HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daphne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Amy Kruse)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:35:00 GMT

In article <thgm=3b.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Jul21.184318.19611@news.acns.nwu.edu> daphne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Amy Kruse) writes:
>><1992Jul21.180424.6522@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>> <10068@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) said:
>>>>>In article <84#x9g@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>>><forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>>><>From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
>> ******I would like to call your attention here******
>
>Geez, part of me hates to do this, but another part of me really kind of
>enjoys it.  

Try pray about it and interpreting exactly what the Devil was offering our
Lord.  One of Satan greatest tricks in this world is that he has confused the
way we think about Sin and Satan himself.  He is not just found in Devil
Worshipping.  Give Jesus a little credit.
>
>>Jesus knew exactly what power miracles had over people, after all he helped
>>create them didn't he?  Anyway..In Luke's gospel, chapter four, Satan begins
>
>Actually it started in verse 3.
>
>>to tempt Jesus and he tempts him with the easy route to having Jesus declared
>>Lord by everyone.  See the fifth verse.  Satan says he will give Jesus command
>>over all of the nations of the earth if he would perform one miracle that
>>would sweep them off their feet.  
>
>That was verse 8 that you sort of refer to.  Satan doesn't ask Jesus to
>perform a miracle for the nations, he offers Jesus the dominion of the
>world if Jesus will worship *him*.
>
>It would be nice if Christians occasionally *read* the bible.
 I had it open to the page and verse when I wrote this. How do you think that
Satan would have whipped the people up into a frenzy?

>
>>                                  This was not Jesus' mission, He could have
>>had everyone on his side very easily, but he prefers for us to choose the way
>>of God, not the ways of man and fancy miracles.
>
>Then why did Jesus perform fancy miracles?  Your god did warn people
>against prophets that would come in his name and predict things.  He
>referred to them as 'false prophets' I believe.

What does a false prophet have to do miracles?
>
>> If it was only to benefit the individual at that time and not to
>>>> gain converts later then I'm sure that this god could have kept these
>>>> "miracles" out of the bible altogether. 
>>>> Gordon
>>>In fact, he did keep most of them out.
>
>What?  You don't even comment on Suzanne's heresy?  Heck, she accuses your
>god of only being able to keep *some* of them out of the bible.
>
>>Thanks for letting me add....Amy 
>
>Nice try Amy.  Please try reading the bible before posting though, ok?
*********Try using it not as a weapon.
>

>Gordon
Amy

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: jw's and the 144000
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:01:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.174152.26428@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG
(Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.175005@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.132015.17155@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti
>>Siivonen) writes:
>>> 	Besides, I'm far more biologist than mr. C. Darwin. 
>>
>>  Who merely proposed (and quite hesitantly) the theory in it's original form.
>>Evolution, as it stands now, bears almost no relation to the one proposed by
>>Darwin.  When you say you know better than the creator of Evolution, you are
>>really saying you know better than thousands of PhD biologists, geneticists,
and
>>even most ornithologists.
> 
> While Darwin may not have filled in all the details he was exactly right
> about the general principle of natural selection. The details of how a
> particular animal evolved or the means by which mutations happen may be open
> to debate, but the concept of natural selection itself is not in dispute. 

  Exactly.  This is the difference between the Theory of Evolution and Evolution
itself.

  Evolution is the (undisputable) fact that there are changes in the gene pool. 
The mechanisms for this change are not even covered.  I have not even heard the
most die-hard creationist dispute that gene pools change over time.

  The Theory of Evolution is a combination of theory about change selection, and
common ancestry.  As for change selection, most people agree it exists, and few
disagree that it is due to enviromental pressures.  I have seen this disputed
only rarely, and it is easy to prove it works by simulating a simplified
enviroment on a computer.  (This work is actually part of my research)

  So the only part of the Theory of Evolution it is reasonable to dispute is
common ancestry.  Darwin's contribution on this was minimal at best.  Of what he
did contribute, only the tiniest fraction still remains.  A vast majority of the
evidence has been gathered by Scientists with PhDs in biology, archeology,
genetics, paleantology, etc.

  So by disputing evolution, Andreas is arguing with these people, not Darwin.

> Natural selection works regardless of the "implementation" it works in
> the physical world with DNA but it can also work in a computer using
> virtually any method you choose to represent a creature, infact it
> even works in society, ideas, religions, etc. are all subject to natural
> selection.

  Sure, but I very much doubt that Andreas was attacking that aspect of the
Theory of Evolution.  It would be pointless and stupid.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "It is easier to fight for one's principles than   *
* vonRoeschlaub *   to live up to them." - Alfred Adler               *
***********************************************************************
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Singular Salvation
Date: 28 Jul 1992 22:45:37 GMT
Organization: Theologians Pseudononymous
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird
Keywords: jingle, jingle, jingle

(Sangyong Jeon) writes:

>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 ?

I don't think that's the case. Judaism doesn't do that insofar
as I know, and Unitarian-Universalism doesn't either.

>And the logical implication that follows ?

I have learned here on the net not to take anything for
granted, so I would be interested in the "logical implication
that follows"

As you can probably guess, I would not attempt to claim the
singular salvation of any particular theology and would
not buy into one that did.


Dano

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Bible condoning abortion (was Re: The sin of shaving?)
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:05:12 GMT


In article <1992Jul29.234333.9200@athena.cs.uga.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

|> 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.


I have had Christians who believe the Bible literally try to explain away
the book of Numbers to me for years.  Whenever something of distaste to 
their beliefs comes up, they yell that I am twisting the proper translation.

Okay, I would like to hear a rational explaination of what takes place
in Numbers 31.  In this chapter, God tells Moses to command the people
to kill men, women, and children (even infants) of the people who have
been conqured.  Wholesale genocide and infanticide.  Oh, but they were to
keep the virgins.  The virgins, along with all the rest of the booty, are
to be distributed to first the fighting men, and then to the rest of the
Israelites.  Why did these fighting men want the virgins?  It couldn't have
been for the same reason other armies captured the virgins before slaughtering
a town, could it?  There is no ambiguity in this chapter.  It is quite clear
what is going on here.  Nothing Hitler ever did was any worse than what
God commands his people to do here.  I'd love to have this one explained
away for me.  (By the way, Numbers 3 seems very clear to most people, except
those who want to explain away the fact that it obviously deals with 
abortion).

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:59:51 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <LAURAF.92Jul28112038@wolf.eecs.umich.edu> lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
>
>Man cannot create life therefore I see no evidence of evolution.

While I'm not really trying to be insulting, I must point out that
this is a glaringly stupid argument, if it can be dignified with
the term "argument" at all.  The one has, quite literally, nothing
to do with the other, unless you believe that the meaning of the
word 'evolution' is "the ability of man to create life."

As an interesting side note:  Do you hold that all stars in the
universe were created as is, or that some current stars may have
been formed by the physical processes currently believed to cause
them?  If you believe the latter, I must ask why, since it is
clear to me that "man cannot create stars".  Of course, if you
believe the former, then I'm wasting my breath (fingers?).

>Living forever sounds too good to pass up; especially on a paradise earth where
>one does not have to deal with Satan's system!!  I love life, don't you?

Another stupid argument.  Just because you would like a thing to be
so, does not mean you should believe it to be so.  I would like it
if Santa Claus was real; don't you love having that nice man to bring
happiness to so many children?  Why don't you believe in him, then?



-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
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
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:59:54 GMT

Lawrence C. Foard writes:

>Terence Lung writes:

>>Or you can look at
>>Levitican laws if you respect them as being god's word.

>Clearly most Christians do not accept them as gods word since most
>Christians do not grow there beards or make any other attempt to keep
>kosher.

  christians are christians because they acknowledge the new testament,
the new covenant in jesus as updating/fulfilling/replacing the laws in
the old testament/covenant.  i acknowledge god's words in the old testament
to be god's, but i also acknowledge that his new covenant with me [and with
all of us] replaces the old laws.

>If I took the bible as being gods literal word I would have to conclude
>that all sins mentioned in the bible are sins and that a life of celibacy
>would be best, I would have to conclude that I must keep kosher, and
>not allow women to evangelize.

  that would be to disregard the context of the bible.  sex within marriage
is sanctioned [so celibacy is not required].  and the new covenant through
jesus replaces the laws that would have bound me to the old covenant if it
if the new one didn't come along.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum)
Subject: Re: PIGS, BROADS, AND OTHERS
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:27:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.175150.14029@husc3.harvard.edu>
    zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

| >>"Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial -- notoriously less
| >>stable and less inherent than the natures of other things.  And insofar as
| >>this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit."
| 
| DL:
| >Exactly.
| 
| How kind of you to agree.

It seems quite ironic that Mikhail would quote from Harry Frankfurt's
excellent little essay about bullshit and bullshit artists, since 
Mikhail himself is one of the best examples of the bullshit artist
manque that we have had the pleasure and exasperation to witness on 
the net.

Right here, in fact, we have a fair example of the artist at work:
Frankfurt is not using the word "sincerity" here in its normal sense.
He is using it in a specific technical sense which he introduces earlier
in his essay.  In that sense, sincerity probably is bullshit, at least
among those smart enough to know better.

However, Mikhail makes no effort to point out that this quote is lifted
out of context, even when his decontextified presentation of it leads 
someone else to agree with it. As Frankfurt says of those willing to
bullshit, "[h]e is prepared to fake the context as well, so far as need
requires".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Ostrum                                            cbo@cs.toronto.edu  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           "Can I have another piece of chocolate cake?" 
 "You can have your cake and eat it, and never have to puke up a thing."
		-- Crowded House/Richard Thompson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Leviticus study (was sin of shaving?)
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:26:49 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com (Norman Kraft)
in Message-ID: <jWcqr*5h1@bkhouse.cts.com> writes:

>> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
>> Message-ID: <1992Jul26.083543.10897@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>> >Do you shave your beard?  If so why is it ok to sin in this way? 
>> >(yes shaving your beard off is against the teachings in leviticus)
>
>This is one of the fun parts of the Old Testament. Those who site it
>as support for anti-homosexual arguments often are being *very* selective
>about what they choose to read. There are few things more fascinating
>than someone who says they read the Bible "literally", and find it
>"inerrant in every word", yet ignore most of Leviticus and accuse others
>of being "cafeteria Christians". I'll tell you what, folks: we all
>so some shopping.
>
> [lots of specific examples listed]

It certainly does look fun.  I've never read the stuff before.
I'll begin reading it tonight.

Let's look at it critically.  Apparently, you, Norman and Lawrence
and others have read Leviticus.  Let's begin with some basic
investigations.  Who wrote it?  When was it written?  What is the 
purpose of the book?  How does its contents support its thesis?

Terence
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Terence`s homophobia
Date: 23 Jul 1992 16:54:17 GMT
Organization: Organization to Stamp Out Idiocy
Distribution: world
Reply-To: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

In article 22656@oasys.dt.navy.mil, lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
 
>
>(A) If there is no question about the existence of god then:
>     
>    (Pardon my French) Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice 
>    (righteousness).  And all these things will be added unto you.

This is of course merely your interpretation; yet you write it
as if you were the voice of authority. This attitude is most
tiresome. In the original sense of the word, "sin" means estrangement
from "god"; if that is the case, then certainly it is a subjective
judgement. 



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: thurston@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Tad Thurston)
Subject: Re: B. Thiering and her new book
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:28:17 GMT

HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>REisenmann also said the same thing several years ago.   Coinage usage
>and textual content show that the DSS were indeed contemporary with
>Jesus.  The difference between (RE) and (BT) is that (RE) felt that
>Paul with the wicked priest while Jesus was the teacher of righteousness.
> 
>Essenic tradition, as viewed by (RE) has a much wider application than
>just the Qumran group, that the (Q) were just one of several factions
>which overlapped.  Within this definition, Jesus fits well as an
>Essene--so to John the B and Paul.  The whole Essenic tradition revolves
>around family pre-eminence in the Jewish community (ie the Davidic Kingship
>or Messanic belief, as well as the other messanic expectations.
> 
>(RE) was the driving force behind the disclosure of the DSS away from the
>RCC cartel that held them etc.  Now I don't care if either he or (BT) is
>right; but there were certain ties between the Jersulam Community and the
>Qumram folks and that Christianity had its foundations in the Essenic movement.
>Which was a movement of works, not of faith.  This explains alot of
>the Biblical problems of saving by faith or works.  James the Just,
>borther of Jesus, believed in works; whereas Paul, the missionary,
>found it easier to gain converts by requiring faith only.
> 
> 
(Some material deleted...)

I am anxious to learn more....Could you give me the name of Reisenmann's
works (those which have a bearing upon the current discussion)?  I find 
the early history of Christianity absolutely fascinating.  
> 
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
> |             not your's either!                                      |
> |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
> |                                    or: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 
Thanks!!

Tad

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Shakers (was Re: shekers)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<IeS0pcb0Bwwb0_4uFH@transarc.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 00:02:08 GMT

Lyle_Seaman@transarc.com writes:

>No, they're the once incredibly successful religious sect that has
>_almost_ died out (not quite, yet) because:
>1.  Religion generally declined in popularity.
>2.  The US Supreme Court ruled that they (and the Catholic charities)
>could no longer take in foundlings, as it transgressed the separation
>of church and state.  This was a terrible shame,...

>Just picking a nit.  Note followup.

Sorry, but this still belongs in misc.legal.  When did the Supreme
Court declare that the Shakers and Catholic charities could not take
in foundlings?  Citation, please?


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.philosophy.tech
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Get a life
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:30:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <1992Jul22.173330.23164@samba.oit.unc.edu> Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
>
>I think it was John_Graves who states that Jesus was at least involved in
>a homoaffectional or something relationship with his disciple,  a.k.a. 
>"Lover"
>
>To this, I would respond, Get a life.  If you seriously think that Jesus
>had anything to do with homosexual activity, you need help. 

So you will not object when you see two men engaged in the activity
mentioned?

>that is the authoritative word of God, and that book says that
>homosexuality is UNNATURAL, that it is unnatural.

That book also says that you should not shave, that women shall not
speak in church, etc.

Any one who bothers to take a look at the animal kingdom will find
that homosexuality is quite natural. Homosexuality was not invented
by humans, it was present among animals long before we evolved.

>For all you scholars who have read "between the lines" and have theorized a
>different interpretation, my sincere apologies.  I read the book as it is
>written, no more no less.

And you are not guilty of picking and choosing sins?
-- 
>>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: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:51:08 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul29.171021.24832@cs.yale.edu>
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <1992Jul29.153107.26021@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>>In article <1992Jul29.024228.15848@cs.yale.edu>
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>>3) It is not, to my knowledge, known that sexual orientation is
>>>genetically controlled.

>>There is alot of evidence,

>Please present some.

I, for one, have many times presented the results of a twin study conducted
here at Boston University, by Dr. Richard Pilliard. He sampled gay adult
males, both from individual births, and as members of monozygotic and
fraternal male twins.

He found that 55% of the identical twins of gay men were also gay.

He found that 22% of the fraternal twins of gay men were also gay.

He found that 11% of the non-twin siblings of gay men were also gay.

These results most likely prove that genetics cannot be the sole cause,
for we would expect 100% concordance among monozygotic twins, unless
the subjects of this study were loathe to be completely truthful or
had inadequate information about their brothers.

The amazing thing is that there are strong suggestions of the combined
importance of genetic makeup and *prenatal* [hormonal] environment.
Identical twins are 5 times more likely to have concordant sexualities
than do non-twin siblings. Fraternal twins are twice as likely.

Other twin studies have shown 50%-90% concordance among identical twins
*raised apart*.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=