HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Whine Whine was (Re: Court rules JW )
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:16:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.130845.1203@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr7.152254.8046@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>	Indeed I have thought. We don't teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>	loot and terrorize like many others do.
>>>>OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>loot, and terrorize?
>>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
>
>>Name them.
>
>	Go to prison and ask what is their religion. 

 And the answer is JWs, Baptists and Catholics  :-)

 Was the original question which churchs teach that deception is ok for a good
 cause or is the question which churchs teach absolute honesty. Is there a
 difference here between the intent of the central organization and the 
 practise of the local so-called believer? I would hope so.

 Based on the arguments in this forum could a case be made that the
 Watchtower society members are encourage to whine and moan, change the
 subject and decieve other in an effort to promulgated *correct* information
 about the bible study. With the five or six JW pioneers that I've met, it
 would seem to be so.

 Most of the Non-Whining JW's that I've met seem to have been active for
 four or more years and have had some sort of basic involvment with the
 world outside of their own group.

 It would appear that the General Leadership Cadre of the Watchtower is
 beginning to catch on. They are encourging mature members to volunteer as 
 pioneer examples.

-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"
From: davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:58:45 GMT

In article <TOWFIQ.92Apr13093949@crisco.FTP.COM> towfiq@FTP.COM writes:
|>>>>> On Sat, 11 Apr 1992 12:14:07 -0500, Erin Anderson
|>>>>> <erisande@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> said:
|
|ea> But once you do go to Hell, then you can't ever say, "I've learned
|ea> my lesson!"  (Of course God knows if you are lying or not), so why
|ea> wouldn't he let you out?  I just wonder why there has to be such
|ea> thing as Hell.  There is no real reson for it.  It's kinda like
|ea> God has no sense of pride when he looks and says, "If you don't
|ea> live by my rules, then you should be punished."  This to me sounds
|ea> like slave to master, and I thought if God was a true lover of
|ea> people, he would let them do what they wish, and complete their
|ea> destinies without any after hindrance.  Maybe I just believe that
|ea> he put us here to do what we have to do, or want to do.  Kinda
|ea> like an experiment...
|
|  Erin, I agree with you--instead of thinking of "Hell" as a physical
|place with fire, etc. etc., think of it as the state of living with
|the consequences of one's actions.  That is, Hell is the result of not
|"living by the rules".  Then, at that point, the rules are not rules
|so much as guidance for the best way to live one's life.

But since the rules are quite arbitrary, why is it so important to
live by them?  You say "a state of living with the consequences of
one's actions" as if the consequences of one's actions aren't decided
by the creator of the world.

|
|  Heaven then becomes the state of being closer to God, as a result of
|having developed "spiritual qualities", such as justice, mercy,
|honesty, etc.

It is unclear that it is neccessary to go through suffering to develop
these "spiritual qualities."  God could have just created us as already
having these "spiritual qualities" if they're so valuable to him.  He's
omnipotent, isn't he?

Why is it neccessary to develop such qualities?  These are qualities 
that are looked upon by us as desirable given the current circumstances
of the world, circumstances that God is responsible for.  They are not
innately desirable qualities.  Nothing is innately desirable or undesirable
in a world that is created.  If you desire something, it's because you're
created to desire it.
|--
|Mark Towfiq, FTP Software, towfiq@FTP.COM, W:+1 617 224 6275, H:+1 617 488 2818
|
--
                                                 davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
"I have feelings too - like "My stomach hurts" or "I'm going crazy!"
                -- Homer to Lisa in _Moaning_Lisa_
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<MIB.92Apr14160646@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr14.213407.29011@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
	<3494@daily-planet.concordia.ca> <dfs.703366398@ro>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:55:35 GMT

In article <dfs.703366398@ro> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:

   To bring this back to a Jewish topic (I'm reading it on
   soc.culture.jewish), I didn't think that the ban on homosexual
   activities applied to non-Jews anyway.  I've heard someone say that
   Maimonides included it in his universal moral code.  Anyone care to
   comment?

   The point is, Orthodox Jews don't get upset when non-Jews eat pork.
   Why should they get upset about non-Jews engaging in homosexual acts?
   And since the laws of the U.S. are "secular", why should Orthodox Jews
   care about opposing gay rights?  Anyone?

Everytime I've seen an Orthodox Jewish author explicate the Noachide
commandments, the commandment against adultery is expanded to include
fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, and sometimes masturbation.  

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | I give you a new commandment, that you 
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | love one another.  Just as I have loved 
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | you, you also should love one another. By
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 | this everyone will know that you are my
			  | disciples, if you have love for one another.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:46:54 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr11.191124.19404@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
(Eric Rescorla) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Apr10.191301.4386@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> >Let me just say that if I were a non-believer, I would still feel that
> >homosexuality was inherently _wrong_,
> Why?

Eating with your left hand is also inherently wrong in certain cultures? Why ask
why,
Bud dry.

Cheers,
Kent
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 18:28:21 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith
 <18138@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <1992Apr14.195318.2532@athena.cs.uga.edu>

In article <1992Apr14.195318.2532@athena.cs.uga.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Paul Hudson Jr) says:
>
>In article <srqjlpn.rohwerwd@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
>writes:
>>     Number 1:  The two creation stories in Genesis.
>
>How do these two passages contradict one another.

Well, there is the fact that in one, man and woman are created at the same
time, and in the other, man is created first, while woman is made later.
Then there is the idea that there were evenings and mornings and such when
there was no sun or moon...

>>
>>     Number 2: Changeability of God.
>>          1)  In at least 12 verses, the Bible states that God is
>>              unchangeable: Num 23:19, 1 Sa 25:29, Job 36:5, Ps 33:11,
>>                            Ps 89:34, Ps 102:27, Ps 110:4, Mal 3:6
>>                            Tit 1:2, Heb 6:17-18, Heb 13:8, Jas 1:17.
>>          2)  In two books, God gave Moses the "Eye for Eye, Tooth for
>>              Tooth" law: Lev 24:17-20, Dt 19:21.
>>          3)  In Mt 5:38-40:  Jesus says, "..."
>>       As one can see, God changes between 2 and 3 which causes a
>>       contradiction of 1.
>
>How does giving a new command change God?  A new command was given.  God
>was showing His mercy, and He Christians were also required to show mercy.
>How is this illogical?

It's not just a new command, it's a contradiction of the old one. Being a
contradiction, this means that god changed his mind--he changed. Having
changed, while saying he never would, means there is a contradiction.

>
>Anyway, I have heard that the word used for make here where it says that
>God made the sun and moon to govern the day and night. They could have been
>created earlier, and caused to govern the day and night later on.

Mere speculation. If such had been done it would have been written. There's
no reason to believe that unless the idea is to hold it together, to keep
it from contradicting itslef.

>
>>     The virgin birth is a false miracle.
>
>Can you prove this?

Can't prove that, but an aside is that there were quite a few "virgin births"
among rulers and such back then. I've heard that even Caesar was born that
way. I would ask that anyone who can find out look this up. Even so, if
there were some proof to back up the virgin birth claim, it would be nice.
Lots of miracles were being performed back then--even the bible reports
this. Yet christians demand that we believe only in Jesus' as true; the
others are false, or the devil's work. This is very questionable.

>
>Link Hudson.

Martin Schulte
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:30:18 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr7.181624.17937@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER
M GRAWBURG) writes:
> >Left-handedness is sinister by definition. Incidentially, there is some
> >evidence of a connection between left-handedness and homosexuality.
> >If true, does this make homosexuality less or more sinister in your
> >estimation?
 
> Please let me know where left-handedness is a possible cionnection
> with being gay.

In both cases we have a biological wiring inside the brain which
creates the behavior.

Cheers,
Kent
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:35:19 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr7.181624.17937@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu
(CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:

>Please let me know where left-handedness is a possible cionnection
>with being gay.

A study by some folks at UCLA had data suggesting that the conditional
probaility of being gay, given that one was left handed, was three
times (I think it was) as high for gay men as for straight men.
This was mentioned in Time's "gay brain" issue last year.

>I find it very difficult to beleive.

Why? There is a kind of analogy here--an innate tendency which seems
deeply rooted in the brain but is not apparently genetic (or not at
least only genetic) in origin.


--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: If GOD would give me a sign...(attn: atheist, agnostic, etc.)
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:59:38 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <22817@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>Jesus spent a lot of time doing miracles in order to justify the faith
>of his disciples. He even needed to do this after his resurrection.

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?

What Jesus did - he did once and for all.  After he finished his work,
he sat down at God's right hand.  He did with his body, what nothing else
could do - he opened the door to God through the forgiveness of sins. (Hebrews)

Jesus doesn't have to keep offering himself as an offering for our sins,
for he did it once and for all.

We preach Christ crucified - not signs and not worldly wisdom. (I Cor. 1)

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:15:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.193250.13268@portland.mdc.unisys.com> tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>What's wrong with having sex with animals?  Isn't that prohibition only
>found in the book of Leviticus, the same book which so many in this group
>like to mock?  And, I don't seem to recall any commandment in the Bible not
>to have sex with little children?  
>Why don't we see more advocates of bestiality and pedophilia in this
>newsgroup?

I don't know; it's never occurred to me.  Given that you brought it up,
what do you think?

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:55:21 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.112900.25967@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774) writes:
>>>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
>>>Which animals fly?
>>>Simply the animals that do fly?
>>>I'm not saying that there are no religions that advance the cause of lying,
>>>stealing, etc.  I am saying, you are not answering the question.  ...
>>	The religions of the Great Babylon, The False Religion. 

>But what _are_ they?  Don't they have names?

	Yes they have, in fact there are thousands of them. That is the reason,
	why I don't list them.

		If you want to know, what is the True religion, consider two 
		things:  

			a) Is the Bible true ?
			b) If it is, does my religion follow Bible and are the
			members in my religion followers of Christ. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7228 misc.legal:9350
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: International Rights Question (was JW booklet)
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:16:49 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <TT.92Apr6175412@tarzan.jyu.fi>, tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
writes:
> In article <1992Apr4.090517.13891@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
writes:
> >In article <1992Apr1.181033.626@gboro.glassboro.edu>, kilroy@gboro (Dr
Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
> >>1) Does Finland really jail people for libel?
> 
> >You can get a jail sentence for disturbing religious belief if you put
> >to shame something that's held sacred in a religious group in Finland
> >or for spreading infromation insulting a certain ethnic or racial or
> >national group, so it does seem quite possible that people could be
> >jailed for libel (I haven't checked for the laws).
> 
> I just did.  Yes, it is possible: up to two years imprisonment
> or fine.  Wow.  I don't think anybody has actually been imprisoned
> for it anything like recently, though.

There was a famous case in the 60:ies when an author produced a book
where one of the persons said a couple of nasty things about Christianity
and Jesus. As I know it is one of the few cases where the law has been
used (if I remembered the book and the author...).

Cheers,
Kent
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 13:40:14 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>OH BULLSH*T!  Please explain to me, a member of the Evangelical Lutheran
>Church of America, exactly where my religion teaches lying, stealing, etc.
>And where it is 'allowed.'  Come on, Antti, let's see it.

	Here about 86 % of people are 'Lutheran', baptized as children. About
	2.5 % of them go regularly to the church. The church taxes everyone of
	it's 'members' that have been forced to join this dark religion. The
	church is like a mafia, owns land and has political power. Lutheran 
	priest blessed the soldiers in Winter War 1939-1940 causing a massive
	bloodshed. Eljas Simojoki, a Lutheran priest, was one of the major 
	characters of fascist IKL (National Patriotic Movement). 

	As mafia, the church blackmales money from companies. You pay to the 
	church from every litre of milk. 

	A true follower of Christ doesn't take part to this Satanic intrigue.
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: ed_l1@verifone.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The New Convenant (was Re: Am I a Christian?)
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:40:37 HST
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI

In article <204610@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson) writes:
> 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.

