HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:22:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.202238.10209@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>I _do_ love people right where they are at, but I still desire a _change_ for
>the better in their lives!  Just exactly where are you coming from?  It is
>quite clear in the NT that Christians are to reach others for Christ.

Let's start with you.  It's bad enough that you seem to have developed
a sex phobia of your own, but I figure that's your life--you're entitled
to do whatever you want.  But you insist on shoving this same personal
phobia down other people's throats to the point that you insist the
idea of someone else having sex outside of the missionary position is
somehow sinful and wrong.  People like you give celibates a bad name.

How DARE you make the claim that my relationship with my lover
involves idols, or placing sex above other matters!  What evidence
do you have for this other than that deranged kernel of self-deception
which has managed to distort a God-given healthy respect for a person's
sexuality into something repugnant and to be avoided at all costs?

I recommend therapy.  Once you get this plank out of the way, you'll be
in a much better position to have a mature relationship with Christ and
the rest of the human race at the same time.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:35:15 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

AS>: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen),
     article <1992Apr10.113912.26475@cs.joensuu.fi>

KA>: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
     (sorry if any of these attributions are wrong,
      Ken, but the older stuff has died at my site)


KA> OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
KA> loot, and terrorize?

AS> Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 

KA> Name them.

AS> Go to prison and ask what is their religion. 

KA> You mean you don't _know_?

AS> Yes, I know fairly well, but if I say, you wouldn't believe, so it's 
AS> better that you go and see with your own eyes. 


You don't seem to have a problem with saying other stuff just because
people might not believe you. How come this is different?


KA> Come on, name them.  (Or are you trying to tell me that if I went through
KA> a list of people in prison and marked down their religions, that every
KA> single one of those religions is one which teaches children to lie, steal,
KA> rape, etc.?)

AS> I am. Jesus says that a bad tree can't have good fruits. 
AS>
AS>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint


Irrelevant. The reverse logic applies here; your case requires that a *good*
tree can't have *bad* fruits and hence if the fruit is bad, so is the tree.


Cheers

Simon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every morning when you wake up and look in the mirror, check yourself
for signs of collective identity" - Consolidated on "This Is Fascism"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: er@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Elie Rosenfeld)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Reply-To: er@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Elie Rosenfeld)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 21:34:07 GMT

In article <MIB.92Apr14160646@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
|> 
|> Much though Ken Arromdee might not like to admit it, the Orthodox
|> Jewish community has been right up there with the right-wing Catholics
|> and the fundamentalists fighting every gay-rights issue that comes
|> into the popular press.  And, just like the more outspoken Catholics
|> and the more outspoken fundamentalists, some even call for gay people
|> to be killed.

Much as I hate to get drawn into this discussion again, I cannot let this lie
pass unanswered.

The attitude you describe is totally against the beliefs of Orthodox Judaism.
Those beliefs have been quite carefully stated here many times in the past by
some of the prevalent Orthodox posters.  To summarize:  While Orthodoxy does
not compromise in it's belief that homosexual acts are forbidden, it does not
countenance persecution or harm of Gays.  A Jewish person, Gay or otherwise,
who practices homosexual acts is no different from one who violates the Sabbath,
eats non-kosher, or refuses to believe in G-d.  He is a Jew who we must love
and accept as a human being, with failings as we all have.
-- 
Elie Rosenfeld      | "I can see by your coat, my friend,
Bellcore            |  you're from the other side
Piscataway, N.J.    |  just one thing I've got to know; can you tell me please
(908) 699-8800      |     who won?"               - CSNY, "Wooden Ships"
From: corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Top 10 reasons to believe in Jesus
Date: 12 Apr 92 02:07:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-cs.1333
Distribution: usa
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana


You asked for 10 reasons to believe in Jesus. I have to suggest then that
you read a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh Mcdowel.

There are far more that 10 reasons for believing. Not to mention the best 
reason. It is written that you will not go to heaven except through your
belief in Jesus.....:)

-Vette. "I pray for those who do not believe"



"He who has the knowledge of God knows it to be truth, there is know believing
 to it! He is also  open to all opposition for how could what is true be false."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  send me some mail! I like mail.....:)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Knowing God (was Re: The Bible)
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:14:32 GMT

In article <1992Mar30.201913.5089@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> zazen@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (East Coker) writes:
>In article <2230@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:
>>Pete Yadlowsky writes:
>>
>>> Why should the state of God's existence demand any sort of commitment
>>> on my part, any more than, say, your existence? 
>>
>>Because your relationship with God can have a great effect on what
>>sort of person you become (much more so than your relationship with me!).
>>If the loving God exists, and if we can gain something from knowing God
>>better, then only a fool would turn away from that knowledge.
>>
>>> I didn't ask him to exist. We didn't strike any deals.
>>
>>And if you're wrong?
>
>We lose. But what evidence is there to convince us that there is something
>to actualy lose? An entity as all powerful and encompasing as god must 
>be observable in some sense. 

This isn't true, actually.  A sufficiently powerful entity would be able
to make itself entirely invisible, yet accomplish whatever it wanted to.

For instance, if I were such an entity, and I wanted to produce a race
such as humankind, I could manipulate quantum events over a span of
billions of years so that a gene change *here* and a radiation event
*there* resulted in a DNA sequence that produces a human being.  And in
doing things that way, I would be completely invisible: you wouldn't be
able to tell the difference between my interference and the workings
of the natural world.

>I don't count ancedotes of miracle as evidence.
>
>By evidence I mean controlled, repeatable experiments that demonstrate that
>there is some thing about god that is observable. I am not refering to our
>"feelings" of god because "feelings" are too subject to bias.
>
>Note that a phenomena is observable because it affects the physical
>world in some way. A phenomena that is not observable does not affect 
>the physical world. 

Well, perhaps.  But there is a fine (but important) difference between
being *observable* and being *distinguishable*.

In the example I gave, I (the entity) would be *observable* in that you
could see the *results* of what I was doing, but I would be
*indistinguishable* in that you couldn't tell the difference between
me and natural law.

>The phenomena may or may not exist, but this does
>not matter. I.e., if a phenomena is not observable then it does not matter
>whether or not it exists.

I guess it depends on what sense you mean by "matter", but I would
tentatively agree.  For the purposes of modeling the universe, you are
certainly correct here.

>East Coker
>"In my beginning is my end .... In my end is my beginning" --- T S Eliot
>(my opinions alone)


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)
From: 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Biblical Reasons for Believing in the "Deity" of Christ.
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:29:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr9.060243.26343@serval.net.wsu.edu> wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:

>Correct that If the post relies on soley on Biblical Citation it is little
>use to a non-Christian.  
>Take a hint and realize that this post NEVER was intended for non-Christians.

Since this is a public service I suggest you insert a warning into your
postings not destined to access the community at large.  Also, Biblical 
Citations are not necessarily of little use to non-Christians; several
Babylonian kings' archaeological proofs were made only in the 20th cen-
tury, although they had been mentioned in the Bible...

>..it had to do ZERO with you...a

Wayne! Do I detect some animosity here? Solely because of an e-mail pos-
ting? Hey! Think of me as your electronic neighbor , love me! Moreover, 
me being an atheist, isn't it your duty to save me?

Good luck again! 
-- 
Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
Department of Economics
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 19:26:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.031245.21605@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.003528.16805@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr10.191301.4386@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu

>>> Ephesians 5:3 -
>>
>>> "But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed _EVEN BE NAMED AMONG YOU_,
>>> as is proper among saints;"
>>
>>and how, without begging the question, do you conclude that "immorality"
>>or "impurity" characterize my life or the life of an of those you think you
>>can dump on with impunity?  *What* impurity? *what* immorality? *what* greed
>
>Whether or not it is immoral doesn't matter - if someone claims it is then we
>should not exhibit it.  Keep in mind that the average person tries to get
>away with as much as they can so ridiculous "immoralities" would not tend to
>pop up...
I've heard it claimed that Christianity is immoral. So by Galatians
you shouldn't be a Christian.

Looks like you've got yourself a problem.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:40:47 GMT
	<1992Apr6.045347.27364@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <1992Apr6.045347.27364@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:

   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.

I'm not sure one can say that Jesus based his teachings on the Tanakh.
He would certainly have been very familiar with it.  He was "mostly"
observant: he went to Jerusalem for the festivals, and upheld the
teaching (though not the example) of the Pharisees.  There are some
notable differences: he extended the meaning of many commandments,
equating lust with adultery and anger with murder, for example.  He
also expressed a disregard for some commandments, such as some aspects
of the Sabbath observance, which may have been the preciptating cause
in his arrest.  

But the decision of early Christianity was that Gentiles would not
need to convert to Judaism in order to become Christians, thus,
Gentiles would not need to observe the Torah just because they became
Christians.  A different, but related issue, was the observance to be
required of Jewish converts.  Did they have to obey the law?  We don't
really know what the early Christians did in this regard; there are
indications that some did and some didn't.  The issue became moot when
Christians were expelled from the synagogues and the two religions
finally separeted.  Today, Jewish converts to Christianity generally
do not follow the law.

   >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.

Quite correct.  

--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | This is a virulent meme.  Whether or not you place
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | this into your signature file is irrelevant.  You
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | have already participated in its further trans-
			  | mission, and will doubtless continue to do so.
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:32:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: portland.1992Apr9.193250.13268
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <22592@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>  The way this would be done is that by law, the homosexual will be 
>marked the same as a person who is having sex with animals, ...

What's wrong with having sex with animals?  Isn't that prohibition only
found in the book of Leviticus, the same book which so many in this group
like to mock?  And, I don't seem to recall any commandment in the Bible not
to have sex with little children?  

Why don't we see more advocates of bestiality and pedophilia in this
newsgroup?

>  The potential of Fundamentalism, of any stripe, really scares the 
>shit out of me. :-(

Including humanist fundamentalists ...

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The state and the destiny of the creation
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:27:30 GMT
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia

In article <1992Apr1.170310.10275@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> publius@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (Publius) writes:

If I may butt in...

	[ Oh, I suppose you will anyway. Just make it quick, willya? ]

>>  Funny, I do not see a cursed, diseased, voilent creation. I see a 
>>life that is full of unlimited creating growth. It wonderful to
>>behold, and unlimited in it's capacity. It most definately IS a
>>garden of Eden to *my* eyes. There have even been time when the estatic
>>embrace brought on by the aweness of the wonders of Creation have brought
>>tears to my eyes.

>Well, David, it is the spring season, and that is why you feel that way.

Hay fever, you mean?

>But, just wait until the autumn, when the leaves wither and fall from
>the trees, or the winter, when the freezing north wind blows through the
>plain and all the little animals are hiding and can not be seen.

It is the buddhist way to accept pain and pleasure, spring and winter
alike, living fully in each, moment by moment, without attachment to either.
Though I may say "I like this" or "I hate that", these are recognized as
just head-noise, no different in essence from the passing seasons or the
sound of breath. Things are neither good nor bad in any absolute sense.
When the doomsayers warn of impending winter, one thinks "Maybe we'll have
some snow." When the heaven-bound tell me of the wicked, violent world,
I have another slurp of coffee (ack! burned my tongue. I *hate* that!) and
know it isn't so. Hallelujah, and all that.

--
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: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:40:47 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

>   So here we have a case where perhaps God is limited!?! But it's a
> limitation such that makes God unlimited into where He shines forth
> with His grace, glory and presence. It also makes Him omnipotent as
> the power of where His grace, glory and presence will shine. It's
> everywhere and in everything. Nothing is free from it!

Intriguing, we still have wars, famine, mass murderers and other nasty
things in the presense of his glory...

Also, a lot of people could live a happy life with no need
of a omnipresent father figure, late Isaak Asimov was a good example
of a great secular humanist that didn't have any need for a God.

Cheers,
Kent
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:57:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <adams.703368767@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>As such, and being that homosexuality is no more controllable than
>heterosexuality, a homosexual having relations with a woman would actually
>be un-natural, given their default choice of partner.

In the passage of Romans, God delivers those who become homosexuals up
to uncleaness.  These unnatural lusts come about as a result of disobedience.
God did create Adam as a murderer, so murder is not a "natural" act for
a man to commit.  John said that the one who hates his brother is a
murderer.  Little children can hate.  Do we say that hate is natural 
an not sinful because it appears early on in life?  Of course not.  Hate
occurs because sin entered the world.  It is another of sin's corrupting
influences.  Why should we treat the disobedient desire to or orientation
toward homosexual sodomy any different than the desire or orientation  
toward murder?

>There certainly is a complaint against lust and fornication.  And against
>indecent acts.  But what would be indecent for a heterosexual male is
>certainly most natural and normal for a homosexual one.

The only reason it could be considered "natural" is because God has allowed
a lust which is against nature to come upon the individual.  But God
is in the business of changing people, and their natures.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:29:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.041703.10698@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) 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? 

Try reading for content.

>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.

It's not what's been said.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr13.224846.23272@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<1992Apr14.102115.490@yvax.byu.edu>
	<1992Apr14.182641.11203@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:22:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.182641.11203@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:


   >	The Book of Mormon teaches that man is saved by grace and that Jesus is
   >God.

   Jay just got through telling me he is _not_ God the Father.

Yeah, so?  That's just the Mormon version of Trinitarian theology, and
that part is more than orthodox.  Jesus is God, but not the Father.
From the Quicunque Vult: "And the catholic faith is this, that we
worshup one God in three persons and three persons in one God, neither
confusing the persons nor dividing the substance.  For there is one
person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy
Spirit."


--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | The Lord God helps me;
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   therefore I have not been disgraced;
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | therefore I have set my face like flint,
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 |   and I know that I shall not be put to shame;
			  | he who vindicates me is near.
From: dlester@cs.man.ac.uk (David Lester)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Am I the only one with the SoS in my Bible? (Was: Homosexuality and Christianity)
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:06:20 GMT
Reply-To: dlester@cs.man.ac.uk (David Lester)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester

In article <adams.702824507@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes, in response to
|> Walter Smith's set up <1992Apr8.221210.20447@apollo.hp.com>: 
|> >>Not a problem...I take it you also view hetrosexual anal sex
|> >>as bad?  How about oral sex, a man fingering a woman to orgasm,
|> >>a woman giving a man a "hand job", a woman using a vibrator,
|> >>or a man using one on a woman?  For that matter, how about
|> >>sex between 2 women?
|> 
|> >Yes, yes, yes, yes.... Bad in that they are indulgent in nature and fleshly
|> >in origin.  I equate all these things with getting wasted.
|> 
|> Enjoying sex or having non penile-vaginal sex is the same as getting
|> wasted?  Sorry, I don't buy that for a minute.  I'd like to see Biblical
|> support for this.
|> 
|> [...]
|> Since the Bible doesn't define 'normal sexual relations' I'd like to know
|> how you determine what is normal and what is not.[...]

Might I suggest, Steve, that you have conceded far too much already. Whilst
the full range of what is permitted may not be spelt out, on any plausible
reading of the Song of Songs (7.2) oral sex is not only permitted, but
actively (and if I may say so) passionately advocated.

I also read nothing about "sex is for procreation only" in this part of the
Bible; in fact it appears to be conspicuously absent. One can't help but
wonder whether this particular manifestation of Manichaeism is not merely
a late 19th and 20th century phenomenon.

But please, don't take my word for it; you'll never believe what the Bible
says unless you read it for yourself. Better still, is to do a Bible study
of this book with that special other person in your life.

In Christ,

---
David Lester, Manchester University, UK.