HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen)
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 02:33:01 GMT

In article <BROWN.92Apr8205349@duncan.cs.utk.edu> brown@cs.utk.edu (Lance A. Brown) writes:
>> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) wrote:
>
>> So many people  (pro-homosexual or whatever) keep telling me and 
>> others that we are judging homosexuals.
>
>> To judge someone means to form an opinion based on my own set
>> of beleifs and values--a value system that I have devised.
>
>Or based on a pre-existing belief/value system that you have chosen to take
>as your own.
>
>> The Bible is relevant to all. To say that some action is evil
>> because the Bible says it is evil is not "passing judgement."
>
>Here is where the judgement comes in.  It is _your_ belief that "The
>[Christian] Bible is relevant to all".  Not all people believe that.  That
>makes it a judgement.
>
>> I cannot speak for all the people posting--some are not speaking 
>> from the Bible. 
>
>> Also, if a Christian makes a comment that is in say all caps. to 
>> represent being ticked off. Don't come back with this
>> bologna about "Well, what kinda Christian are you getting mad!?"
>> There is nothing wrong with getting mad. So don't write me and
>> tell me what a bad Christian I am because I get angry!!
>
>> Chris
>--
>Lance A. Brown  <brown@cs.utk.edu>
>  The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data,
>     and the Data is Life -- The Player's Litany
>                                 from _The Long Run_ by D.K. Moran

Guys, the first definition my dictionary gives for judgement is:
 To hear a case and pronounce sentence upon.

But, let me start from the beginning.

1. It is claimed that when Christians tell others they are wrong, that
   they are 'judging' others..
2. And that Jesus told Christians NOT to judge others.
3. Therefore: Christians are hypocritical ad wrong to tell others they
   are wrong.

This is utter nonsense, though.  To discern right and wrong is clearly
a Biblical concept, and even to warn others of their error.

When Christ condemned judgement, he condemned the sentencing of others.
That is to say, somehow punishing the other because of their fault.
To includes censorship, racism, deprevation of basic rights, ect.

And even at this, though, he never really condemned judging anyway.

Rather, he taught "judge not, else YOU will be judged."  Which leaves
the judging to those who have no faults of thier own.  "Let him who
is withougt sin cast the first stone."   And those who by granted authority,
and merit are in a position to judge, are commanded to be discerning and
grant pardon to the repentant.

I do warn you though, the Lord will judge the homosexuals.
-- 
Wayne VanWeerthuizen | wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu | Christian, X-trinitarian
205 Scott Hall       | (509) 335-1835 (voice)      | Physics ugrad, 21yrs old
Pullman, WA  99163   |    <<< Thank You Cards For Sale, $10.00 each >>>
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:43:11 GMT
	<GOEHRING.92Apr15111757@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Apr15.224553.21084@menudo.uh.edu>
	<1992Apr16.174047.27937@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

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

>Look around.  Look at society today.  Look at marriage today.  Before
>the sexual revolution, sex outside of marriage was looked down upon.
>Notice that the divorce rates were very low.  Look at the divorce
>rate now.  Look at how many children are born without having a father
>present to raise them.  Has this strengthened society.

You have no proof of a causal correlation between these two
statistics.  I see no logical connection between the frequency of sex
outside of marriage and divorce rates; the fact that both increased in
a given period does not imply that one caused the other.  The null
hypothesis is that there is no causal linkage between these two
variables.  You must show that there is.
--
I don't think that "society" _knows_ if a person is a virgin or not.  It's not
like they have a neon sign flashing on their forehead or something.
		-- Jennifer Brindle (jbrindle@mdd.comm.mit.com), talk.abortion
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:03:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

It is interesting that almost no-one has responded to my "sexuality graph"
with anything other than "thats BS".

Why?  Most gay couples are masculine-feminine, and those that are not are
(from my experience) not characterized by Christian values.  Is it so absurd
to suggest that feminine gay males are initially attracted to other males for
their masculinity, and then direct their sexual interests in that direction
as a result?  Is it so absurd to suggest that this same person might be
attracted to a masculine woman (although more rare than masculine men), as
far as personality is concerned?

Lets face it, the pleasure of the sex act is gained (for the male) from
the orgasm accompanying ejaculation.  The recipient might as well be a hole
in the wall as far as this is concerned.  Therefore anything "special" in the
homosexual relationship _must_ be above physical sex, which I proffer one
can also find in that rare breed of female...

Someone please tell me why this is so absurd.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:57:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.130845.1203@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. 

You mean you don't _know_?

Come on, name them.  (Or are you trying to tell me that if I went through a
list of people in prison and marked down their religions, that every single
one of those religions is one which teaches children to lie, steal, rape, etc.?)
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 03:40:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.003203.22522@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.230017.2335@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>Actually, I have thought about it quite a bit,
>
>Really?  Do tell!

Actually what first got me started was the absolutely detestable atmosphere
at Rutgers University where there is so much gay tolerance that they get away
with things heterosexuals would _never_ get away with (like sex in university
restrooms and rooming with a random sex partner in university dorms).
Most of this was due to all the extremely liberal legislation that had been
passed there, and some of this legislation was being considered for Purdue so
naturally I was worried for the environment that I am paying for....

As a result I got in contact with PGA (Purdue Gay Alliance) and attended a
"Bring your straight friend" night.  I was assured that the Rutgers situation
would not be allowed to occur here, and I think I can trust them.

Some interesting notes about dealing with these people is that
  1) They do not deny that homosexuality is a blatant sin against the
     Christian God.  They get around this by simply not being Christian.
  2) I heard some interesting stories about identical twins where one "turned
     out" gay and the other "turned out" straight (puts a damper on
     physically "being" gay, doesn't it?)
  3) I learned that gay people are people too (but hey I suspected this
     anyway!  :-)
  4) I got the distinct feeling that they were throwing their lives away
     fighting for a cause that was really just an excuse to have a sex club.
     On the up side, it was a close-knit support group where everyone was
     honest with each other.

>>lost much sleep,
>
>Why?

Because I _care_ about people.

>>dropped letter grades,
>
>I am truly sorry if my being gay has contributed to your C- becoming a D.

Merely A becoming B - I don't care _that_ much !   :-)

>>etc, _and_ been associated with gay individuals.
>
>Wow.
>
>>You're right
>>- I can't prove this to you because your toolbox of proofs does not include
>>conviction, feelings, and the like.
>
>The difference between you, John, and gay people, is that they know
>themselves and presume to act on that knowledge.  They don't give a

As long as you are _sure_ you are doing what God approves of who am I to say
you are wrong?  I am just convinced that if you are honest with yourself you
will change your mind about this issue.  If not, you can't say I didn't try!
(-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-:

>flying fuck about you, frankly.  You, who barely have a handle on your
>own reality, have convinced yourself that you know what's best for
>them, and you don't hesitate to let them know that.  Don't be surprised
>if your conclusions are a little suspect.
>

I assure you I have a strangle-hold on my own reality, or rather on my
salvation!

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:42:06 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>	You got it - you said "at least some". I admit that. But are the 
>	"ordinary" Catholics, Mormons, Southern Baptists etc. true followers
>	of Christ in their lives ?

No person on earth can truly live every second of their life as a follower
of Christ.  It is not possible to go without sinning.  Sin is that which
sets us apart from God.  I sin.  You sin.  As such, you fail to live the
ideal just as all of us do.

I will grant you that there are some followers who claim the title, but do
not follow.  I try my best, within my human limits, to live the life that
Christ commanded.

You remind me of the Gospel Pharisees, those blind guides who slam the gates
of heaven in mens' faces and yet fail to enter themselves.

 -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: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM')
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:13:20 GMT
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual


Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote the following:


>Just a few dozen articles after describing the JWs as paranoid, Jay Windley
>starts to sound a bit unglued himself.  The issue is former LDS who have been
>to the temple and then gone back on their `covenants' to be silent about what
>goes on inside.

>I think the business of covenants goes directly against Jesus' advice NOT to
>swear oaths -- if you haven't sworn an oath to what ends up being an immoral
>cause, you don't have any oath to go back on.  But given that one _has_ sworn,
>and then discovers that fulfilling the oath entails allowing immorality, the
>resulting conflict is not completely cut & dried.  If the ex-LDS truly believe
>that LDS are going to burn forever, then embarassing millions of people in the
>hope of turning even one away from Mormonism as a good trade.  The only
>problem is the oath (which, granted, they shouldn't have taken in the first
>place), but which pales in comparison to having people fry forever.  They may
>even feel that the `covenant' was made under false pretenses, and therefore
>they do not need to honor it.

Read Hebrews 6:17 and 7:20,Luke 1:73, Acts 2:30. It looks like that both God and 
Jesus made oaths. If you believe that Jesus said that no one under any 
circumstance should say an oath, it is fine with me. However, not all understand 
the scriptures the same way as you do. Besides, in the Temple we make covenants. 
I don't believe that there is anything wrong with promising to not to disclose 
certain information and to keep certain laws. Jesus said that a simple yes or no 
will do. This is all what is required in the Temple, to say yes or no.

As far as being paranoid, what is this supposed to be?: "The only
problem is the oath (which, granted, they shouldn't have taken in the 
first place), but which pales in comparison to having people fry forever."

With brotherly love,

		Frank
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Are Christians Dualists?
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:25:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>In article <adams.703453030@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
>writes:

>>There is far too much self-deprication in Christianity. 
>Amen.
At least we agree on one point! ;-)

>>Without evil there can be no good.  Without hell, there can be no heaven.
>>Without damnation, there can be no salvation.  Without sin there can be no
>>redemption.

[deletions relating to eternal vs temporal reality]

>How then can what God creates be put on the same level as what he does
>not create? How can what God does not create be said to exist at all
>in comparison to what he does?  It is like comparing a cloud with a
>rock.
There is nothing in all the universe which God did not create.  Every evil
thing on earth is a product of creation.  You cannot escape this
conclusion.  I posted a long explaination on how I find God to be perfectly
good, evil notwithstanding.  I dare say the Holocaust was evil.  And as
real as we, in our corporeal state, can ever know.

 -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: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 1 of 2)
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:19:35 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr14.142717.492@yvax.byu.edu> mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.152223.15869@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>[lots of circular arguments deleted]
>>>Many things are required for entrance into this highest degree of
>>>glory, including faith in Jesus as the Redeemer and the living of a
>>>Christian life of love and service.
>> 
>> You are basically admitting here that Mormons are not Christian.
>> 
>	Once again, just what do you mean by Christian?  Do you mean those that
>profess to follow Christ?  If so then Mormons most definitely are Christians. 
>If you mean only those that believe in Christ the same way that you do (or that
>main-stream Cristianity does) I would say that this is a VERY egocentric
>position that you're taking.
>	As was stated above, Mormons believe that faith in Jesus Christ as our
>Redeemer and living a Christian life of love and service are necessary for
>salvation.  How is this out of tune with what Jesus taught?  How does this make
>them non-Christian?  

Mormons do not say Jesus is who Jesus said he was in the Bible: God.  They say 
this is because the Bible is wrong - I say it is because they are not Christian
(following Christ).  I personally have found much more evidence that the
latter is the case.  Someone who profesess to follow Christ but does not have 
made this statement in error, so I think they need to re-evaluate what it means 
to be Christian.  As with all arguments, this comes back to the
fallibilty/infallibilty of the Bible.  This issue will not be resolved here,
but my personal study has led to this conclusion.


John M.
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:13:01 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

I think I am starting to see that arguing about homosexuality is not
productive.  I still do not think this behavior is in God's plan for anyone's
Christian life, but you are right in that I cannot take it upon myself to try
and show everyone "the error of their ways".  I think I have been convinced
that this causes people to be defensive and no one is going to change their
mind based on what I think - I can only hope that they will change their
minds based on what God thinks.

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

Ephesians 5:3 -

"But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed _EVEN BE NAMED AMONG YOU_,
as is proper among saints;"

Galatians 5:16-18,22-25 -

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the
flesh.  For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh, for these are in opposition to one another, so that you
may not do the things that you please.  But if you are led by the Spirit, you
are not under the Law ... But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;
against such things there is no law.  Now those who belong to Christ Jesus
have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.  If we live by the
Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."


I apologize for exhibiting somewhat less than the fruit of the Spirit in
these matters.  It is my earnest prayer that the homosexual Christians on
this board will at least take it upon themselves to _honestly_ decide if
their lifestyle jives with these verses.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: MORMONISM ??????
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 07:25:12 GMT

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this,
but here goes......
My girlfriend is a Mormon, and I'm interested in
finding out more about the beliefs and all, that are related
to Mormonism.  However, she's in New Mexico at the moment, and
I live in Alaska, so it's a bit difficult to find out things,
except through letters.  That's a bit slow.  Anyway, she sent
me her book of Mormon and I've started reading it.
My question is this....is there anything else out there that I 
can look into to find out these things?  Anything that'll help,
realy.  I'm new at this, and not sure what to look for.
Thanks in advance for all help!                        ROG!
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:42:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr10.004224.14532
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <647@oscar.UUCP> shouse@oscar.UUCP (claude shouse) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.211932.9963@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> 
>> I know many gay people out there are going to hang me for this, but I do not
>> beleive that the spiritual bond which sex helps to reinforce between man and
>> wife is possible for gays, simply because it was not intended.  Heterosexual
>> sex is a gift from God, and therefore has benefits (both obvious and
>> spiritual - "of God") when properly managed (not abused).  Homosexual sex is
>> a perversion of man, which can only mean fleshly gratification.  Clear up my
>> stance any? 
>> 
>> John M.
>
>It sure does.  Your stance is that you speak for God and what God
>intends.  Much like Pat Robertson turning the hurricane away.  This
>kind of hubris is what give religion a bad name.  If being homosexual
>is such a perversion against God,  why not let God take care of it?
>Do you feel God needs your help with it?
>
>Would you and the others who condemn homosexuality please answer
>this simple question?

Just exactly what have I said in the above statement that the Bible does
not say?  The things which are stated as fact I stated as fact and my opinion
about the spiritual element was prefixed with "I beleive" which translates to
take it or leave it.  I FEEL that my conclusion is the most obvious
biblically based one.  

> 
>         Do you like girls only because the Bible commands it?.

If you read my other posts it will be clear what I think about heterosexual
relationships.


John M.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:34:41 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr6.045347.27364@midway.uchicago.edu>, rivk@quads.uchicago.edu
(nora gayle rivkis) writes:
> According to the Tanakh itself (note for Christians: this is the term
> used by Jews for what you consider the Old Testament -- we don't use
> your term because we don't consider there to be another one), the 613
> commandments of the covenant were, with seven exceptions, only applic-
> able to Jews. Since you claim that Jesus based his teachings on the
> Tanakh (a premise of which I am highly dubious), he would have also
> accepted this.
Which he did, according to the Gospels.
 
> >And wasn't it
> >*Paul* (him again) that introduced the idea of a separate covenant
> >for the gentiles, it was needed in order to move the religion into
> >new cultures?
> 
> He may have introduced the idea that gentiles needed a separate covenant,
> but he certainly didn't invent the idea that gentiles weren't included in
> the original one; that's a long part of Judaism. What Paul changed was the
> concept that gentiles didn't need one at all; the Jewish one was never
> applicable to gentiles.

And this was part of Jesus original message, until the death when he
suddenly changed his mind about converting the whole world. The original
church was not that keen to do so, enter Paul and the situation changed.

Cheers,
Kent