HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Catholic Church on marriage
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:34:56 GMT


In a previous article, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:

>In article <Bt8u78.CCz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>
>:   Loren, this debate has deteriorated to the point that your arguments are
>:nothing more than you (incorrectly) telling me what I believe and what my
>:church teaches, rather than giving any valid arguments against what the
>:Catholic Church really teaches.  I will not say why I think you are
>:misrepresenting these teachings of the Church, because I don't presume to
>:know what you are thinking, or what your motives are.
>
>	What gives you that idea?
>
>	I was only trying to interpret all that Vatican rhetoric, to
>state it in plain terms.
>
>	After a lot of thought, I have concluded that those aged
>celibates seem to believe that a woman who gets pregnant but who gets
>an abortion is shirking her duty of bearing a child.
>
>	There is also the question of why they expect people who don't
>want children not to have sex, even if they are married to each other.
>Does the Vatican think that celibate marriages are a good thing? I
>know that they once did, calling celibate marriage Josephite marriage.
>Has the Church turned around in recent decades and clearly (and I mean
>_clearly_) stated that the Josephite marriage is an unworthy ideal?
>

A good friend of mine has been married for about 15 years.  Two years
ago, while his wife was giving birth to their third child, there were 
serious complications, and she had to undergo an emergancy hysterectomy
to save her life.  After this, sh refused to have sex with her husband, 
as it was her belief that having sex without the possibility of bearing
children was sinful.

When he suggested they see their priest for counciling, she agreed.

The priest told him that she was correct in her actions, and to pressure
her into a sinful act was sinful on his part.

If that is not representitive of the catholic church's attitude in re:
sex and conception, I don't know what is...

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:01:06 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
: In article <1992Aug19.153342.24183@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: >: I will also note that you really haven't
: >: given me any reason to think your concept of gods fits most people's concept
: >: of gods.)
: >I think most people consider the pagan gods to fall within the
: >definition of gods.  Just because they don't believe the existance
: >of them doesn't exclude them.  After all, I accept the premise
: >that God fits the definition of a god, but I don't believe he exists.
: 
: Trying to distill what the distinction is between a "real" god and something
: that's just an angel, I conclude it's a matter of relative power.  Consider the
: Greek gods: some gods can act against the wishes of other gods, not because
: those other gods _let_ them, but because though they're more powerful, they're
: not _so_ powerful that they can absolutely control the lesser gods.  In
: Christianity, the only way Satan or angels can do anything "against God's
: wishes" is if God lets them.  If a god is a powerful being at the top of the
: chain, then Hermes is a god but Satan is not.

I will agree with this assessment.  I would also like to point out that
it appears in several places in the Bible that not only does God let Satan
do things against his wishes, he apparently uses Satan as a tool for his
own purposes and enjoyment.  Two that spring to mind are the trials of Job, 
and the bit where David commits the abominable sin of taking a census.  
In one of the versions, God forces David to do it, in the other, Satan is 
responsible.  Too bad about all those innocent souls who God punished for 
David's indiscretion though.  Especially since God forced David to sin
in the first place.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14352 sci.physics:13154 sci.chem:3105
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:53:57 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <1992Aug12.153017.20662@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
 
>
>In article <exukjb.70.713569880@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>And Jesus himself says (quoting David I think it is) that '
>>I have said, ye are the gods, and children of the most high...' Yes, there
>>are alot of gods in the bible.
>
>The above quote from Psalm 82 (or somewhere around there) deserves quick
>comment.  The confusion in English comes from the Hebrew word Elohim, which
>literally means "judge" but is also used as a name for God.  In the Psalm
>(verse 6), it says "God (Elohim) says you will be gods (elohim, judges)."
>(not an exact quote; you can look it up for the exact statement).  So the
>Psalmist is not saying that we are all gods, but that men will also be
>judges.
 
Where did you get this.  This is even strange for my standards.  All the
scholars (and translations I have) say it means GODS. Like the plural of
one is many--many Gods!
 
Read verse 1:  God stand in the congregation of the mighty; He judges
among the gods.
 
Looks like more than one to me!  See John 10:33-5.
 
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
 |             not your's either; and                                  |
 |             only mine, when authorized!                             |
 |                                                                     |
 |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:11:48 GMT

Scott Gibson writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:
>>
>>  no.  what is offered by islam and allah did not affect my life, help me
>>understand things or help my relationship with the divine.

>For how many years did you go to mosque?

  good question.  it never got that far.  i don't believe that humans
on our own can achieve the life of felicity.  my life is a testament to 
a failure in that.  i do not believe i can ever know god if left up to
me to become good enough.  no matter how good i get, it will never be
good enough to be with god, i need him to bridge the gap from his end.
i didn't go to mosque to learn about islam, much like people don't
need to go to a church to learn about jesus.  i studied islam and it
either didn't answer many of my questions/needs or didn't adequately
answer them.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:40:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug20.150122.4635@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> 
> I, being a scientist, once believed that evolution had all the answers.  But,
> evolution presents some gross inconsistencies with modern scientific laws. 
> Evolution requires that all matter somehow came together to form life.  The 
> law of entropy states that all systems will tend toward a state of maximum 
			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> entropy (maximum disorganization).  If this law is valid, then how, without
> some outside force, did matter come together to form life?

What you have stated as the law of entropy is incorrect. It is the
entropy of the universe (system + surroundings) that always increases.
The entropy of a system is free to decrease. For example, take a cup
of hot water and let it cool. The entropy of water decreases !!!

Ravi
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Morphe: Hear ye PAUL (Was Re: Jesus denied he was God
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 06:41:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.220611.25781@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>For the Christians out there (especially Publius), I would like to see
>responses to Tim's post regarding his interpretation.

Thank you for your concern, Scott.

> ...  The definitions he
>gives for morphe and haragmos are exactly correct.  Check out Strong's
>Greek Dictionary of the New Testament.  Morphe is #3444 (form) and harpagmos
>is #725 (robbery).  The best rendering of verse 6 is in the KJV:
>
>  "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

I am not surprised by what you find in Strong's, for Strong's is really
based on KJV ...


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Noah's Ark Apologetics (was Laura questions)
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:28:37 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug20.194558.24392@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>I always wondered why God would have gone to the trouble of the flood, anyway.
>If he was omnipotent, why didn't he just snap his fingers and "disappear" all
>the sinful people and animals?  It would have been a lot les miracle-intensive,
>and would have taken less time.
>-- 


Isaac Asimov wrote in _In the Beginning_, p. 165:  "Whatever their sins, a
more merciful deity, one might imagine, would have simply swept them painlessly
out of existence with a word, and begun over again."
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Trinity (was Polytheism)
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:00:17 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

The Oxford philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne recently
attempted to PROVE that God is tri-une.  (I heard him do this at a
meeting of the American Philosophical Association; if he's put his
proof into print, please let me know.)  God (whom he characterizes as
necessarily necessary) would be lonely, Swinburne reasoned, and,
hence, would create the Holy Ghost; the two of them, knowing the joy
that can come only from parenthood, would then (have) created Jesus.

What fun.

He's got the names wrong, though, hasn't he?

Surely the Trinity is (are?):

	Brama, Krishna, Shiva 
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus and Law (was: Nibley: Genius or Fool)
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:52:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug18.162459.27959@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug14.153820.23260@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.
?>>of one's 'foolishness'?  My dictionary says:
?>>
?>>  'Fool - A person lacking understanding,
?>>          judgment, or common sense.'
?>
?>To me, this type of name calling is disturbing.  Glenn was good
?>enough to retract his use of the word "fool".  But appearantly you
?>do not want to give up the name calling.
?>
?>Now that we know what your dictionary says about the word fool, what
?>does your Bible say about the word?
?>
?>My Bible says:
?>
?>"Whosoever shall say to his brother ... Thou fool, shall be in danger
?>of hell fire"
?
?    I appreciate your concern for my eternal condition.  While I do not
?consider the LDs employee, Dr. Nibley, my brother...
            [about 10-20 pages deleated :_) ]
              
              ^^^  what is with the "s" anyways?  It is Latter Day
                 Saints, not Latter Days!

Hi Mark,

Your reaction to Matt. 5:22 reminds me of some other statements made
by Jesus

    Matt 5:43-44  Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.  But I say unto you, Love
your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you;

    Luke 10:27-29 ...Thou shalt love...thy neighbour as thyself.
And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right; this do and thou
shalt live.  But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And
who is my neighbor? 

Given your response, I truly am worried that you have failed to
grasp the meaning of what Jesus was teaching.

In Christ,

Robert
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: So The bible Is NOT the word of God???
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:50:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.062619.4354@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
}
}(Paul Harvey) writes:
}> ... AntiChristian is the same as Christian.
}
}Amazing! I didn't know the law of contradiction had been suspended.
}When did this happen?

Genesis 1:1.
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:22:36 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <1992Aug13.024506.3324@samba.oit.unc.edu> Malachi.Robertson@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson) writes:
>I can see what you mean by the symbolism pointing to the city of Rome, but
>I don't see why the symbolism can't refer to the heir of pagan Rome; that
>is, papal Rome.

Other than a geographic similarity, what specific facts lead you to
believe that papal Rome is the "heir" of pagan Rome?

Allow me to reiterate my earlier observation.  The city of Rome (or the
Roman church) could not be the harlot of Revelation because the city of
Rome was NEVER the wife of God.  Only Jerusalem, the city of God, and
Israel, the wife of God, could possibly be viewed as a spiritual harlot
from God perspective.

Rome the city as the harlot is pure speculation.  Rome the church as harlot
is impossible because the Roman Catholic church didn't exist at the time
the book was written, and therefore it wasn't persecuting 1st century
Christians.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Jesus Would Gag
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:05:55 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714029707@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>  i don't think god appeared in committee rooms commanding deletions.  i
>haven't studied the history of the canonization of the bible, but from
>what i have seen from some of the left out stuff, it seems so radically
>different from all that is reconcilable in the other books that it
>seems likely to be wrong.  just a naive speculation tho.
That strikes me as questionable at best. While certainly the Gospel
of Truth is pretty bizarre, there isn't much that's strange about
say the Book of Thomas the Contender.

And I would point out that Clement seems to have believed that
a different Gospel of Mark than the one we currently use was
canonical. (cf. Morton Smith's The Secret Gospel. Although there
is a fair amount of criticism of Smith's conclusions, I don't think
there is too much of his conclusion that the letter he found
is authentic Clement.)
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:54:57 GMT

press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
: > 
: > Do you believe that God exercises this diverse ability with 
: > everyone in the world thus providing them with a chance to be saved?
: > If not, am I going to Hell if he doesn't get around to me?
: 
: It would be much presumption on my part to say yes or no,cause
: I really can't say for sure. 
: I do believe the message that God(tm) is just and all of our(human)
: judges pale in comparison. I had a situation recently come my way
: where I was given a son(by my wife{who wasn't able to have children
: according to her doctors}). The social pressure to get him baptized
: was mounting. I wasn't convinced he needed baptism, and if he went to
: hell if he died without it, I would be determined to go there too.
: The reasons given for pro-baptism were limp and unconvincing(mostly,
: "why chance it"). I got him baptized in my mother's church just to
: keep the peace(which is WELS Lutheran). My in-laws are all RC, but they
: didn't care where I got him baptized, just that I do it. I have
: known people who died who never committed to the Lord, but I can't 
: imagine them going to hell.
: 
: > Am I at a disadvantage because I am not impressed by psychological
: > crutch arguments?
: > 
: If you think accepting the Lord into your life is a crutch, then
: imo, that's where you are at. To accept otherwise would not be wise.
: In otherwords, you wouldn't be true to yourself and would probably
: get lost or become hopelessly dependant on others.
: Why people feel compelled to preach is beyond me, 'cause I don't feel
: that urge. I do at times tell others what happened to me and leave it
: at that. I don't hate people who preach and never did, if that's what
: they need to do, it's just not where I'm at now.
: I don't consider experiencing what I believe to be the Lord in my life
: a crutch, but more as a lifelong companion who will not die and leave me,
: as people are known to do.
: If you are curious about any more, i'll try my best.

I must say, I find your version of Christianity much more accommodating
than the fundamentalist flavor.  I have difficulty comprehending such
a stance though.  Although I am now an atheist, I was raised fundamentalist 
and to this day think that their position is more consistent than moderate 
Christianity's.  First, I will acknowledge that my understanding of
this brand may have been misrepresented during my Fundamentalist 
indoctrination, and I will welcome corrections.  Moderate Christianity
strikes me as a cafeteria plan religion.  Choose the parts you like and
disregard the rest.  For example, how can they read the creation stories
as myths while Jesus apparently accepted them as historical facts?  Was
Jesus mistaken?  How does this affect his divinity?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Questions about religious experience [WAS: An open question...]
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:55:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.171757.6963@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
<1.Have you ever had an experience you choose to describe as "religious?" If so,
<how did you decide to classify it as such? For example, if you had an intense
<conversion experience, what led you to conclude that it was supernatural in 
<origin, rather than regarding it as a hallucination, aberration in conscious-
<ness, etc.?

My experience is my life. I live my life as an experience.

<2. If you had such an experience, please describe it as best you can, 
<preferably in non-doctrinal language. Example: Instead of saying "I saw God,"
<say "I saw a bright light that seemed profoundly good..." etc.  I'm looking for
<details of your experience (in this question) not conclusions about it. 

I see that day follows night and night, in turn, follows day.

<3. If you belong to a dualistic (good/evil) religion, what led you to conclude
<that your experience came from "God" rather than "the Devil?" (substitute 
<whatever names are appropriate in your case)

The best have all been humbled, I am not as enlightened as the best.

<4. If you adhere to an exclusivist position (i.e. "my religion is the only true
<faith") how do you account for claims adherents of other religions make
<regarding religious experiences, visions, etc.? 

All things are transcendent things. Worlds above, worlds below, no one in the
world like me. That is the meaning of a rock.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Bones of Ca'iaphas
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:43:39 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

}In article <1992Aug14.213410.13111@leland.Stanford.EDU>, charlie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel, Jr.) writes:
}> Did anyone catch the story on NPR today about the discovery of the
}> bones of Ca'iaphas? (See John 18:13,14)  Facsinating archeological
>}> facts have come to light.  

I wonder how we would feel if we knew that in a couple of thousand years
people would dig up our bones, rob our graves, and put the artifacts in
the museums.  If this did turn out to be same Caiaphas, I wonder if the
Kohens of the world will protest that their relatives grave is being
dug up.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: David.Choweller@bbs.oit.unc.edu (David Choweller)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 07:06:54 GMT

In article <d4Xh029S1eQi01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.213415.16644@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
>>
>>It is often said by Christians that, Jesus, also referred 
>>to as the Son of Man or the Son of God, died to forgive
>>the sin of the world.  According to Christianity, were 
>>ALL sins forgiven at the time of his death?  Specifically:
>>
>>1. Does this include all human beings who lived before, 
>>   during, or after the time Jesus died?
>>
>>2. Does this include all sin that was committed before, 
>>   during, or after the time Jesus died?
>>
>>If either of the answers to questions 1 and 2 above is No,
>>then what are the criteria for some sins of some people 
>>being forgiven and not the others?
>>
>>If both answers are Yes, then does it follow that an 
>>atheist is already forgiven for the "sin" of not believing
>>in God?
>
>1. YES \_____  That is if you accept the gift of "forgiveness of sins".
>2. YES /
>
>You sins are only forgiven if you accept the FREE gift. Someone can give
>you a gift, but it isn't yours unless you RECEIVE it.  If you die w/o
>receiving the gift of eternal life, your sins are not forgiven. Whoa unto
>you!



How can you RECEIVE the FREE gift, if you were born before Jesus Christ?
Remember, you answered YES to both 1 and 2.
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc