HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zazen@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (East Coker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Magic (was JW book)
Keywords: magic, blood, synthetic, use, morality, `Woof!'
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:24:13 GMT
Organization: Is God a Taoist?

In article <1992Apr3.230500.3021@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind) writes:
>
>To lay the issue out clearly:
>
>JWs do not accept human blood for medical reasons, as they believe it violates
>the instructions from the council recorded in Acts 15.  They do accept certain
>blood products, such as vaccines.  I have never really known if they mean to
>apply the prohibition only to whole blood, or if platelets, plasma, etc are
>acceptable; I do not know where they draw the line on blood products, or even
>if they know this themselves.
>
>In discussions, I understand that JWs *do* approve of using synthetic blood or
>other fluids to replace lost blood -- that is, if you had chemical Foo that
>was compatible with the human circulatory system and kept it functioning, but
>contained only petroleum products and soy beans, they would accept its use.
>(I vaguely recall reading that something like this had been invented and
>successfully used, but maybe Steve Dyer will provide corrections or fill in
>details.)
>
>If we postulate that a scientist develops a super high-quality soy bean fluid
>which is *chemically indistinguishable* from blood -- that is, if you take a
>pint of human blood and a pint of this other stuff, there is no difference in
>chemical makeup at all -- the JWs would accept that too (or so I am given to
>understand).

Better yet, last week in "Science News" there was a report on a sheep/
human chimera (an organism composed of two or more genetically distinct
tissues). The shared tissues were bone marrow. Guess what? The sheep had
human blood cells. It was actualy quite simple to accomplish, merely inject
human bone marrow into the bellies of unborn fetuses. The sheep chimeras
are perfectly healthy by the way.

Once more technology obsoletes ancient ritual/dogma. Hopefully in the 
future the word "sacred" will be deleted from Websters. At any rate,
one could manufacture sheep/human blood for use in operations etc.
I suppose that sheeps blood is not acceptable to the JW faith. I don't 
mind if so though. That leaves more blood for me and my friends/relatives.

I wonder what might happen if human brain tissue was implanted into a 
sheep fetus. Imagine a conversant sheep that could grasp the concept of
soul yet ostensibly be denied one.
-- 
East Coker
"In my beginning is my end .... In my end is my beginning" --- T S Eliot
(my opinions alone)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: True Christianity vs. The Myth of Mormonism
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:11:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.054814.10915@hellgate.utah.edu>, jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> 
> >	If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to 
> >	mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be 
> >	refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an 
> >	imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine 
> >	truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and 
> >	deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which 
> >	would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not 
> >	stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of 
> >	measurement, the Scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:188) 
> 
> And people have been trying to topple Mormonism for 150 years.
> 
Because when the errors are pointed out, they are quickly dismissed
as uninformed garbage. Rationalization is the greatest self-preservation
mechanism known to people. It covers all areas of society, including
religion, politics, and corporate adventure! Why do you think it is
so difficult to be honest! Because everybody does it right?

Love and Kisses,

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:58:51 GMT

In article <MIB.92Apr10095022@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>   Tell me something...  Why would he do this to you?  If I thought
>   God had made me gay in todays society I would probably be more than
>   a little angry with him.  God doesn't do anything without a
>   purpose, so I am wondering what this purpose is.  If it exists I
>   realize that we can't know what God is thinking, but I would like
>   to hear any thoughts.
>
>Gee.  Do you go around telling Black people that they should be angry
>with God for making them Black in today's society?  *Think*.  *Think*.

_You_ think: is there anything inherently "bad", "non-natural", "ungodly",
"deviant", etc. about being black?   No.  About being homosexual?   Depends
on how you view the Bible...


John M.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: Evidence and Liars
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:27:14 GMT


In some earlier articles, Walter Smith referred to a book printed by the WTBTS
to prepare JWs for child custody cases.  Antti Siivonen responded by saying
that the booklet in question didn't exist, or was published by anti-JWs, and
that both Mr Smith and a judge in Kansas were JW-hating liars who were bribed
to slam the Witnesses.

Mark Sornson posted saying that the book _does_ exist, _is_ published by the
WTBTS, and that Mr Siivonen's comments were incorrect.

Some time has passed, and now Mr Siivonen writes:

> But in the 'obvious case' that the booklet doesn't exist I checked the WTBTS
> publications index and it wasn't there, so what else could I say that it
> doesn't exist ? 

You could have said that you haven't found it, and that you believe Mr Smith's
comments were in error.  Claiming that the book was fake on the basis of what
little evidence you had was an error, and claiming that Mr Smith was lying was
both fallacious and insulting.

Now that another JW has said that the book does exist and is published by the
WTBTS, you could apologise to Mr Smith for insulting him, and maybe learn a
lesson about making claims for which you have no good evidence.

For example, you have continued to claim that the JWs have a committee who
study blood, but you have presented no good evidence that the people on this
committee are trained in medicine.

You have recently claimed that many other religious groups teach children to
lie and steal (among other things), but you have presented no good evidence
that this is so.

If you were paying attention to Mark Sornson's article, you would have learned
that you shouldn't say that other people are liars without very good evidence.
But you continue to do exactly what you did earlier.  Maybe you should stop
posting for a few days and think carefully about what has happened and what
mistakes you have made.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:31:44 GMT


Jack Carroll, in an article recounting his own life story and his several
attempts at suicide, wrote this:

> 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.

And Ken Arromdee has posted several articles claiming that Mr Carroll is a
`Jew-hater'.

Firstly, the conclusion does not follow.  Mr Carroll specifically exempts
Jews/Christians from his description if they are not in favor of mistreating
homosexuals.  If he was a Jew-hater, he'd hate _all_ Jews, instead of those
who exhibit particular attitudes or behaviour.  The better conclusion is that
he dislikes homophobes, and he believes (rightly or wrongly) that Judaism &
Christianity are often correlated with homophobia.

Secondly, while I find a literal reading of this pretty gross, it's pretty
clearly metaphorical (it's been some time since Christians killed anybody for
heresy, and even longer since the Jews invaded Caanan).  As a metaphor, the
quoted section works well to illustrate Mr Carroll's perspective.

And finally, what I find interesting about Mr Arromdee's reply is that he
claims Mr Carroll is a `Jew-hater' -- but everything said about Jews was also
said about Christians, and Mr Arromdee apparently doesn't mind that one bit.
So far as I can make out, Mr Arromdee thinks that saying unpleasant things
about Christians doesn't make one a Christian-hater, but saying unpleasant
things about Jews makes one a Jew-hater.  Speaking badly about Jews is
bigotry, but speaking the same things about Christians is just criticism, I
suppose.

Nothing quite like having a double-standard in one's favor, is there?  I will
remember this exchange in the future when Mr Arromdee claims that something
unfair has been said.

(For the record, I'm a Christian and I do not believe that Mr Carroll is a
 Christian-hater.  While I think he may have gotten carried away with his
 rhetoric, it's not hard to understand why.)


Darren F Provine (kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:19:41 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <18069@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
writes:
> Back to the original point, if one "would never believe such things,"
> as "free lunches," (or your children being nice to you, or your 
> spouse being good to you forever and other things that would kind 
> of be free, but not really ), where is the hope in this person's life?  
> Is it really happy and joyful to presume everyone in the world is out 
> to get you like used car salesmen, politicians and lawyers, etc?  
> What a life astrangled!  It would truly be naive not to hesitate to 
> trust in others, but ruling out the possibility is dismal to the max!
> I like to believe that not everyone has such selfish (jealous but not
> selfish) designs on our lives...especially Him.  

I guess you have never purchased a car from a car salesman :-). Yes,
there are good ones, we found a Kiwi in Palo Alto that was reasonable.
I would not conclude that *all* car salesmen are crooks, but the 
majority are, unfortunately (it's part of their job, to sell steel and
rubber for lousy profit margins).

I've also noticed that a typical Christian attitude to life tends *not* to
be on the naive side, where you trust strangers and whoever.
Aas everyone knows would you like your kid to ride home in the car 
of a stranger? And aren't fundamentalist Christians usually for
death penalty?

What I've learned is to prepare for the worst, and plan for the best.
Ultimately I'm personally a very optimistic person, but I've been
bitten enough times so I know how to handle certain situations.
And it also improved radically the quality of life, for instance
by buying a brand new car I don't need to visit the car dealer
for 5-6 years! By no need of following hundreds of religious
rules how to behave, talk and act, I feel much more free,
basically using the law of the land and common sense with
my moral actions.

Cheers,
Kent
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:45:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr10.064253.28550@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>God doesn't want puppets...

Then why on earth did he create so many of them?  And whats with
all the scripts?  And why is it that he arranged that those who
choose not to follow the script to the letter are persecuted by
those who do?
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:28:55 GMT
	<1992Apr14.052931.5892@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<1992Apr14.115213.26412@cs.yale.edu>
	<1992Apr14.180352.8110@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

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

>What astounds me is the relative attitude displayed by many
>Christians on this newsgroup.

Truly.  The self-righteous I-know-better-than-you-do attitude that so
many Christians display is truly appalling.

>Lets face it, there are absolutes and they are worth proclaiming, one
>of which is the salvation plan of the Bible.

I do not see this at all.  I don't even accept the posit that there
are moral absolutes.  Justify your claim for me, will ya?  

>If you cannot accept anything as fact then I wonder how sure you are
>of your salvation.

What do you mean by "salvation"?  What is it that I need to be saved
from?  When answering, please keep in mind that I am not Christian and
do not believe in the various myths regarding God, Jesus, Satan, ad
nauseam.

As far as accepting "anything as fact": I can accept as fact those
data which can be clearly demonstrated to be true.  The existence of
God is by no means such a datum.
--
You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics.  But not
much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority
ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient
book written by ignorant nomads as a guide.  -- Doug Graham (dgraham@bnr.ca)
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 18:16:24 GMT

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

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

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

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

>>  b) prove it.
>	No proof needed.

I don't think Andreas *believes* in proof.  Truth by assertion is
all that is required...

>	Perhaps I can answer myself better. 

That would be a change...

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Andreas (was: JWs vs. Christians)
Date: 16 Apr 92 09:48:00 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu


	So, it's the time of the memorial of the Christs' Sacrifice. It seem s
	that this time you'll put ME to the torture stake. 

	 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:51:16 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr9.221728.29250@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>Worst of all, it is a sin against God.  Disobedience to God is sin.  All 
>sin is sin against God.

  At what point are any of us with out sin? Are you with out sin? As I
do not believe that you are with out sin, YOU too live in disobediance 
to God just as much as all of those whom *you* are judging. 



        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
                                        Thomas Merton


	David Hatcher
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE DARKSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:29:44 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr17.031116.14416@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>Assuming that Jesus said he was God, and given that our historical accounts
>of him are accurate (I believe you said once that he was perhaps the greatest
>moral teacher - .sig or something?), then he must have been one of three
>things:

>-A Liar
>-A Lunatic
>-Lord

This is one of the standard arguments put forth by fundamentalists.
However, the argument is flawed in that it assumes that the documentation
of Jesus's life (the bible) is inerrant.

There are many possible explanations for who and what Jesus was or
was not. I for one, choose none of the above.

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  *
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:09:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: portland.1992Apr8.160925.299
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <1992Apr7.195156.23577@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>
><much pious crap deleted>
>
>But what about the Top One Reason Not To?
>
>I prayed for awhile, with honest faith.  Then I stopped. The only difference so  
>far is that I get to bed about three minutes earlier, and I have more self  
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Three minutes??!!  You really gave it the old college try.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:06:03 GMT
	<1992Apr16.174047.27937@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<GOEHRING.92Apr16134311@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Apr16.204712.5887@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>IMHO mathematical and statistical formulae cannot be used on sin and
>morality.

I am not attempting to.  I am pointing out to you that there is no
basis for your claim (which you idiotically reiterated below) that the
increase in divorce rates is due to the acceptance of the concept of
sex outside of marriage.

>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.

No need.  Sex outside of marriage can be beneficial.  My wife and I
will gladly swear to this fact.  This proves that claim: that at least
one case exists where sex outside of marriage has been beneficial.

In order to disprove my claim, you must show that sex outside of
marriage is always nonbeneficial.  This will be impossible, as I have
a counterexample right here.

--
The fact is, some religions try to stamp out any religion or culture that
don't treat sex the same way they do.  Those are most often the shame and sin
based religions that teach we are separate from divinity as opposed to having
divinity within us.  -- William Turnbow (williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM)
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Too Many Daves (Title of a poem by Dr Suess)
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:16:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <12588@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>It will be interesting though, to see how close the philosophy of Dave Butler
>is to that of Dave Butler.

 During one very short period there were two Dave Davis on this newsgroup
too. That was about a year ago. 

	David Hatcher
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:38:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr15.224553.21084@menudo.uh.edu> kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
>In such a case, would sex not be regarded as a *positive* act?  That
>it occurs outside of marriage in that case is at least irrelevent, and
>You Christians consider your God to be loving and just.  Do you think
>your God, being loving and just, would hand you a set of rules to follow
>without arranging things such that the benefit of following those rules
>would be obvious to everyone, including those who do not agree with your
>religion, and that the negative consequences of not following those rules
>would likewise be obvious?  Alternatively, do you think your God would
>hand you a set of laws to be followed absolutely but that occasionally
>have negative consequences even if followed?  Then *why* do so many
>of you treat the rules in the Bible as absolute law when you *know*
>that the consequences of following them are sometimes detrimental
>and the consequences of not following them are sometimes beneficial?

Do you claim to be able to see what is "obviously" going to happen to you
tomorrow, or 10 years from now, or when you die?  I do not deny that there
are short term benefits to sexual relationships of many various types.  What
we as humans perceive to be the "good" is really only a fragment of the 
picture which is bounded by space and time.  By trusting in God's larger
scope of vision Christians are merely adding what will be good for us down
the road to what is obviously good for us now, which means that sometimes
they will contradict, in which case God obviously knows what is the absolute
best.

>Where are the negative consequences of someone with a tendency to
>be attracted to members of the same sex acting on that tendency in
>the same way that someone with a tendency to be attracted to members
>of the opposite sex might act on *their* tendency?  Is it not
>obvious that the benefit or harm of an action depends on the
>circumstances?

Precisely.  Benefit or harm is relative from our point of view, so we must
trust in God's point of view.

>The only truly absolute laws that exist are the ones that we have no
>choice but to follow: the laws governing the operation of the universe
>itself.  To treat any other rules as absolute law is the height of
>stupidity, and the justification for the suffering and death of
>countless millions: "Chust followink orders!".

On the contrary... To restrict your views to "what is good for me based on
what _I_ see" is the height of stupidity.  The laws we are given to follow
do not end in death or suffering for _any_ individual - rather new life and
inner joy and peace.  Any other end was not arrived at by following the
absolutes which you refute.


John M.
From: QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: Gay teens, suicide, and Christianity
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:11:28 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Jack,

Very wise words (IMHO).  I saved your post - you wouldn't mind if I
mailed it to some parts of my family?  (I may be 29, but still have
parts of my family to deal with, including a "born-again" sister).

I have to be thankful that I was too chicken to attempt suicide, tho
I made plans more than once.

To those who feel that you can "fix" a gay teenager - re-read Jack's
post carefully.  Your "fix" will only serve to drive him or her over
the edge, and you will be to blame for another wasted life.

*sigh*

-Tim