HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:29:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.191301.4386@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>I think I am starting to see that arguing about homosexuality is not
>productive.

John,

Arguing about *anything* is rarely productive.  It's an easy enough rut
to fall into, I should know...If you instead try calmly discussing it,
maybe it could be productive.

>Let me just say that if I were a non-believer, I would still feel that
>homosexuality was inherently _wrong_,

Now you're getting somewhere.  WHY would you think it is inherently wrong?
What is it that makes it so, and what implications does that have for
hetrosexual couples?  I believe you said before that hetrosexual oral
sex was equally unnatural and perverted; but I don't recall a clear
explaination as to why, except the implication that it was over-indulgent.
But if one married couple has "normal" sex 3 times a week, and that
isn't overly indulgent, than why would a couple who has "normal" sex
once a week, and oral sex once a week, be indulgent?  


>and I would not give any credibility to
>someone who was trying to convince me of the nature of Christ's love but had
>this kind of perversion in their own life.  

This could be part of the problem; it's pretty hard to talk to people
that in your heart can't give any credibility to.   That tends to lead
to a self-righteous outlook on them, which leads to a lot of bible-thumping,
which leads you right about where you are now.  In all honesty, do you
think you can really talk to someone, like they were a real human being,
when you can't view them with any credibility, and you view their entire
life focus as a perversion of nature and ungodly?  With such an outlook,
it must be very difficult to actually understand where they are coming
from.

Think about it, and see if you can think of a way to calmy discuss the
subject, in a  "non-inerrancy" environment.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jeb3@meaddata.com (Jennifer Bing)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:50:20 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc

In article <3198@daily-planet.concordia.ca>, gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
|> In article <1992Mar31.175928.11857@meaddata.com> jeb3@meaddata.com
|> (Jennifer Bing) writes:
|> 
|> >If Charlie won't be direct, I will. Jesus said if you love me you'll keep my 
|> >commandments. I equate serve with worship, and God said those who worship me 
|> >must worship me in spirit and in truth.
|> 
|> >You don't really love God if you are practicing homosexuality.
|>
|> You just broke one of the commandments of Jesus, which is why this
|> whole line of argument is an absurdity. Jesus is not recorded as
|> saying "don't practice homosexuality". He *is* recorded as saying:

 I think it is safe to say that Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost act and speak in
 agreement. God said "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it
 is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 Read also Romans 1:27.

|> 
|> "Pass no judgement, and you will not be judged. For as you judge others,
|> so you will yourself be judged, and whatsoever measure you deal out to
|> others will be dealt back to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust
|> in your brother's eye, with never a thought for the great plank in your own?
|> Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your
|> eye', when all of the time there is a plank in your own?"
|> 
|> If you judge another person as someone who does not love God, when in
|> fact they do, you are more than merely mistaken. You are also doing
|> yourself a spiritual misservice. You are measuring out a measure for
|> yourself which will interfere with your relationship to God. Unlike
|> homosexuality, which is an innate condition like left-handedness, this
|> is something which you yourself control. Why measure out a
|> thimble-full of spirit for yourself when God is offering torrents?
|> --

Why do you say I judge you, when the word of God judges you. I don't speak
my words. Jesus said, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my
father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with
him." He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye
hear is not mine, but the Father which  sent me". ST. John 14:23-24.


|>      Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
|>                   gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca

-- 
|Jennifer Bing                              | If you do good,             |
|Mead Data Central                          | people will accuse you      |
|9555 Springboro Pike      jeb3@meaddata.com| of selfish ulterior motives,|
|Miamisburg, Oh 45342...!uunet!meaddata!jeb3| Do good anyway.             |

     My opinions are not necessarily those of Mead Data Central
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:18:21 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <54203@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
> 
> In article <22815@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Then I don't want the gift, because I personally think that eternal
> >life is the ultimate expression of human egoism. We life for a while, and
> >that's it, let our children inherit our world.
> 
> You don't have to take it - it is your choice.
> 
> Our children do inherit our world, but one day this world will be gone
> and there will be a new one where only those bought by the blood of the
> lamb, Jesus the Christ, will be able to live.
> 
> Eternal life would be human egosim, if it was an extension of what we know
> today, but it will be different. 

I don't think so, eternal life is the ultimate expression of human
egoism - I want to live forever, eat the right pills, believe in the
right religion, do whatever operation necessary just to stay alive
another year.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.comics
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:04:27 GMT

In article <MIB.92Apr15095538@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

>gay people in China face precisely the same problems, from
>Confucian believers, Taoists, and Buddhists alike.

?? I would think they'd catch more hell from the gov't than from any
of these denominations. Actually, I can imagine persecution from the
Confucians, who are more concerned with family and social order, but
from Taoists and Buddhists? I'm not saying it can't happen, but do
you know of any evidence for this? Sexual orientation is neither
considered nor relevant in the zen community, for example.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |         Laden e-mail runs
Academic Computing Center       | Bumbling, creaking through the net
University of Virginia          |         Sysadmins tremble.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Buson
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: TRADITION IS NOT THE BASIS FOR CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:20:11 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <MIB.92Apr14151531@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>As I become more attuned to the depth of the Christian tradition, and
>its meaning, I have realized this more and more.  Christianity without
>the Bible is possible; Christianity without the tradition is not.

This is getting ridiculous.  A religion based on what man dreams up about God
(traditions) does not in any way compare to THE religion which was
communicated to man by God.  Someone back me up here.


John M.
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:09:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr8.200944.265
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <22507@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>Granted.  Does this [love] not directly imply reaching them for Christ? 
>
>        No! 
>
>        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

So without the natural gift of sainthood it is hopeless?  I'm sorry, but God
desires that all come to know Him...

If I truly love a non-believer do I sit back and watch him grow farther from
God or do I try and reach him for God?  I think Paul makes this issue silly
even to discuss...

John M.
From: zazen@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (East Coker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs vs. Christians
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:41:24 GMT
Organization: Is God a Taoist?

In article <1992Apr6.125347.11155@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
>From the 5/15/62 Watchtower, p. 302:
>Moreover, recent medical research has indicated in a realistic
>way how blood transfusions may damage the individual's personality...
>Transfusing blood, then, may amount to transfusing tainted 
>personality traits.   How great the danger may become if the blood
>is taken from blood banks to which criminals and other derilics
>of society have contributed!
>
>This is a good example of the medical "authorities" the Jehovah's
>Witnesses like to cite...
>

Not very authoritarian sounding to me. does 5/15/62 mean 5-15-1962?
Seems that the hypothesis has not gotten very far.
-- 
East Coker
"In my beginning is my end .... In my end is my beginning" --- T S Eliot
(my opinions alone)
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: True Christianity vs. The Myth of Mormonism
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:57:25 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Jay writes:
>>	In reality, Mormons have no firm basis for truth other than the 
>>words of sinful man.
>
>And upon whom do those who place their trust in the Bible alone rely?
>By whom was the Bible written?  Dummelow treats the fallibility of
>Biblical authors in the introduction to his marvelous commentary.

The neat thing about the Bible is that we do not trust in one person,
who may write what they please, but rather in a myriad of authors
writing independently who produced a book with far more coherency
than would be possible if it were not of God.

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. 


John M.
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:16:51 GMT
	<adams.701966671@spssig> <22583@goofy.Apple.COM>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <22583@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

   In other words (deleting the twisted meanings in the sentences
   below) he does not throw out the law of the Old Testament as a
   useless doctrine. I.e. this is what we have talked about all the
   time, Paul is the person who created the concept of the new
   Covenant, not Jesus. It would also imply that *real* Christians
   should follow the laws of the Old Testament. And 'real' Christians
   don't do this.

Except one of the things recorded by all three synoptic Gospels is the
following:

 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them,
 saying "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the new
 covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." 
	(Matthew 26:28-29)

 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and
 all of them drank from it.  He said to them, "This is my blood of the
 new covenant, which is poured out for many."
	(Mark 14:23-24)

 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, "Take this and
 divide it among yourselves." ... Then he took a loaf of bread, and
 when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying,
 "This is my body, which is given for you.  Do this in remembrance of
 me."  And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, "This
 cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
	(Luke 22:17, 19-20)

Further, Jesus didn't follow the Sabbath laws himself, and, further,
the Torah was never intended for any but the Jews.  Whether Jesus
abrogated the Law for Jews is all but a null issue today; it never
applied to Gentiles in any fashion, before Jesus or after.


--
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: tony@tex.nde.swri.edu (Tony Benitez)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:02:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <adams.703364630@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>tony@tex.nde.swri.edu (Tony Benitez) writes:
>
>>The verse you refer to is talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of
>>heaven is here now. It is a reference to Jesus' Church as mentioned throughout
>>Matthew and the other Gospels.  Not everyone will enter the Kingdom, but I
>>can gaurentee you that Jesus will bring every Elect Child of God to Eternal
>>bliss. Whether you believe or not is inconsequential to the work God
>>performed before the foundation of the world!  I personally have never
>>understood the fundamentalists position of a "less than omnipotent God" 
>>I belive that Jesus saved his family on the cross. If you enter the Kingdom
>>(Church), then a timely salvation awaits you... comfort. This is probably
>>just too simple, however, I find that the scriptures appear to bear
>>out this "belief"
>
>I don't think Scriputre bears this out.  Specifically, Jesus has said that
>He will separate the people, the goats from the sheep.  The sheep will be
>saved.  Additionally, in the verses I quoted, He says some who proclaim Him
>Lord and prophesy in His name will be turned away and disowned.  In the
>first, He also states that the kingdom is to come, and will be inherited at
>the second coming...
>
>These verses are : Matthew 7:21-23 and 25:31-46.
>
>How do you explain these verses (and others)?
>
> -Steve

O.k. Steve,
Matt 7:21-23 is talking about false prophets in the Kingdom. You may ref othe
places in the scriptures where False prophets occur. 2 Corinth 11:26 Paul speaks
of them as False Brethren. etc.  Matthew 25:31 is definitly talking about the
final judgement. sheep and goats. Sheep are sheep, Goats are goats.  If God
has an elect family (I challenge you to prove that he does not) then also
there must be the non-elect. ELECT=SHEEP, NON-ELECT=GOATS.
There goes the old "God loves everybody" theme out the window.
So what is left are his people (sheep, steve) who hearken to the voice of God
and enter into life, the kingdom, the church, or those who will not, or as
Jesus himself explains in the parable of the sower (Matt 13) who have had the
word taken from them (they understood not), and live on the Broad Road and
are only distinguisable from the Goats by God almighty himself.
Therein is why all manner of men (homosexuals, deviants, fornicators, idolitors)
cannot enter the Kingdom. (these are excluded scripturally), but will be
eternally saved by Gods Mercy.  Jesus said that there would be some standing
here "who would not taste death" until the Kingdom would come.  Are they still
alive?  The Kingdom of Heaven is HERE NOW.

anything else ?

-tony@tex		My opinions, not my employers



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:49:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.193257.16395@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.152908.17744@menudo.uh.edu> kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>>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.
>>
>>You realize, of course, the implications of this?  Namely, that either
>>everything you see around you is the way God intends it, or God doesn't
>>particularly care how things are.  This gets back to the idea that God
>>appears to be either apathetic or malicious.
>
>Not necessarily.  Not if when evil appeared, because some of God's creations
>chose to rebel, God decided to do away with evil.  We are now in the
>breif period of time that God allows evil to exist in the world before He
>does away with it.  It may seem like a long time to us, but not to God.

Perhaps I should clarify my statement.  If you accept the following
premises:

	1.  God is omnipotent (possibly only limited by definitions).
	2.  God is omniscient (i.e., knows exactly what he's doing).
	3.  God created everything that is not God.

then it automatically follows that the universe is exactly the way God
wants it to be (within the limitations of the first premise, namely
that if you limit God in such a way that he cannot break definitions,
then God does not get something that involves conflicting definitions.
Thus, God does not get a rock that he cannot lift, for example.  If,
on the other hand, you do not even limit God to working within
definitions, then God trivially always gets what he wants, at the time
that he wants it).

This means that the universe is, right now, exactly the way Got wants
it to be right now.  He may have plans for *changing* the way the
universe is, but those plans involve God wanting the *future* universe
to be different, not the *current* universe.

Thus, that evil exists *right now* is by God's design.  You *cannot*
have it any other way if you accept the premises I outlined above.

Evil is not an exception to this because God defined the consequences
of actions.  It is BY GOD'S DESIGN ONLY that the consequence of the act
of rebelling against God is what we know as "evil".  It is God and
*only* God that is responsible for the existence of that consequence.
Since God defined that consequence, it is at least partially (if not
fully) God's fault that evil exists, for evil would *not* exist without
that consequence in place.

If God *truly* didn't want evil to ever exist in the universe, he would
not have defined a cause-effect chain that has evil as the effect.

>Link Hudson.


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:03:14 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

Gene Ward Smith writes:
> In article <48@devl3.UUCP> root@devl3.UUCP (Super user) writes:
> >That said, I do believe that if we see someone acting in a manner that we
> >believe is immoral and/or unethical it is our Christian **duty** to try to
> >point out to them in a loving, Christ-like manner the error of their ways.
> 
> On this particular issue however we are at a bit of an impasse. I
> think the homophobia I see in this group is "immoral and/or unethical",
> just as other people think homosexual behavior or orientation is
> immoral and/or unethical. We are therefore in a position where we are
> duty-bound to keep pointing out how the other guy is falling short.

Just in case this is getting lost in the shuffle, I want to point out
that not all people who think homosexuality goes against what God would
want for us are homophobes.  Nor do all such people think that homosexuals 
are immoral or unethical people, despite what they (we) believe God thinks 
of homosex.  Different people have different ethics and morals; it is for
God, not any of us, to be the final arbiter of what is Moral and Ethical.

> This is therefore one of those theological issues which each side
> thinks is so fundamentally in error that the difference is one which
> is hard to paper over.  It might make more sense under the
> circumstances to call a truce.  However I think it is important to
> notice that it is not a question only of the morality of homosexuals
> which is at issue here. I am quite serious in suggesting that many of
> the posters on this issue are in theological error and moral danger
> here.

I agree.  Some time ago I posted voluminously opposing same-sex marriages.
I still oppose them on theological grounds, but have come to realize that,
distasteful as it is to my way of thinking, there are no *civil* grounds
for preventing two people of the same gender from entering into a marriage
contract.  Since I support a theologically-pluralistic view of society,
and since I would want others to respect my beliefs, I must return the
courtesy.  This may seem like a small matter to some people, but I'm just
trying to point out how easy it is to fall into the sort of theological
and/or ethical trap that Gene was speaking of.

>      Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
>                   gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca


--
                    Mike Sellers       mike@isgtec.com
                        User Interface Team Leader
                    ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
            "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
From: samir@sphinx.rtp.dg.com (M. Yasser Samir)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Myths Concerning Christianity #3
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:00:20 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


         In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

    It's very surprising to me to see an immidiate reponse to my articles
by Mr. Hedrick (who is the moderator of soc.religion.christian) in this news
group.  Although, I know very well from him, that he's so busy most of the time
to keep his news group up to date, but yet he can find sometime to go to another
group to answer some articles, which is the same article, about the same subject
that I personally discussing in his news group.

    It's certainally an honor to see that my articles always get Mr. Hedrick's
attention.  I can see that very clear, because he is the only one responses to
my articles in his news group, nobody else.  Which recently started to become
personal rathar than to be scholarly, that I mentioned through an E-Mail to him
before.

    I'll answer all the points he raised in his article and even more, once he
publish my articles in his news group, which talk about the same subject, and
as long as I'm following the etiqutte of Net, not using an offensive language.

   Every subscriber to soc.religion.christian has the right to see the articles
that was sent to the group as long, as I said before, it doesn't violate the 
mannaer and behave of the Net writers.  I'm not going to discuss a general matter
through an E-Mail.  My relation with all the writers on the Net of all the groups
is sololy nothing but exchanging knowledge and ideas as well as points of view.
Sometimes, that turn to a good friendship, which is very fine and very well to see
a Muslim and Christian becoming friends through writtings to one another,or Muslim
with Jew..Christian with hindu....and so fourth.

   Respectively enough to Mr. Hedrick and his response, I am not going to resopnse
to his article here in this news group as long as the same subject still open for
discussion in his news group.  I'll respond to any of his articles that was posted
anywhere on the Net as long as the same subject was not discussed in his news group.  Perhaps that will save him some few clicks with the mouse to go to another
group....I'll be always reading soc.religion.christian, responding to articles,
when I don't agree with it.


Mohamed Yasser Samir
Tel : (919) 248-6266
Fax : (919) 248-6352
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc