HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:15:06 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

In article <1992Apr1.192750.9279@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.175830.24158@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
> 
> >I do not belive that homosexuals were made gay.
> >That simply does not fly with me.
> 
> Why not? Most people seem to be born with handedness, tending to favor the
> left or the right. Don't you think that sexual orientation might possibly
> be similarly innate? 

Neither are innate.  Cerebral lateralization is not complete for several
years after birth, and may not even *begin* until after birth.  Environmental
factors present during the first eight or so years (and particularly during
the first two or three years) affect how our brains develop even more than
does our genetic heritage -- consider that in some areas of the brain such
as the prefrontal cortex, as much as 90% of the original neurons are "weeded
out" during the first several years of life.  

>Is there a rational basis to your skepticism? Since
> I doubt you're very knowledgeable in developmental human psychology,

I'm sure there are others more knowledgeable in this area, but I do know a bit.
(Though I realize your comment wasn't addressed at me, it is still relevant.)

> I don't see how you can have a reasoned opinion on the matter. Yours is
> an emotional opinion. 

And yours isn't?

> Things "don't fly" with you because you don't like
> them. Admitting that homosexuality is perhaps innate brings you
> to the point of having to accept gay people as being every bit as human
> as you are, and just as capable of having a truly christian relationship
> with God, as gays.

Meanwhile admitting that homosexuality is perhaps NOT innate brings you
to the point of having to accept that gay people are perhaps not so much
part of the natural order of things as they'd like to believe.

> There was a time when left-handed children were heavily pressured
> by society and their parents to become right-handed. Left handedness
> was considered sinister (look up 'sinister' sometime). Today we shake
> our heads at this idiotic superstition. Being a lefty, I'm glad I wasn't
> around then. How long before the homophobes get the picture?

Once again I feel compelled to point out that not all people who think
homosex is wrong in God's eyes are homophobes; this is, in the worst cases
simple mudslinging.

> Peter M. Yadlowsky 


--
                    Mike Sellers       mike@isgtec.com
                        User Interface Team Leader
                    ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
            "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: More on Mormon temple ceremonies
Date: 12 Apr 92 14:12:42 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Maybe instead I should take a look at statements made by _both_ pro- and anti-
>Mormon writers and decide from them?  You seem to want me only to consider one
>group of possibly biased people, and ignore another.

That's because our anti-Mormon authors haven't given us any reason to
believe they know the pertinent facts.  You would trust them to be
able to reason correctly about the secret elements of Free Masonry
when they aren't Masons?

You know nothing about the secret elements of the Mormon ceremony, I
assume.  Also making the assumption that you have no personal bias for
or against Mormonism, can I say that you are qualified to render an
comparative opinion of Mormon temple ceremonies?  Of course not.
That's like writing a review of a book you haven't read.

If someone says "I've been to Chicago, and it's filthy," you might
certainly consider that this is a biased opinion.  But if someone says
"I've never seen Chicago, but it's lovely," which of the two are you
going to believe?  Both might be biased, but the first person can at
least claim to be in possession of whatever facts are required to make
a judgement.  One should legitimately ask the second person what his
opinion is based on.

Now in the abstract case it is certainly a prudent course of action to
weigh the arguments for both sides and come to one's own conclusion.
But I am not talking about the abstract.  I'm talking about weighing
the opinion of a long-time Mormon and Mason with the opinion of
ex-Mormons (who demonstrably have already misrepresented the LDS
ceremony).

I would be quite happy to give more credence to their opinion if I had
some way of knowing to what extent our authors know what they're
talking about.  Are they Masons?  If not, from where does their
detailed knowledge of Masonry come?  If they have no detailed
knowledge, why should their comparison be trusted?  Since John
Meulhausen seems stubbornly reluctant to supply us with more
information, I must conclude (based on the number of Mormons who are
also Masons) that they are not Masons and have no real knowledge of
its inner workings.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: fscdh3@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: discrimination by Utah Mormons
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:35:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Apr15.103535.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks


	Ok, I have a question for all of you Mormons out there.
Particularly the ones that were born, bred, and raised in Utah.
I lived (past tense) in Utah for 3 1/2 years, and through all that
time, I was consistantly descriminated against by others because 
I was not of the Mormon faith.  Now, what I want to know is this:

	If the Mormon faith believes that all people should be treated
fairly, then why was not only I, but EVERY SINGLE gentile (non-mormon)
I knew treated like dirt?  Is this a common way to get people to convert
to Mormonism in general, or was I just in a bad neighborhood?
(I lived in Ogden, by the way.)

	Let me know.....
	fscdh3@acad3.alaska.edu
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:23:50 GMT

In article <12636@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>And I had just read read a recent excerpt from "The Other Side", an ecumenical
>Christian magazine, and found the following:
>
>   "John Boswell has uncovered has uncovered news evidence that the early
>    catholic church celebrated same sex marriage centuries before it
>    celebrated heterosexual ones.
>    While heterosexual unions were neither conducted in church nor considered
>    sacramental before 1215 A.D., same sex unions were affirmed  in religious
>    ceremonies emphasizing the love and devotion of the couples to God.

Boswell has been promising a book on this research now for years
and years.  I hope it's worth the wait.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:35:30 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>Andreas, why do you hesitate to spell it out?    You expect people to respect
>your religion when you play cowardly little games like that?  Is the "truth"
>so unpalatable that you can't be direct with it?

	I don't say it until I've proved it from the Bible. I don't say 
	E = mc2 to the elementary school students, but I tell a bit about the
	laws of the physics first and when I see they're ready to understand 
	the formula, I give it to them. 

	Don't be so unpatient !

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Arians, Donatists, Gnostics, O My!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:43:28 GMT

In article <MIB.92Apr6101219@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.024911.19261@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>   The Son is emphatically not human, but became Christ in the incarnation.
>   Your description of Arius implies that he was not a believer in Logos
>   theology, which he was.
>
>Except, that Arius held that the Logos was *not* God; the prologue of
>John was to be taken metaphorically, and that Proverbs 8:22 ("The Lord
>created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long
>ago") should be used to settle the issue.  Ultimately, the orthodox
>view was that Proverbs is metaphorical, not John.
Hmmmm....We now enter the realm where my clue--such as it is--vanishes.
I'll have to take your word on it.

>Have you *read* the writings in question?  
Not as many as I should have.
-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: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:30:31 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Huh?  Just because someone claims a certain religion doesn't imply that the
>religion sanctions their actions.  I bet there is at least one JW in
>prison.

	None in the so-called civilized world. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:02:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.102115.490@yvax.byu.edu> mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.224846.23272@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> Lets get one thing straight right now:
>> 
>> The Mormon Jesus is _not_ God.  They are two separate entities.
>> While one might need to believe in Jesus to get into heaven,
>> one also needs to _do_ many things, like knowing the endowment
>> incantation to get into heaven, having a "sacred name", being
>> buried in one's holy underwear, etc, etc, etc.  It is _clearly_
>> a "saved by works" religion.
>>
>	
>	The Book of Mormon teaches that man is saved by grace and that Jesus is
>God.

Actually, you are partially right.  However, the BoM does in fact state
that people are "saved after all you can do."  Was there ever a day that
you DID all you could do?  No, me either.  Oh well, I guess it was blown
from birth.  Thank the God of the Bible that the Book of Mormon's claim
is not true.  

The current version of the BoM is still somewhat trinitarian.  The original
1830 version is VERY trinitarian.  The rest of the mormon canon talks
about the three persons of the mormon godhead (at least for this world),
and makes it clear that the mormon jesus is NOT the mormon god.

>	It seems to me that you think you know what the LDS church teaches, and 
>I believe that your intentions are sincere, but what you have written is NOT
>official church doctrine.  Believe what you want to believe - but take it from
>a Mormon - what you say I believe and what I REALLY believe are two totally
>different things.
>
Sometimes it is hard to determine exactly what church doctrine really is.
If I talk to the mormon in the left cubicle, I do in fact get different
answers than the mormon in the right cubicle.  Even researching approved
church literature, it is possible to come away confused.  The BoM says one
thing, the D&C or PGP says something else.  One 'prophet' says one thing,
as revelation, and a later prophet says something contradictory as
revelation.  One printing of an LDS book says one thing, and it contradicts
an earlier printing.  It is not surprising that both non-mormons and
mormons alike have differing views about mormonism.  It is hard to hit
a moving target.



-- 
| Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com        |
| Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then |
| Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.               |
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Child custody
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:05:27 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>After teaching them that the right thing to do is be a pioneer,
>that they should put off getting married and having children,
>and that they shouldn't waste their time getting a career,
>you find that honest?

>Why do they have to be careful not to say those things?  Because,
>that is exactly what they have been taught to think!


	No, you use phrase "be a pioneer" carelessly. Pioneer is a publisher
	who uses 90h/month for publishing work. It is self-evident that you 
	can't tell someone that is for instance in hospital that (s)he should
	do this work 90h/month. We only expect that everyone does his/her 
	best. It can be like in donating: Widows valueless coin is more worthy
	than rich man's many coins.

			Andreas
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:51:02 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Apr9.003701.3902@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
| 
| >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.

Now let me get this straight (sorry about that) -- if I stick my penis
in my wife's anus or mouth, that is "fleshy", but if I stick it in my
wife's vagina, that is "not fleshy".  And using one's hands or a vibrator
is equivalent of "getting wasted" (whatever you mean by that).

We could have a new thread -- "John Muehlhausen explains it all to you".

| Because God did not intend homosexual behavior (or deviant heterosexual
| behavior) I hold that gay persons do not receive the spiritual
| bond-strengthening through sex that a man and a woman do in marriage.

Since you have decided that anal sex, oral sex, mutual masturbation, and
vibrators are "deviant" (from your earlier paragraph) -- I would like you
to cite the relevant Biblical chapters and verses where Yahweh condemns
blow jobs within marriage.

|   Of course this doesn't make
| heterosexual mis-behavior any less damaging.

Would you please make a list of "heterosexual mis-behavior"?

    Fritz
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:20:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <adams.703260182@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>If not, then its hopeless.  I just hope you guys come around sooner
>>or later.
>
>Not hopeless.  I did not remain a virgin until I married.  Does this make
>me hopeless?  Of course not.  Why should it make anyone else hopeless?
>
>There is no unforgivable sin.  The Lutheran Order of Public Confession in
>fact says 'We confess we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves.'
>The absolution says that 'God, who is merciful and just forgives you all
>your sins.'  Since Luther taught Justification by Faith, there are
>absolutely no works that I can do to help me gain salvation, nor can I
>possibly avoid all sin.  Remember, Paul was a sinner.  So am I.  So are
>you.  None are hopeless except those who do not hope.

What I clearly meant was the following:

If the same people who were defending homosexuality also said that sex with
more than one partner was OK, then the chances of convincin gthem of anything
at all about morality would be slim to none.

EOD

John M.
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 03:47:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.023852.28190@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>Tell me something...  Why would he do this to you?  If I thought God had
>made me gay in todays society I would probably be more than a little
>angry with him.

Sin of pride, eh?

>God doesn't do anything without a purpose, so I am wondering
>what this purpose is.  If it exists I realize that we can't know what God is
>thinking, but I would like to hear any thoughts.

Sometimes I think gay Christians are latter-day martyrs, created
to bear the hatred of their fellows.

>Why must love incur sex?  Truly the "highest" love we can have one for
>another is that which Christ has for us - "...even as I have loved you".
>This was _never_ even remotely sexual in nature.

This is the same perverse thinking that you've displayed all along.
Love need not incur sex.  But that's not the same as claiming that
all love should not incur sex.  Not all people are called to a celibate
life.  Most gay Christians would reject the imposition that they must be
so, though many still hold to traditional attitudes of chastity (monogamy,
lifetime committment,, etc.), at leats many who are somewhat orthodox
in their beliefs.

>I don't think some people have taken the 1 Cor. 6 homosexuality quote far
>enough -- so I will:   (NAS)
>
>     9  Or do you not know that the un-      \
>   righteous shall not inherit the king-      |
>   dom of God?  Do not be deceived; nei-      |
>   ther fornicators, nor idolaters, nor       |
>   adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homo-      |-This gets quoted often enough.
>   sexuals,                                   |
>     10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor    |
>   drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers,    |
>   shall inherit the kingdom of God.         /

Read Michael Siemon's summary of these words.  There is no word
"effeminate" in the Greek.  There is no word "homosexual" in the Greek.
"Homosexual" is a 19th c. medical descriptive.  These words have
a circumscribed meaning used in biblical times; ones, unfortunately
which we do no longer fully understand, though that has not prevented
translators to step in make a great leap to close the gap.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:19:56 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>In article <1992Apr6.103745.6245@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	Nonsense. For instance people in my congo are in fact envious when I
>>	am so well educated...

>In the article "Keep Awake in the 'Time of the End' ", the JW HQ says:
>"Individually, we should make a self-examination of our present situation...
>What, though, if our self-examination reveals that we are striving to set
>up a nice, cozy, comfortable, relaxed way of life?  What if we discover
>that our spiritual eyes have become heavy with drowsiness and sleep?
>Are we in a dreamlike state, chasing after some worldly fantasy?
>(Watchtower, May 1, 1992, p.22)

	That's better - you quote a new article. You've made improvement. But 
	where's said everyone should become a pioneer ?
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:53:03 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <adams.702925517@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >You know, if someone would fall off a horse today, and then tell people
> >that Jesus spoke to him, he would certainly be shipped to the nearest
> >hospital.

> And if someone came and claimed to be Jesus Christ, we'd do the same thing.
> If it was Him, and He did miracles, etc., He'd be killed again, for getting
> in the way.

I don't think we kill Jesus-wannabes today, however most likely they
will end up in hospital care. Same with people who fall off horses and
have visions.

Cheers,
Kent
From: wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Biblical Reasons for Believing in the "Deity" of Christ.
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:02:43 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

In article <s0lgpINNr0p@agate.berkeley.edu> 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
>Hey, Wayne! Your top 10 reasons will  gloriously convince all those who happen 
>to take the Bible as true. In other words, you reason with people who already
>abdicated from reasoning. That's easy! How about reasoning the rest of the planet,i.e. us, the non-believers, into accepting Jesus' deity? Good luck!
>
>Cheers!
>-- 
>Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
>Department of Economics
>
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.

YOU ARE the one at fault, here bud.  The post had ZERO to do with you in the
first place.  Of course, if you read it you might realize such.



-- 
Wayne VanWeerthuizen | wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu | Christian, X-trinitarian
205 Scott Hall       | (509) 335-1835 (voice)      | Physics ugrad, 21yrs old
Pullman, WA  99163   |    <<< Thank You Cards For Sale, $10.00 each >>>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc