc.religion.christian that describes the various bible's source documents
>and style.

Please mail this to me.  Thanx!

John M.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:47:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <GOEHRING.92Apr16134311@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>You have no proof of a causal correlation between these two
>statistics.  I see no logical connection between the frequency of sex
>outside of marriage and divorce rates; the fact that both increased in
>a given period does not imply that one caused the other.  The null
>hypothesis is that there is no causal linkage between these two
>variables.  You must show that there is.

IMHO mathematical and statistical formulae cannot be used on sin and 
morality.  These things are far to complicated.  Divorce rages went up
as society began to turn from the idea that sex was meant only for marriage.
(not that everyone in society accepted the idea before.)  

The post I responded to posisited the idea that sex outside of marriage
could be beneficial.  Maybe we need to work that into a null hypothesis
first.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Date: 12 Apr 92 01:53:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: jyusenky.1992Apr12.015324.28003
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <TOWFIQ.92Apr11195722@babyoil.FTP.COM> towfiq@FTP.COM writes:
>  Isn't one of the proofs for Jesus the fact that after 2000 years
>people still invoke Him by name and pledge their lives to Him?

No.  All that it proves is that the Jesus meme is good at spreading.  Memes
spread for lots of reasons unrelated to truth.
--
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: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:40:26 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <MIB.92Apr6094718@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>In article <2292@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
writes:

>>Well, two out of three ain't bad.  Paul said that we should abstain
>>from eating meat offered to idols if it caused another to stumble in
>>their faith, even though there was nothing really wrong with it.

>>On the other hand, the prohibitions against homosexuality are older
>>and more widespread throughout the bible.  Right or wrong, this gives
>>them more weight for many people than Paul's comments about women not
>>leading in church.

>Koff, koff, koff.  There are at most a half-dozen texts in the Bible
>which could be read as opposed to homosexuality, and that by a very
>relaxed criterion.  On the other hand, participating in the worship of
>idols is lambasted hundreds and hundreds of times.  

It would be interesting to hear a Jewish perspective on this. As I understand
it, there are 248 positive and 365 negative commandments binding on Jews
according to a traditional count. One of these is the prohibition against
homosexual sex by males. 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. 

It would seem the compromise policy of the early Christian church was
primarily concerned with this gripping question of where do you buy
your hamburger as well. In Acts 15, the sexual prohibition is against
"fornication", but the meat stuff included blood, strangulation, and
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.

--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:12:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

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

Not a problem...I take it you also view hetrosexual anal sex
as bad?  How about oral sex, a man fingering a woman to orgasm,
a woman giving a man a "hand job", a woman using a vibrator,
or a man using one on a woman?  For that matter, how about
sex between 2 women?

Does "to what end" mean sex is only for procreation?   Or is
only acceptable if procreation can occur?  How about birth
control?  Rythem method?

As you can see, there's a lot more to the question than
"THE BIBLE SAYS SO!!!!!!"

Can you offer any insight on those things?

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc