HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:11:05 GMT
	<2292@isgtec.isgtec.com> <3266@daily-planet.concordia.ca>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <3266@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:

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

   >Nowhere do we see anything even remotely positive about marriage-like
   >same-sex pairings, and indeed it is condemned several times.

   Completely false once again. The whole idea is not even mentioned in
   the Bible anywhere.

I wouldn't give Mr Sellers that much.  While we don't know if the
relationships were sexual or not, there are certainly two celebrated
examples:  

There's Ruth and Naomi:

  Where you go, I will go;
    Where you lodge, I will lodge;
  your people shall be my people,
    and your God my God.
  Where you die, I will die--
    there will I be buried.
  May the LORD do thus and so to me,
    and more as well,
  if even death parts me from you!

		(Ruth 1:16b-17)

And then there's David and Jonathan.  When they meet:

  The soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan
  loved him as his own soul.  Saul took him that day and would not let
  him return to his father's house.  Then Jonathan made a covenant
  with David, because he loved him as his own soul.  Jonathan stripped
  himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and
  his armor, and even his sword and his bow and belt.  
		(1 Samuel 18:1b-4)

And when they part:

  [David said:]
  Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
    I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
  greatly beloved were you to me;
    your love to me was wonderful,
    passing the love of women.
		(2 Samuel 1:25b-26)

--
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: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Looking for Sheep (was: Re: MORMONISM ??????)
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:05:50 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Apr15.112720.21303@apollo.hp.com>, smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Apr14.010956.1427@pages.com> bwebster@pages.com writes:

>> then invite the people being taught to decide (through their
>> own study, prayer, and experience) whether or not what was
>> presented is true. 

> Sounds good, although it might be difficult for someone to accept
> what was presented, without an apologist to explain the differences
> from his current faith, unless the person doesn't have any base
> in his current faith.  Personally, I wonder about someone who
> accepts a new faith from a missionary so quickly, without such
> apologetics work; what are they really basing their conversion on?

The witness of the Holy Spirit perhaps?

-- 
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Creationism and Schools
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 02:37:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.193203.14321@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
>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?
>

It is not the right of the school system to teach biblical inerrancy
because of freedom of religion.  However, the school system does hold
to evolution dogmatically, when it should represent both sides of the
issue without being partial to either side.

John M.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:55:26 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <adams.703022120@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >> 
> >> >Jesus never personally talked with Paul - still he is the key person
> >> >in Christianity. That already would make my brain tick.
> >> 
> >> According to Acts, He did.  Jesus spoke with Paul on the Road to Damascus.
> 
> >NOT! Paul had a vision where a voice spoke to him, and he assumed this was
> >Jesus. That's a big difference compared with personally speaking with a
person,
> >something that the disciples of the original church did.
> 
> But this all depends on what you mean by personally talked to.  Jesus spoke
> with Paul, Paul answered and Jesus spoke more.  Paul had a conversation
> with Christ.  Did Paul meet Jesus before the crucifixion? No.  Does that
> mean Paul couldn't speak to him?  No.

Paul isn't the only one who have spoken with Jesus after Jesus' death. There
are many recorded cases. The difference is that Paul created a new religion
and he got followers. Anyway, there are other Christian sub-groups founded
by religious leaders who have talked with Jesus. This is something we can't
avoid - and I hope some of us would think about the inclinations and historical
possibilities.


Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Conformity to Ceremony (was secrecy)
Summary: Making a scene isn't always easy.
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:10:44 GMT


Becky Harris wrote about her experience with the LDS Temple ceremony on her
wedding day.  She was upset by some of what happened, and by the fact that
she wasn't told ahead of time.

Jay Windley writes that she should have been told what would happen, mentions
an assortment of things that were supposed to make things go smoothly but
which were apparently ignored, and that Ms Harris misunderstood some of what
was said.  Then we get this exchange:

>> I did not feel I was free to leave this ceremony,
>
> At various times during the ceremony, those who wish to leave are invited
> to do so.  This is so that concerns and questions can be resolved.  It
> should also have been explained to you that you could leave at any time,
> even if it was not "convenient."  In all truthfulness, it is preferrable to
> cancel and postpone an endowment session in order to answer a question than
> to traumatize someone. 

I don't know the particulars of the ceremony, but this comment seems a bit
naive.  Few brides want to interrupt their weddings and make a scene, with
their entire families on hand to watch.  The psychological pressure to obey
a set program can be very strong, especially when there are many people in
attendance who _expect_ you to conform.  When these people are authority
figures (parents, grandparents, older siblings, clergy, and so on), having the
gumption to stop a religious service and express unhappy surprise is well
beyond most people.  Expecting a young bride (who is already nervous) to stop
a ceremony in which she is among the main `attractions' borders on ridiculous.

Add to that the pressure of all the plans which depend on the wedding, such
as non-refundable airplane tickets and honeymoon hotel reservations (or worse,
a cruise ship which is leaving port the next afternoon), and I suspect almost
nobody would cancel the proceedings halfway through.

I do not mean to run down the ceremony in question, and I recognise that some
effort has been made to prevent upsetting anyone.  But I think it's rather
optimistic to expect that people will feel able to leave, just because you
tell them they can.


(If anybody is interested in questions of psychological pressure and following
 orders, you might want to read about a study done by Solomon Ashe in 1951 on
 conformity, and another done by Stanley Milgram in 1963 on obedience.  Both
 should be in any good book on psychology/sociology.  The results are both
 fascinating and terrifying.)

Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"we do what we're told
 we do what we're told
 we do what we're told
 told to do" -- Peter Gabriel
From: hayek@eemips.tamu.edu (Khalil Hayek)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: No more temple discussion
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:34:29 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University

Have a Happy Easter y'all!

Khalil

-- 
  Khalil Fares Hayek                -   hayek@eemips.tamu.edu                
  Looking for a job: electrical/electronic engineer or computer programmer.  
  C, C++, Pascal, Prolog, LISP, , FORTRAN, assembler, UNIX, VMS.             
  English, French, Arabic and German.
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: If GOD would give me a sign...(attn: atheist, agnostic, etc.)
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:54:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: thunder.1992Apr17.145422.19474
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Originator: mackenzi@Aragorn.McRCIM.McGill.EDU


In article <22817@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

|> Jesus, as recorded in Acts, gave many convincing proofs that he was alive,
|> after the resurrection.   If it is proven, why do you need to keep proving it?

Well, the thing is that since Jesus lived about 2000 years ago, it puts into
question some of the 'proof'.  People of that age did not know as much about
the world and universe as we know today, and anything out of the ordinary was
probably interpretted as 'magic', or 'demonic possession'.   There's plenty
of evidence of this kind of paranoia throughout history.

While I'm pretty sure that a man called Jesus did exist (I find it hard to 
believe that so many people could collectively make it up) I question his
divinity.  Therefore, I ask for proof, both of him and God.  Since none is
forthcoming, I will remain a 'kafir'.

-PM
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: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:32:32 GMT

In article <92104.181823SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>The effect of these Christian attentions resulted in two suicide
>attempts in two years requiring hospitalizations requiring both
>wrists to be stitched back up one time and the vein in one forearm
>to be patched together on the other.

>3. Question every value and every system of belief of anyone who rejects
>   you based on your sexual orientation, and reject any of their values
>   and systems of belief that generate and support this judgement.
>   This will result in ridding you of the immediate influence of
>   Christianity and Judaism, both of which are cesspools of ignorance
>   and phantasy and hothouses for the plagues of hatreds for which
>   mankind has butchered his fellows.
>
>   Trust no one who practices the Christian or Jewish religions until
>   they prove to your satisfaction that they have recognized the
>   evils in the very hearts of these religions and have cut these
>   cancers out of their own religious views and practices.
>   These are religions of intolerance and power, and they are obsessed
>   with punishment, bloodshed and death.  Anyone who claims to be
>   a Christian or a Jew and cannot or will not demonstrate that he
>   has repudiated the power-lusting part of his heritage is an
>   assassin poised to rip your throat open as a sacrifice to his
>   blood-drinking god.

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.
--
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: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:08:28 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <22576@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>The interesting note is that there are many individuals - including me - that
>have personal happiness and joy, and are not tied to any particular religion.


  An equally interesting note is that there are many individuals 
-including me- that have personal happiness and joy, and who are 
tied to a particular religion.

  We all have our own needs in life. And *that* is what matters.


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

	David Hatcher
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:20:46 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  If you want a good example consider Russel, the founder of JWs.  H ewas caught
>lying under oath.  Does that invalidate the entire religion?  No more than if

	No he wasn't. In fact the discussion went like this: 

		- Do you know Greek alphabets ?

		R: Yes. 

		- Do you know Greek ?

		R: No, I don't. 

	The enemies of the truth claimed that Russel first admitted that he
	was able to speak Greek, then he denied it. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:11:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>In article <adams.703284892@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>Many Christians *do* seem to limit, in their minds, what God can do.  I
>find it quite strange.
Me too.  Since God is limitless, He may do anything He choses.  And any
Christian who complains may expect to get exactly the same response that
Job did.

>>As for non-believers, there are a number of views among Christian
>>theologians past and present.  Some believed that God continues to work on
>>souls of those who have died, so that in the end, all souls are saved.
>>Ireneaus wrote along these lines.  In his theology, every single soul is
>>saved.  That would include Hitler, Ted Bundy, etc.
>Interesting viewpoint, that.  Quite laid back, I must say.  :-)
No kidding.  Augustine basically won this arguement...Ireneaus didn't
believe in `perfect' creation, either.  Humans were created imperfect, and
grow to be more perfect.  This continues after physical death.  Augustine
was big on original sin, etc.

>But it does make you wonder: if everyone is saved like that, then what's
>there to worry about?  Just do your best and the rest is taken care of.
Yep.  One of the reasons I think Ireneus lost the arguement - the Church
would have had no authority over men....

>Definitely not a philosophy that someone with a fundamentalist attitude
>would agree with (it's too laid back :-)  ).
Ireneus basic premise, if I recall correctly, was that a perfectly good
God could never condemn a soul permanantly to Hell.

>...In any case, thanks for answering my question.
Thanx for listening.

 -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: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:28:14 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD


	
Erin Anderson writes:
	Question...  If there is such a Being as God, or whatever they
call him now, IF he exists, Then how can Hell be posible?  My eartly
father would not want to punish me for the rest of my life, why would
the Heavenly Father (who MUST love me more than the earthly father)
put me in punishment forever?  Even if it is because he wants you to
learn your lesson, isn't it a bit far to take it?

I respond:
	I think earthly parents (fathers especially) have been known
	to disown their children.  You're right.  Sometimes it's silly,
	but other times, can we blame them?  I suppose we will find 
	out when we die.

	Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Quality of life
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 00:36:57 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>I have a short an interesting note: Yesterday I realized that my
>life is really nice, I don't need to worry about the original sin,
>....tabuus about women,

Uh huh.  And what does your wife think?  :-)

>What's the name of the religion I follow? It's is called NULL :-). I
>really recommend it.

You're giving us a pointer to NULL?  And you expect us to follow
it???  I get enough core dumps already.

>Cheers, happiness, and joy!
>Kent

Ditto.

Keith
From: 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Revelation versus Reason
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:53:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rsnjgINNber
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <9204071635.AA27619@mail.Germany.EU.net> vkitzing@mpimfhd.UUCP (Eberhard von Kitzing - MPImF - Heidelberg - FRG) writes:
>
>Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley postet the following question:
>
>RTT> 1) Is there or not factual or logical proof of existence of God?
>
>I think this is a very good question!  But before coming to an answer
>we should first look,  what a "logical proof" really does.  It allways
>has the following structure:
>   If I assume A, by means of reason I have also to accept B!
>
Well how about: if A is true then B is also true (or false). Why shall I 
introduce assumptions ?  I know a sparrow is a bird; this is a sparrow,
therefore a bird. I do not need to "assume" that a sparrow is a bird.
The sentence :"this is a bird" rests on no assumption, other than semantic
conventions on how to denominate phenomena..

>Or how would you prove that our universe has not been created or came 
>into being by a pure accident just fife minutes before you received 
>this mail?  All the factual historical "documents" are thus only fife 
>minutes old.  

I am afraid I lost you here...What is the meaning of "thus" in your second
sentence? Is it: "given that we assume the universe is five minutes old
all documents are no more than 5 minutes old"? You seem to try to show 
that reasoning does not work since you need an assumption to start with,
and, by starting from the wrong assumption you may end up with absurd con-
clusions. This is indeed true: starting from the wrong assumption you may
end up with the wrong result. A perfect example is:"Since the Bible is of
divine inspiration, it is true". Following this particular path you may be
tempted not to accept transfusions during surgeries and die prematurely.
However, not all "reasonings" necessarily start from wrong assumptions.
Nothing would ever get done, bridges would not be built, and we could not
communicate via e-mail, etc. Obviously, some "reasonings" start from the 
right assumption. Even more importnat, "reasonings" do not necessarily
need a logical assumption to function. "The sky is blue; therefore it is
not red" needs no assumptions other than conventions about what "red" and
"blue" are.
>
>With this introduction in mind, it is possible to give some logical
>proofs of the existence of God. The holy Writing of the Baha'i-Faith
>contain several of them.  If you are interested in, we could
>discuss them.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Eberhard von Kitzing

I would love to. I know lillte if any about the Baha'i Faith , spare
a few historical facts. 

Cheers!
-- 
Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
Department of Economics
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Andreas - Siperian Sirri Siberian Stint
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:16:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.090009.11483@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Thank you, Walter, but I did it only for the reason I mentioned before.
>	It's not good approach to say that your religion is false, but when 
>	people insisted it, I finally said it. 

Ultimately, that is the message of your (Jehovah's Witness) religion though,
isn't it?  That every religion in the world besides your own is false, and
controlled by Satan, correct?  And in order to be saved when the end of the
world comes, we need to renounce our current faiths and accept yours.  

I had read an analogy in some JW literature comparing the condition of people
in the non-JW churches with people caught in a burning building, about how
they had to get out or die.   That made me wonder, if it is being in these
other churches that is threatening their lives, shouldn't the first order
of business for you (JWs) be to get them out?  

Andreas, do you feel it is a bad approach to tell people their religion is
false, because it might "turn them off", and thus not listen to you
furthur?  So you start them with more palatable subjects, and work your
way up to getting them to renounce their current faith?

>	We believe in God's guidance - this is his work, not ours. We don't 
>	'force' anyone to leave his religion, we think that a person, who is a
>	sheep will find us without any forcing. 
   
Baffling...so what's the point in going out door-to-door to find them,
if God is going to guide the "sheep" to find you anyways?

>   Our goal is not to be as  
>	numerous as possible - if it were, how would we disfellowship so many
>	people yearly ?

Well, if you really want to examine that, you'd find cutting off a fair
number like they do is actually a good way to keep the rest of the
membership "in line".  I've known a number of JWs who stay in the
group *because* of the disfellowshipping policy.  If they could
respectably leave the group on their own, they would.  But since
the JWs won't allow a baptized member to just "walk away" without
marking them for shunning, they are in effect forced to stay.  

>	The reason why I act like I act is that here some people claim to know,
>	what we believe better than we do ourselves. I have nothing against 
>        good debate itself.

Sometimes that is because you guys aren't always forthcoming with your
'less palatable' beliefs...also, because as a rule, JWs are very
ignorant (ill-informed?) of their own history, even though the
group only goes back to the 1870's.  Well, really to 1919, but that's
another story...

For example, your own insistance that the JWs never predicted the end
of the world for 1914 or 1925; both of which are well-documented, but
you've staunchly refused to accept that.

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