The Ten Commandments were part of my Christian (Catholic) upbringing,
when I became a non-denomenational protestant I never heard them
mentioned, yet the gospels say that the ten commandments were "aright,"
and most Protestants go for literal interpretation of the New Testament,
but more important was Christ's "New Commandment," "that ye love one
another."  Please, where was THAT written? Ma, Mk, Lk, Jn?
                                                          
> 
> I'm not sure if I agree with the contention that Paul was the one who
> invented the idea of the New Covenant.  Look at the words of our Lord's
> Supper, 
> 
> 	"This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out
> 	for you."  Luke 22:21 NIV
> 
> In all fairness, however, I should say that neither Matthew nor Mark mention
> the word "new" in their accounts.  John's account says nothing about the
> bread and the wine, but a new convenant is not mentioned there either.
> In Matthew and Mark, Jesus calls his cup the "blood of the covenant".  Did
> Luke just decide to add the word "new" as a result of Paul's or other's
> teachings or did he do it because it is what Christ actually said?
> 
Does this mean that The New Commandment was in John or Luke?
I like the synoptic gospels best, and feel they are probably the most
accurate.  There are too many discrepencies between Pauls accounts
and the synpotic gospels.  I take John with a grain of salt.

-- 
===========================================================================
|| Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744  U.S.A. Earth ||
||   Anthropologist, Writer, Editor    -*-     IN%"Ed_L1@VeriFone.Com"   ||
||   Opinions Copyright (c) 1992 Ed L'Esperance.  All Rights Reserved    ||
===========================================================================

Press RETURN for more...

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:11:20 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:

>>In article <adams.703270029@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>	The Lutheran Church, the E. Orthodox Church, the RCC, Jews, Muslims,
>>>>	Hindus, Buddhists, the Anglican Church, Calvinists etc. etc. 
>>>
>>>OH BULLSH*T!  Please explain to me, a member of the Evangelical Lutheran
>>>Church of America, exactly where my religion teaches lying, stealing, etc.
>>>And where it is 'allowed.'  Come on, Antti, let's see it.

>	The Evangelical Lutherans are the worst rooks on earth - they forced
>	to join to their dark rites when I was a child and later they've 
>	stolen money from me. It's entirely a dark religion, Satan's favourite.

Oh Joy!  I'm a spawn of Satan!  Andreas has pronounced it!

I suppose that it's even worse since I was raised Roman Catholic, eh?

If you are referring to the State Lutheran Church in Finland, I would
assume that it is much like the State Lutheran Church in Sweden, in that
you are bascially automatically a member.

How did they steal money from you?  Details, we want details!

Try this on for size, Andreas/Annti:

[Matthew 23, NIV]

   "(Jesus says)(13)Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you
    hypocrites!  You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces.  (14)You
    yourselves do not enter nor will you let those who enter who are
    trying to."

You are a 'blind guide' if you hold that your religion is 'perfect' and
slam the door to heaven in the face of men. 

BTW, what about those female JW's violating I Timothy 2:9-15?  Proof
positive that there are `false' JW's.

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:09:18 GMT

In <1992Apr15.043030.5195@gboro.glassboro.edu>
kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind) writes:

>Err, so what?  Lots of people condemn Judaism, and lots of people think it is
>a religion of "intolerance and power".  Are they all Jew-haters?

Either Jew-haters or ignorant.

--
                     |         | "Step up and shake the hand
David F. Skoll       | ||||||| |  Of someone you can't stand,
|_ _ _  __   __ _ __ |  \\V//  |  You can tolerate him if you try..."
 / |  | |_|   | |  | |  __|__  |  -- Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"
_____|________________________________________________________________________
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:26:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr14.102115.490@yvax.byu.edu> mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.224846.23272@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> Lets get one thing straight right now:
>> 
>> The Mormon Jesus is _not_ God.  They are two separate entities.
>> While one might need to believe in Jesus to get into heaven,
>> one also needs to _do_ many things, like knowing the endowment
>> incantation to get into heaven, having a "sacred name", being
>> buried in one's holy underwear, etc, etc, etc.  It is _clearly_
>> a "saved by works" religion.
>>
>	
>	The Book of Mormon teaches that man is saved by grace and that Jesus is
>God.

Jay just got through telling me he is _not_ God the Father.

>	It seems to me that you think you know what the LDS church teaches, and 
>I believe that your intentions are sincere, but what you have written is NOT
>official church doctrine.  Believe what you want to believe - but take it from
>a Mormon - what you say I believe and what I REALLY believe are two totally
>different things.

I say only what others have believed and then rejected.

>-Mark

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc