HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: JWs and their blood hypocrisy
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:22:16 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  Wait, hold it.  A Christian faction gets in trouble it is persecution, a
>muslim faction gets wiped out by the millions and they deserved it?

	No, I think that Kurds have the same religion as in the surrounding 
	nations. Besides, the persecution of Baha'is was religious. 

>  It is happening for many religions in those places.  Why do you insist this is
>especially against the JWs?  A friend of mine who went to China was informed by
>the customs officer that if he was caught talking about God he would be arrested
>and deported.  They didn't even bother asking him his religion.

	Perhaps it's bit difficult to define... I think Satanists are quite 
	persecuted, too. 

				Andreas
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: SLOW DOWN !!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 23:17:20 GMT

<1992Jul24.211237.28459@samba.oit.unc.edu> Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) said:
...
>Would God in any form look on all this bickering favorably?  NO.  I regret
>sincerely the trouble I have caused by bringing this obviously sensitive
>matter into the open here.  Let me then, put your minds on a different
>task.  Answer for me this question please if you can.
>
>1)  Do sins compound themselves?  i.e.  if you commit one sin, is it
>    easier to commit the next, and so on.

I doubt it.  I don't find it any easier to think about killing someone
after I've ignored the sabbath day.

>2)  What is the blaringly obvious link of prayer to #1 above?  Should
>    we pray constantly for forgiveness?  For the mind of God?  
>
>3)  How often should we pray, and for what?  Which prayers "get through"
>    to God, and which ones fall by the wayside?

What's the point of praying at all?  This god is supposed to know what
you're thinking anyway.  He should also know what you need, even more than
you do.  So what's the point in parying to him?

>I will accept ONLY scriptural referrences as valid answers.  

Oops, I thought this was an open forum.

>                                                             OR, PERSONAL
>TESTIMONY !!  NOT personal opinion.  

What's the difference, really?

>                                     The bible does say after all, that we
>will defeat the devil and his agents by the power of the word of God, and
>by our testimony.  (or at least something to that effect.)

It also tells you to hate your parents.

>Let's try to keep this in perspective please.  A very good friend of mine
>who I just met recently said
>
>     " If I feel myself starting to get into an argument, or getting
>       angry for whatever reason, then I should just stop and get 
>       on my knees and pray."
>
>                             Paul Hudson Jr.  
>                             (paraphrased by me)

Tough to do during rush hour traffic.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Subject: Just Curious
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:39:40 GMT

Just curious, folks.
Why is it so difficult for the followers of any organized religion
to accept that the claim of salvation in any other religion is as
valid as their own ?
And the logical implication that follows ?

No quoting any texts, please. The same question above can be asked
about the text.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:53:59 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <91776@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>And at the same time, you can't read homosexuality into a verse of Scripture
>>because of the connotations of English words.
>
>But that is ***PRECISELY*** what has happened with the Pauline verses usually
>used to proscribe homosexuality! Either you make it apply equally in opposite
>circumstances, or not at all...

If I understand what you mean, then the verses can't be read this way
and make sense.  In Romans 1, heterosex is described as natural.  You can't
just go through and add in and take out words to make it say the opposite.

And you shouldn't change "he who sleeps with a man" or aresenokoite to
"he who sleeps with a woman" to make it read the opposite of the original.


>>I do disagree with the implication that Christ was sexually immoral.
>
>But you certainly don't have enough information to conclude that he didn't
>possess a homosexual or bisexual orientation.

As a matter of Christian faith, I believe that Christ was sinless, and 
therefore that He was not sexually immoral, either in thought or life.

Link Hudson.
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:31:38 GMT
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <l6eb0hINNlt4@news.bbn.com> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>Again, symbolism:
>
>Babylon == The major source (and symbol) of suffering to the Jewish people
>           of that period (and remember, at that time most of the
>           Christians were Jewish-Christians).

Just to supplement my previous comments on the harlot being Jerusalem, much
of the early persecution of Christians came at the hands of Jews, not the
Romans.  The accounts of this persecution are found throughout the book of
Acts, as well as some references in Hebrews (10:32).  There is specific
reference to the Jewish persecution elsewhere in Revelation (cf. 2:9; 3:9).

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:02:59 GMT

Eric Rescorla writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>  many people in this world [eric you can decide for yourself how much you
>>fit this analysis] hold rational logical proof as the only means of anything
>>being relevant.  there are more things in heaven and earth than elementary
>>formal logic.  [set spiel=off]

>When one is deciding matters of existence, I don't see that anything
>besides empiricism is relevant.

>When one is discussing poetry, different rules hold entirely.

>The truth of christianity is one of the former, not the latter.

  this is where we disagree.  the truth of not only christianity, but of
the entire spiritual world is dependent on more than empiricism.  i don't
expect you will acknowledge the existence of an empirically-unverifiable
spiritual world as long as you hold empiricism as the limit of your means
to explore it.


>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible is pro-choice    (Re: The sin of shaving?)
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:19:24 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Jul31.181320.16274@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>In article <64766@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>
>>Try this one out.

>>How do you interpret Jeremiah chapter 1:5, where God says "that before I
>>created you in your mothers womb, I knew you."  In fact, God had
>>called Jeremiah to be a prophet at that point, hadn't He?

>Jeremiah 1:5 is about God's foreknowledge.  It is an affirmation that
>God is not bound by what we call 'time'.  To say that this verse implies
>that Jeremiah was a already a person before God created him actually
>implies the denial of God's foreknowledge.  I am not sure if that is
>the theological position you want to take.

No, that is not the theological position I want to take.  

However, I don't follow your logic to get to this point.  How does
this lead to the denial of God's foreknowledge???????????


Sincerely,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: witness
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:26:47 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <adams.712591294@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>}labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
>}I don't believe you know what you are talking about.  The latest writing is
>}aproximately 100AD, give or take a few years.  Paul's letters were
>}completed by 67AD when he died.  The other letters are from the period
>}60-90AD.  The Gospel dates range from as early as 50AD to as late as
>}100AD.

>I hope that you don't think that Saul, also known as Paul, is suppose to
>be taken as a witness.  He never met Jesus.  Or claimed to.  Why don't
>you just refer to Jim & Tammy?
Uhm, you are sadly mistaken here.  Paul met the resurected Jesus on the 
Road to Damascus.

>}Paul's writings are from 50-67AD (aprox) and lay out much of Christian
>}theology.
>Right.  But NOT as an eyewitness.
Like much of the Bible, it is revealed by God.  What's the problem with
this?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: bdevilbi@uceng.UC.EDU (Brian Devilbiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:28:00 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati


 steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>>You must really be dim.  
>
>So speaketh a man who goes on to list four analogies that have nothing to
>do with supernatural beings; they all deal with PHYSICAL phenomena.
>
[analogies and rebuttals deleted]

Do you *completely* understand your wife or your girlfriend? What about your
parents? Probably not...but the things they do and the effect they have had
on your life is evidence of their love. (At least I hope so.) Over the course
of time you have gained a better understanding of them and you probably know
what pleases them and what doesn't. In the same way, one begins to gain an
understanding of God, what He desires for us, and what He expects from us 
over the course of time. I will never *completely* understand God, but the 
effect He has had on my life makes me want to learn more about Him. I don't
understand everything about my girlfriend (I don't have the stomach for it)
but I still desire to learn about her and spend time with her.

You may be thinking sometihing along the lines of: "Yeah, but these are real
people whom you can see and touch and I don't doubt their existence. That's
not true of God." True, you cannot see and touch the person of God and it's
evident that you doubt God's existence (understatement). However (and you
knew that was coming), the things that make my girlfriend and parents 
intriguing is not their physical presence, but their personalities and
attributes that are intangible. I want to learn more about them because
of the love they have shown in my life, because of the sacrifices they have
made for me, because they desire to be a part of my life. I am drawn to
God for the same reasons, albeit His personality and attributes are more
abstract in my mind.  
>
>>Why do you have trouble with the concept that I don't completely
>>understand God, and yet there are certain things that I do know about
>>the divine?
>
>No, there's certain things you've gleaned from the man-made bible or had
>preached to you, but you don't *know* a damn thing about your alleged
>"God".  It's called faith.
>
No, this is BLIND faith, indeed a tragedy.

>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

BLD
From: thurston@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Tad Thurston)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: B. Thiering and her new book
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:10:48 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA



Hey, has anybody read Barbara Thiering's new book called Jesus and 
the Dead Sea Scrolls?   I just bought it and scanned it through, as well
as being familiar with the PBS special that gave her theory some lip
service.  Does anybody have some good refutations to her theory?  It 
sounds pretty good and thorough to me, but I am interested in hearing
some critical discussion by those much more knowledgeable in the field 
than I am.  

Lemme have it!!!


Mr. T
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: n5ppm264 (Charlie Board)
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Organization: bnr
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:53:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.234333.9200@athena.cs.uga.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jul29.173334.1518@brtph560.bnr.ca> n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
> >Why, an abortion of course!  The "water" is clearly an abortificient...sort
> >of a primitive version of RU-486.  
> 
> Aren't you reading quite a bit into this?  How do you know that the LORD
> is not supposed to do something to the water, just as tradition or history
> tells of how the cloth was turned from red to white when the sin of the
> people was removed?  

I think you're rationalizing..if the water wasn't necessary why bring it in
at all. Besides the verse clearly states that the WATER causes the miscarraige
and barrenness. Can you honestly tell me (based solely on the text) that 
you're SURE this isn't an abortificient? I honestly don't see how you could
answer yes to that question...and if the answer is no then there you can't
be certain that abortion is a sin and have no right to force that view on
others (not that you have that right anyway).

> 
> >Note that I DID not have to stretch anything to reach the conclusion that
> >this is about abortion - as far as I can see it is the most natural and 
> >literal sense of the text.  (BTW, I do not have exact references, but have
> >been told that the crucial Hebrew word here - the one translated miscarraige
> >- is routinely translated as miscarraige in the rest of the OT)
> 
> Don't be so sure about this.  I have read from someone else who knows Hebrew
> that miscarriage is taking quite a bit of liberty with the text.  Maybe
> we can ask the question on alt.messianic.

Well, I'd like references. The miscarraige translation does appear in my NIV 
as an alternate, but I see no reason to believe that wasn't a political 
decision given that:

a) The other translation was something along the lines of "her thigh wastes 
away" (Sorry, I took my NIV home, KJAMES has "her thigh shall  rot"). Now, I
have heard of miscarraiges resulting from ingesting something, I've never 
heard of a woman's thigh rotting because she ingested something. So 
miscarraige is the only reasonable choice.

b) I was told that the word in question was translated  as "miscarraige"
in many other instances in the OT. I can't verify that and would appreciate
references as to what the Hebrew word is and where else it appears in the
Bible.

?alt.messianic? Never noticed that group before...what is it?


> 
> Link Hudson.
> 
> 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: SLOW DOWN !!
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:12:37 GMT


In every article posted on this group concerning my original post that
HOMOSEXUALS ANYWHERE ARE WRONG, there has been nothing but arguing and
bickering.  We are acting like little children.  I am sorry now I even
posted the thing.

A few days ago, I was reading the group, and noticed a woman who rebuked
us all for this same thing.  What will people who are not christians think
of all this arguing?  Whatever happened to the verse in Phillipians which
says whatsoever things are good, whatsoever things are just,... .  What
are we doing here?  I feel ashamed that I even wrote the silly post.  It
was only my opinion.  And also in my opinion out of the Bible.  Whether or
not it is or not, is now becomming irrelevant.

We have people talking about apes, and hashing out the same arguments in
post after post after post, only worded differently.  "If you blame
homosexuals, then you are a sinner too for being judgemental,"   or
how about this one.   "There is no proof that god is not a homosexual."
Come on now!!  This has gone far enough.  I respect all of your different
opinions, whether contrary to my own or not.  But, THIS IS NOT A GOOD
THING TO BE DOING !!

Would God in any form look on all this bickering favorably?  NO.  I regret
sincerely the trouble I have caused by bringing this obviously sensitive
matter into the open here.  Let me then, put your minds on a different
task.  Answer for me this question please if you can.

1)  Do sins compound themselves?  i.e.  if you commit one sin, is it
    easier to commit the next, and so on.

2)  What is the blaringly obvious link of prayer to #1 above?  Should
    we pray constantly for forgiveness?  For the mind of God?  

3)  How often should we pray, and for what?  Which prayers "get through"
    to God, and which ones fall by the wayside?

I will accept ONLY scriptural referrences as valid answers.  OR, PERSONAL
TESTIMONY !!  NOT personal opinion.  The bible does say after all, that we
will defeat the devil and his agents by the power of the word of God, and
by our testimony.  (or at least something to that effect.)

Let's try to keep this in perspective please.  A very good friend of mine
who I just met recently said

     " If I feel myself starting to get into an argument, or getting
       angry for whatever reason, then I should just stop and get 
       on my knees and pray."

                             Paul Hudson Jr.  
                             (paraphrased by me)

God bless,
Steve.Gross

(...@bbs.oit.unc.edu) or
(...@lambada.unc.edu)


--
   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
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:18:53 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <LAURAF.92Jul23142629@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:

> How much time would you spent listening to someones belief on a matter than is
> conflicting with yours?

Depends on how intellectually honest "you" are. See below.

>>-Tim:
>> Well I don't know about Corey, old son, but the book he mentions happens
>> to have been the very publication which fell into my hands about ten years
>> ago. It was my first encounter with creationist propaganda and, since my
>> field is the humanities, I found many of the anti-evolution arguments in it
>> pretty convincing. Luckily I went to a library and checked up as many of the
>> quotes and footnotes in the book as I could and did a bit of reading on 
>> evolution and anti-evolutionism (this is called looking at both sides of the
>> story). I found that your sweet little book is a bizarre collection of
>> out-of-context quotations, misquotations, misleading quotations, non
>> sequiturs, errrors of fact and just about every other dirty intellectual
>> trick known to man. (I'll substantiate this statement in long and glorious
>> detail if you [...]

> Please do!!!! I keep an open mind just as long as what is being said agrees 
> with the bible.

Gosh, how open. See above.

> You are right, Tim, it does take courage to admit when one is wrong!!
> However, I have a question: why is it JW's loss if Corey gives up
> everlasting life for Satan's system, which as he well knows will be
> destroyed very soon?

As who "well knows"? If you mean Corey, I don't think Corey "well knows"
this at all; indeed, Corey has recently shaken off this ludicrous belief
among many others. Hallelujah, as it were. Corey now seems to possess the
open mind which you clearly do not from your comments above.

As to whether this constitutes a loss for the JWs, well, I certainly
hope it does.

> Laura

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:58:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.171417@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.084908.10086@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG
>(Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>> Since you choose to insult me I assume you disagree with the statement?
>> Perhaps you can present some evidence for your view that a gene imparting
>> a 1% disadvantage will not be removed by evolution?
>
>  I did some stuff on this with markov chains back in may, and found that any
>loss in reproduction due to a gene would have it dissapear.  Since all mutations
>start in a small (at best) group, it would never even get wide spread, much less
>need to die out of a significant portion of the population.

I'm curious what this effect would do to the efficiency of genetic
algorithms? I'm curious if the program would perform better if the
"creatures" are broken up into localized groups.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: thurston@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Tad Thurston)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: B. Thiering and her new book
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:23:35 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:

(...regarding Barbara Thiering's book _Jesus and the Riddle of the DSS...)

(some material from previous post deleted)...
>It's total crap. I've been reading on the origins of christianity
>for some years now and I've read some really stupid stuff (eg
>'Holy Blood and Holy Grail'), but having just finished Thiering's
>'Jesus the Man' I'd have to say she wins the prize for the greatest
>load of unadulterated bullshit I've ever read.


>If anyone really wants me to post a more detailed critique, as well
>as information on why her re-dating of the scrolls is total crap I
>will do so. Until then, my advice to christians and fellow non-christians
>alike is'Avoid Thieirng's stuff like the plague (unless you want
>a damn good laugh)
>Tim O'Neill


Actually, I would like to see a detailed critique of her dating techniques,
as hers is the only treatise on the subject that I have read, and she seems
to have valid differences with the consensus dating opinion.  

Thanks, 

Tad