HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Prayer and Religious Activities in the Public Schools
Summary: Buddhist prayer in Hawaiian Schools?
Keywords: prayer, schools
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:05:47 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

In article <1992Apr3.032816.26406@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>(Hey, doesn't the phrase "remove God from the coins" smack of
>idolatry? :-)  )
Not really. B^) 
>
>You live in Hawaii. There must be some public schools in Hawaii where
>Christians are in a minorty and Buddhists are the majority. Do you
>really want teachers there trying to lead your kids in Buddhist
>worship? Do you really want the high school T-shirt to say "Budda is
>*the* answer"?
>- Carl

Sounds good to me, Carl.  Buddhist philosophy has much going for it
and I would much rather have my kids exposed to a Buddhist than an
atheist, or a secular humanist.
    I don't happen to be one of those Christians that feels MY
religion is the only one up there.  God is not a Christian.  He IS THE
Christian God, however.  But God has plenty of Grace to go around,
Carl.  Enough for salvation for everyone who wants it....

Shalom,                             Len Howard

PS, the original purpose of the exercise was to provide debate
material so he could take either side.  B^)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mtx014@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: TRADITION IS NOT THE BASIS FOR CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:58:52 GMT
Organization: Plato's rest home for the incurably geometric

In article <1992Apr14.232011.20823@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <MIB.92Apr14151531@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>>As I become more attuned to the depth of the Christian tradition, and
>>its meaning, I have realized this more and more.  Christianity without
>>the Bible is possible; Christianity without the tradition is not.
>
>This is getting ridiculous.  A religion based on what man dreams up about God
>(traditions) does not in any way compare to THE religion which was
>communicated to man by God.  Someone back me up here.

Sure, I'll back you up here. Bob (blessed be his pipe) was
the route by which TRUE religion was communicated to man.

Of course, all this Christianity stuff, which reaches us by
various literary and oral traditions has nothing the do with
THE religion communicated directly to man.

Or don't you realise that a written tradition is no less a
tradition than an oral one? That the tradition of interpretation
of that written tradition is still a tradition? (And believe
me, judging by what you've written so far, in other threads, you're 
about as tradition-bound in your understanding of the Jewish
and Christian Scriptures any Pope has been; they're just
different traditions, is all.)

>John M.


-- 
Robert Low  email(JANET): RobLow@uk.ac.coventry.cck
	    smail : Mathematics Department, Coventry Polytechnic,
		    Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, England.
Keep an open mind---but not so open your brain falls out.
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:33:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.102851.5857@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
>>>>As a generalization, (and I would speculate an a particular in the
>>>>case he was judging) he seemed to feel that the Jehovah's Witnesses
>>>>are an authoritarian religion.  
>
>>Is there any doubt that they are?  Seriously, are there even any JWs
>>who wouldn't agree that the Jehovah's Witnesses are an authoritarian
>>religion?
>
>	I don't comment on this, but we're _authorized_ religion: We've such
>	rights as any other religion in the States. This decisions is a good 
>	example what it means in practice - principles are forgotten.
>
>	I know, Walter, that you're sensitive to this subject, but I think you 
>	are overreacting.

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
 
 Don't regard this as a flame however it appears that something has been lost
 in the translation. It may be that in your hurry between class to read 
 the latest in the JW parnoia scandal, you have misread what has been
 presented. I would not want to accuse you of mis-understanding  on purpose.

 Do you understand the difference between authorized and authoritarian?

 Authorized religions are religions allowed by the state. Authoritarian
 relgions enforce a strict adherence to belief. These two concepts are 
 much different. In Europe, a lot of emphasis is placed on being an
 _authorized_ religion, in the US that is not an issue. All religions
 by default are authorised or permitted by the goverment.  

 [[ Ok there are some religious practises that are regulated by the government
    However, there isn't a Minstry of Religion  ]]

 The question is there anybody who would contend that the Jehovah's Witnesses
 are not a religion of strict enforcement of belief and/or activity
 by the central core organiation?  I don't think so either.




-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:54:56 GMT
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <MIB.92Apr14104450@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>Nope.  Hebrews is anonymous, certainly not written by Paul, ...

How can one be so certain?

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:07:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.034030.6750@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>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

What's obnoxious about this is that you describe this as a "heterosexual/
homosexual" issue when it's not.  The issue is public sex in washrooms.
Now, I find it distasteful, but I can understand why it happens.  If
straight people of college age were told that sex and affection were denied
them, that it had to be hidden, that it was something to be ashamed of, and
that they'd best give up any idea of even thinking about trying it, and
they had to share the same washrooms, too, you might see hets "getting away
with it".  :-)  In other words, it's a dysfunctional reaction to an oppressive
society.  Most gay men don't hang out in washrooms.  No gay women I know
do.  Surprise.

I also think that you can be against entrapment and arrests in
such situations (situations which exploit the very plight these
people find themselves in) without confusing such a stance with
"gay tolerance".  The two are very different.

>and rooming with a random sex partner in university dorms).

Huh?  Are you trying to tell me that the dorms aren't crawling with
oversexed het boys and girls who are screwing around?

>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....

WHAT extremely liberal legislation?

>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.

Or your definition of Christian.  Not everyone is a "bible-believing
fundamentalist".  Still, it's not surprising that many gay people
have rejected Christianity as it's often presented.  Look at its
salesmen!  I'm talking to you, boy.

>  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?)

No.  I know of twins like that, too.  All that says is that sexuality
is very complex.

>  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.

What _are_ you smoking?

>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.

Don't wait up...

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:24:11 GMT

In article <18101@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>Humanists, heh?
>Well, the late Albert Einstein was a good example of a great
>secular physicist/mathemetician/etc... that did have a need for a God.
>Without a Supreme Being in existence, he would not have had anywhere
>near as much satisfaction as he did with his accomplishments.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of
what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of
human beings."  --Einstein
--
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: dove@elaine9.Stanford.EDU (Dav Somebody)
Subject: a little confused...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date:  8 Apr 92 04:42:49 GMT

here's a little something interesting i found while thumbing through
the good book.  (ok ok, actually it's someone's finger plan)


For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law.
Rom 2:1

For where no law is, there is no transgression.  Rom 4:15
---

Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Exod 33:20

And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his
friend.  Exod 33:11

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to
face, and my life is preserved.  Gen. 32:30
---

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be
tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.  James 1:13

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.
Gen 22:1

---

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the water under the earth.  Exod 20:4

And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou
make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.  Exod 25:18

---
The doers of the law shall be justified.  Rom 2:13

By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified.  Rom 3:20

---

There is nothing too hard for thee ... Behold, I am the Lord, the God
of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?  Jer 32:17,27

And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the
mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley,
because they had chariots of iron.  Judg 1:19

---

Be not afraid of them that kill the body...  Luke 12:4

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in
Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.  John 7:1

---

I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children... Exod 20:5

The son shall not bear the iniquities of the father... Ezek 18:20
---
From: havens@CS.ColoState.EDU (Mark Havens)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Easter Musical in Ft. Collins, CO
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:35:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: yuma.1992Apr07.033541.46272
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department


		      Faith Evangelical Free Church

			   Choir & Orchestra
			      
			      PRESENT

                      ************************
                      *   Who Will Call Him  *
  		      *    KING of KINGS?    *
                      ************************
  
			 An Easter Musical

		    Friday @ 7:00 pm, April 10th

It should last about an hour, it's FREE of charge, and will be a lot
of fun to experience. EVERYONE is welcome! Bring LOTS of friends.

Faith Evangelical Free Church
1601 W. Drake
Ft. Collins, CO  80526
226-2095

If you have any questions contact the church, or call me or send me email.
Hope to see ya there!

Mark

********************************************************************************
Mark Havens               | _   /|  -ACK!    | havens@mozart.cs.colostate.edu   
(303) 484-9317            | \'o.O'  -PFHHHT! | 
1117 City Park Ave. - B8  | =(___)= -COUGH!  | "Always pay attention to the     
Ft. Collins, CO  80521    |    U    -ACK!    |  man behind the curtain!"        
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: trhan@milton.u.washington.edu (Teri Rhan)
Subject: Re: as a matter of good fatih
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 06:00:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.180830.21992@polari.com> peterd@polari.com writes:
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>] Committed to faith in God
>
>>Does anyone else remember the line:
>
>>"praise God and pass the ammunition!"
>Or the old admonition "Gott hilfen und wir leiben"
>
>	Lord willing and the Creek don't rise.
>
>Or my all time favorite: Put your Trust in God boys, 
>but mind you keep your powder dry."  (The Lord Protector
>back when he was merely a New Model Army commander.)
>

And how about the one, "Trust in God but tie up your camel".

Regards,
Teri
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:6448 rec.arts.comics:12485
From: alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.comics
Subject: Re: SANDMAN: Lucifer's name and the end of Season of Mists
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:41:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=

In article <1992Apr7.190044.13192@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kieran@cmatter.physics.indiana.edu (kieran) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.203827.14703@eskimo.celestial.com> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
>
>>      It is mostly likely the contradictions between the origional
>>version of Genesis and the one that is accepted today is why Israel has
>>not released the Dead Sea Scrolls for translation.
>
>      Whoa!  This is pretty shaky ground.  Even if they differed, the
>Dead Sea scrolls are from a particular sect and need not be canonical.

      What other explanation is there for the "foot dragging" on releasing
full translations of the Scrolls?  The Nag Hammadi Library was discovered
AFTER the Dead Sea Scrolls and has been fully translated to English and in
one volum for almost 15 years now.

-- 
****************************************************************************
* Dave                          *               The Alpinist               *
* alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com *            DARE to be stoopid!           *
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: No such thing as atheism...
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:29:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.025029.18772@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:

>Mr. Yadlowsky....

Please, my friends and enemies (two sets with a non-empty intersection) call
me 'Pete' or even 'Peter'. On the other hand, I have a brother who calls me
'Pedro'. Mom calls me 'Petey', but she's the only human being licensed to
utter that alias, and NEVER in public. Then there was this strange fellow I
used to know who would occasionally greet me as 'Stanley'.
Anyway, now that we have enough filler...

>	You missed one minor point in your disection of the major
>thesis of the article.
>	The gentleman claims we atheists are trying to disprove
>the existence of God...not so...

Right. I believe I said as much. So what minor point was it I missed?

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |         Laden e-mail runs
Academic Computing Center       | Bumbling, creaking through the net
University of Virginia          |         Sysadmins tremble.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Buson
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7187 soc.culture.jewish:8071 alt.politics.homosexuality:2200
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:31:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr14.180802.9353@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>To residents of s.c.j:  It seems there is a Jew-hater in talk.religion.misc.
>To quote a previous article of his:

Ken, I did not respond to your claptrap the first time around, because
I hoped you would calm down and realize you had gone off the deep end.
But this is disgusting. It is not "Jew-hatred" to suggest that Jewish
homosexuals can have problems their parents or their community which
are justified on religious grounds. It is a fact. Do you know any gay
Jews? Do you know what the hell you are talking about?

Homophobia is not only a problem of Christians. 

>I just presented you with facts: words identical to yours were used to
>slaughter Jews for millennia.

They have also been used to slaughter gay people, apparently for even
longer. "If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, they
both commit an abomination. They shall be put to death; their blood
shall be on their own heads." So what is your point?

The good news is that neither the Christians nor the Jews follow this
commandment. Rather than arguing about who is homophobic and who is
not, does it not make more sense to eliminate whatever homophobia we
find?

--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: towfiq@FTP.COM (Mark Towfiq)
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Reply-To: towfiq@FTP.COM
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
	<adams.702136431@spssig> <ktjtqkINN633@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<adams.702153918@spssig> <22821@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:57:22 GMT

  Isn't one of the proofs for Jesus the fact that after 2000 years
people still invoke Him by name and pledge their lives to Him?
--
Mark Towfiq, FTP Software, towfiq@FTP.COM, W:+1 617 224 6275, H:+1 617 488 2818

Religious strife, throughout history, has been the cause of innumerable wars
and conflicts, a major blight to progress, and is increasingly abhorrent to the
people of all faiths and no faith.  Followers of all religions must be willing
to face the basic questions which this strife raises, and to arrive at clear
answers.  How are the differences between them to be resolved, both in theory
and in practice?
		-- "The Promise of World Peace", The Universal House of Justice
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: Project EOS - North Carolina State University
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:19:32 GMT

>The question is, do you ever sin anymore?  I've accepted Jesus, but
>I still sin; now, I believe they are forgiven.  Are you saying that
>if you accept Jesus, you will no longer sin?

The main difference b/w homosexuality as a sin and me sinning is that 
I repent of my sins in an attempt to stop doing them.

Homosexuals are not repentful of their sin.
They are forgiven for their sins, but unless they repent...


Chris
From: hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Oaths & Fervor
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:11:36 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I think the discussion between Jay Windley and Kilroy is mostly
missing the point.  Jay is upset about us depending upon former LDS
for our information about LDS ceremonies, on the grounds that they are
oathbreakers and therefore unreliable.  Kilroy is pointing out that
they may be acting in good faith, by their own lights.  (I don't think
he has explicitly drawn the conclusion that this means we can trust
what they say.  But presumably that's the implication.)

What neither seems to be doing is making what I think is a critical
distinction between reporting events and describing their
significance.  In general I'm going to assume that the reports are
accurate in a factual sense.  Jay seems to be upset that LDS practices
are being held up for ridicule, which implies to me that the practices
involved are real.  Like Kilroy, I can understand that someone who has
converted might well believe that his promise of secrecy is not
binding.  Thus I don't consider these folks so discredited that I
assume they're lying about everything.  However the problem that I
would see with their descriptions is that somebody who is hostile to a
religion might get all the facts right, but miss the significance so
badly that they might as well be wrong.  I base this on my assessment
of anti-Catholic polemics, where I'm able to see both sides.

The net of this is that I'm willing to believe anti- writers to a
point.  But I'd rather depend upon either members or sympathetic
outsiders for most of my information.  However I'd have to say that at
this point LDS secrecy may have outlived its usefulness, at least to
some extent.  It's one thing to protect pearls from being cast before
swine.  But once the pearls are in the street, a different approach
may be appropriate.  I'm not sure I'm particularly interested in
reading a full transcript of the temple ceremonies.  But I'd suggest
that a description of generally what is involved, and more important,
its real significance to LDS would probably be worth making public.

Actually, the most disturbing revelation of all came from one of our
LDS participants (Jay?), who said in passing that one of the things
involved is revelation of a secret password for passing into the upper
reaches of the hereafter.  I don't much care if LDS wear special
underwear in their ceremonies, or indeed if they wear anything at all.
(There's some reason to think that early Christians were baptized in
the nude.)  However if they teach that some password is required in
the hereafter other than the name of Jesus, that would be cause for
great concern.  Of course it's possible that this secret actually is
Jesus or something similarly Biblical.  Let's hope so.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc