HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Quality of life
Date:  7 Apr 92 13:02:34 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson) writes:

>In article <22427@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>What's the name of the religion I follow? It's is called NULL :-). I
>>really recommend it.

>If you enjoy your life, why ruin it by always thinking "What if...."
But that's just it.  My life isn't ruined.  Why do you all think that
following God ruins peoples' lives?  I enjoy my life MORE because of my
religion.

>If there is a God, I'm sure he would want us to enjoy everything he has
>given us to the fullest, and not worry about Him.

The available evidence suggests otherwise.  Granted, many people don't
accept the evidence of the Bible, but, hey, that's their choice.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Andreas - Siperian Sirri Siberian Stint
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr14.160054.13136@infonode.ingr.com>
	<1992Apr16.084051.11079@cs.joensuu.fi>
	<1992Apr16.123445.18314@apollo.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:19:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.123445.18314@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

   While you're sitting there watching everyone in your congregation pass the
   bread and wine around, and no one partaking of it, (yourself included)
   think about what Jesus said it meant.  Without my concordance, the verse
   escapes me, but it was to the effect that unless you partake, you have
   no life.  

John 6:52-59:

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ``How can this man
give us his flesh to eat?''  So Jesus said to them, ``Very truly, I
tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you.  Those who eat my flesh and drink my
blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for
my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.  Those who eat my
flesh and drink by blood abide in me, and I in them.  Just as the
living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever
eats me will live because of me.  This is the bread that came down
from heaven, not like that which you ancestors ate, and they died.
But the one who eats this bread will live forever.''  He said these
things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | I give you a new commandment, that you 
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | love one another.  Just as I have loved 
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | you, you also should love one another. By
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 | this everyone will know that you are my
			  | disciples, if you have love for one another.
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:49:03 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Apr13.070920.14338@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> Concept of Jesus
> ----------------
> 
> I am still confused as to who Jesus is in the Mormon faith.  A couple of

	If you don't know how are you trying to prove that Mormon's aren't
Christian?  Very odd.

> things are certain though: Jehovah (same person as Jesus?) was with God
> during the creation, and he is definitely not the same person as God.
> He is not responsible for our salvation.

	Not true.  LDS doctrine is VERY clear that salvation comes through and
ONLY through Christ.  The Book of Mormon is very clear on this subject.
 
> The Christian Jesus is God as man and died to pay the penalty of death
> for us.  "For the wages of sin is death"  He did this because it is
> impossible for us to be sin-free.
> 
	And that's the "Mormon" Jesus.  That's the simple, plain and clear
truth of the matter.

> 
> Concept of the Holy Spirit
> --------------------------
> 
> The "Holy Ghost" is something that the Mormon receives in the Temple, but
> how he/it fits in with the rest of Mormonism is unclear to me.

	Wrong again.  The Holy Ghost is received when one is spritually
re-born, and after baptism.  LDS doctrine teaches that ALL people (men and
women) can feel the power and infuence of the Holy Ghost before this, although
not having the "gift" of the Holy Ghost.
  

-Mark
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Are Christians Dualists?
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:34:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <adams.703453030@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
writes:

>There is far too much self-deprication in Christianity. 

Amen.

>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.

This is complete nonsense. You have in mind the idea that good has an
equal opposite, called evil. That heaven has an equal opposite, called
hell.  That God has an equal opposite, called Satan. But in fact, God
has no opposite. Nothing compares to God which could be an opposite.

Good has no opposite, it includes everything with any ultimate
reality--since what is actually and fundamentally real is heaven.  The
whole point of the atonement is that everything evil will be undone
and forgotten. It has no eternal 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.
--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: MORMONISM
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:05:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr9.230525.3420
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

I guess what scares me more than anything about Mormonism is that there need
to be any secrets at all...

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr15.160427.24104@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<MIB.92Apr15164138@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr16.151813.23152@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:04:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.151813.23152@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

   In article mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

   >The Zen community is
   >vanishingly small compared with the three much larger varieties of
   >Buddhism in the world.

   Which three are you thinking of?

Shintoism, Mahayana, and Theravada.

   >I've gotten first hand reports from people of
   >what their Shinto Buddhist and Mahayana (sp?) Buddhist families
   >thought about their being gay, and the arguments from religion were
   >sadly familiar.

   Shinto Buddhist? hybrid of shintoism and buddhism? 

I have always heard Shintoism described as a form of Buddhism.

   By the way, Mahayana
   (of which zen is a branch) is one of the two main schools of buddhism, and
   is quite diverse. So, when you mention mahayana buddhists, you're talking
   about a rather large and disparate group. Anyway, what exactly were these
   arguments from religion? I'm having trouble imagining that they would be
   very similar to those used by the Bible fundies, considering that buddhists
   are generally atheists.

Buddhism is certainly as diverse as most religions.  Given that what
sparked my post was an indictment of Christianity for homophobia, I
was pointing out that Christianity is not alone, and that other
religions tend to be homophobic as well, for the same reasons: social
prominence.

The arguments of the used by the one with Shintoist parents ran
roughly along the line of homosexuality being un-Japanese.  The
arguments described by the one with Mahayana parents were more along
the line of violating one's nature, and spreading discord.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | I give you a new commandment, that you 
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | love one another.  Just as I have loved 
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | you, you also should love one another. By
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 | this everyone will know that you are my
			  | disciples, if you have love for one another.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE DARKSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:25:47 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <52@devl3.UUCP>, root@devl3.UUCP (Super user) writes:
> 
> In article <22275@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David
Hatcher) writes:
> >  Because I'm so busy worshipping whom Jesus worshipped, I have 
> >no time to worship Jesus as God. That's one of the reasons why *I* 
> >do not call myself a Christian. 
> >	David Hatcher
> 
> Jesus told his hearers that He and the Father were one, therefore if you
> worship God you worship Jesus.  If what He said is not true, then He is
> not only not a great Teacher, He is the greatest liar who ever lived for
> equating Himself to God.  Based on what He said I have to accept that when
> I worship God I also worship the Son.

This is what Jesus said,  John 10:33-5, Jesus is accused of the blasphemy of 
claiming to be God. He replies, "It is not written in your law, I said, you 
are Gods? so the law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God 
was addressed".

Feel free to comment with other statements Jesus made, it will just show
all the contradictions concerning his God-state.

Cheers,
Kent
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:36:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr8.190224.17172@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu
(CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:

> So many people (pro-homosexual or whatever) keep telling me and 
> others that we are judging homosexuals.


  But in article <1992Apr7.181932.18054@ncsu.edu> you wrote:
>Homosexuals are not repentful of their sin.


 Personally, to me, statements like this just screems of a person
who is being very judgemental of homosexuals. Sorry, but Your 
articles ARE bringing across a spirit of a person who IS judging 
homosexuals.



        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
                                        Thomas Merton


	David Hatcher
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: If GOD would give me a sign...(attn: atheist, agnostic, etc.)
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:57:15 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr1.110136.21524@hellgate.utah.edu>,
jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >So today with 1 billion Christians there are no signs = no faith. 
> >Interesting, or what!
> 
> Who says there aren't signs?  I have seen much which I might label
> "signs and wonders," but I don't talk about them in front of an
> audience of uncertain and possibly hostile intentions.  They are signs
> which follow MY faith.  If you want to see signs yourself, have faith
> yourself.

All we need is an objective report that shows that miracles work.
That should not be so hard, or what. We could define the speed
of light, the distance to the moon, or even the map of the galaxies
surrounding us. Why is it so hard to justify miracles?

Cheers,
Kent
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:34:32 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

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

>Please let me know where left-handedness is a possible cionnection
>with being gay. I find it very difficult to beleive.

The correlation is very intriguing. About 9% of the population
at large is left-handed, and a similar percentage is thought to
be exclusively homosexual. However, 30% of gay men and lesbians
are left-handed, and 30% of left-handed people are gay.

As a left-handed gay man who also has a left-handed gay uncle
and several such first and second cousins, it does seem plausible
to me.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:33:18 GMT

In <3494@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
(Gene Ward Smith) writes:

>You and Ken Aromdee both should learn whereof you speak before you start
>talking about lies. THIS IS NOT A LIE. Got that? Staple it onto
>your forehead and keep it in mind--because if you don't like this kind
>of activity, maybe you could do something to help. Jewish groups have
>at times lobbied heavily against gay rights issues. A combination of
>conservative Jewish, Catholic and Protestant groups have sometimes worked
>in concert to do so. No lie.

>If it is against the beliefs of Orthodox Judaism, I would think this
>would be a good reason to get riled about this distortion of ideas,
>and try to counter these efforts.

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

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

--
                     |         | "Step up and shake the hand
David F. Skoll       | ||||||| |  Of someone you can't stand,
|_ _ _  __   __ _ __ |  \\V//  |  You can tolerate him if you try..."
 / |  | |_|   | |  | |  __|__  |  -- Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"
_____|________________________________________________________________________

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7386 alt.flame:7007
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:27:39 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <2szj=fb.rohwerwd@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>>>humanity,
>>and given that many of us gay people *are* Christians, and
>>>given that we are *already* members of our respective Churches, since
>>>our baptisms, what then?  
>>
>>"Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, as ye are
>>unleavened. "

>     You, Paul, and your statement are full of shit.

Who are you refering to?  Me or the apostle.  I hope you are refering to
me, though I would not agree with you.

I would not mind seeing
>you, Paul, purged right out of the job-market or your current job.  If my
>understanding of your statement is wrong, although I find that very
>unlikely, then I will retract the previous two sentences.

I quoted the verse because it is very pertinent to the particular situation.
Paul was talking about cutting off fellowship with one who called himself
a brother but was living in a sexual relationship with his father's
wife.

IMHO, the verse can have more than one application.  Not only to cutting
off fellowship, but also as advice of how we are to purge sin out of our
own lives.  But this is just MHO.

Link Hudson.
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 04:17:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.033217.3373@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

>You don't have the first idea what the experience of gay people is.
>Shut up about us.  Try listening.

OK, what am I going to hear?  Here's a prediction:  What is "right" or
"wrong" is relative to every person and there are no absolutes when it comes
to a relationship with God.

Is this what I will hear?  It is what I have heard so far.


John M.
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:17:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr16.175705.28799@athena.cs.uga.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In the passage of Romans, God delivers those who become homosexuals up
>to uncleaness.  These unnatural lusts come about as a result of disobedience.

Paul said it was due to idol-worship. Care to explain how that applies
today?  Care to explain how a child who turns out gay was disobedient,
whereas the one who turned out straight was obedient?

And would you care to read a little farther in Romans? "You therefore
have no defense--you who sit in judgment, whoever you may be--for in
judging your fellow--man you condemn yourself, since you, the judge,
are equally guilty."  And just who is it you are judging? Romans
again: "For all who are moved by the spirit of God are the sons of
God." Why are you judging the sons of God? Do you think this pleases
him? It does not.

>Why should we treat the disobedient desire to or orientation toward
>homosexual sodomy any different than the desire or orientation toward
>murder?

Why should we treat heterosexual sex any differently than first degree
arson? Because one is about love, and the other is about hate.

If you want to talk about murder, think about the thread on teenage
gay suicide. If you tell a child he or she is worthless, and that
child commits suicide--is that not like murder? That you think you
have the moral standing to judge homosexuals is preposterous--get the
log out of your own eye, Mister.



--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:01:16 GMT
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia


>The deification of material things without admitting it (even to yourself) is
>the oldest trick in the book for doing what _you_ want with your life.

God forbid I should do what I want with this life. Is devoting yourself to
a favored image of God what _you_ want to do with your life? We can deify
intangible things too, without admitting it (even to ourselves); things like
personal opinions and treasured delusions. It's the oldest trick in the book
for convincing ourselves that we need no longer question our understanding or
judgement.

>Likewise the most pitiful victim is the one who is being raped (by Satan as
>it were) without even knowing it.  Of course the Prince of this world can
>make it seem appealing.

Whether or not Satan exists, your aim is to rape them yourself, with
your Beneficial Yanking. Seeing as how Satan's existence has not been
verified (except within your particular cult), you're going to have a
tough job convincing people that they shouldn't just punch you in the
nose and have you arrested for harassment.

>One of my most basic beliefs is that man almost
>never knows what is best for him, 

If that's the case, what makes you think I'm going to look to you or
your cult for illumination? I'm just not the least impressed with your
ignorance and naivete. I see nothing of truth or value in your beliefs.
What now? Have me committed for some of that Beneficial Yanking?

>>So, stepping up the oppression will bring the oppressed around to see
>>the error of their ways, eh? Paul's letters'll be the first things they
>>go for? Amazing. It's guys like you who are always the first to die at
>>the end of a revolutionary's bayonet, cursing him for his ingratitude, even.

>How can you type something like this when right below it this | exists?
                                                               |
First I was confused...
...then somewhat amused.

>>>As with anything though, yanking
>>>homosexuality out from under someone is disastrous unless you present the
>>>godly (and beneficial) alternative.

Do you seriously believe that you're doing anyone any favors by forcing
your way of life on them? Well, I suppose you'll have to learn the hard way,
like so many god-appointed, well-meaning, dead despots before you. Go ahead
then, let the rehabilitations commence! Start presenting and yanking. Let's
see how far you get.

>>>God is not about the negative - rather the positive.
>>Oh, I can see that. So many of his dutiful servants just *exude* benevolence.

>It is amazing how genuine concern for the welfare of others can be turned
>into this.

"Genuine concern" that has its root in stupidity turns into nothing but
pain and disaster.

--
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
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: If GOD would give me a sign...(attn: atheist, agnostic, etc.)
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:23:48 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <54205@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
> 
> In article <22817@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >
> >Jesus spent a lot of time doing miracles in order to justify the faith
> >of his disciples. He even needed to do this after his resurrection.
> 
> Jesus, as recorded in Acts, gave many convincing proofs that he was alive,
> after the resurrection.   If it is proven, why do you need to keep proving it?
> 
> What Jesus did - he did once and for all.  After he finished his work,
> he sat down at God's right hand.  He did with his body, what nothing else
> could do - he opened the door to God through the forgiveness of sins.
(Hebrews)
> 
> Jesus doesn't have to keep offering himself as an offering for our sins,
> for he did it once and for all.

We still have the case where Jesus disciples needed miracles and signs,
while Christians today don't need them. Isn't this a little bit strange?

Cheers,
Kent