HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: JWs vs. Christians
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:53:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.110254.7427@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Especially old Awake!s have good articles about the dangers of
>	the transfusion, in the Kingdom Hall there's also an Index, where you
>	could find those articles. 

For example:

In the "watching the world" section of the 7/8/69 Awake:

Transfusions and Thievery:
Some say blood transfusions are harmless.  Do you believe
that?  For 40 years Robert Khoury was known as an honest
man.  Then he was given a blood transfusion after a fall.
"I learned the doner was a thief," Khoury told police.
"When I recovered I found I had a terrible desire to steal."
And steal he did.  He confessed to stealing 10,000 pounds
(as in the British currency) in 6 robberies in 3 months.
Khoury threatened to sue the doctor who arranged the
transfusion if he recieves a severe sentence for his
thievery.

From the 5/15/62 Watchtower, p. 302:
Moreover, recent medical research has indicated in a realistic
way how blood transfusions may damage the individual's personality...
Transfusing blood, then, may amount to transfusing tainted 
personality traits.   How great the danger may become if the blood
is taken from blood banks to which criminals and other derilics
of society have contributed!

This is a good example of the medical "authorities" the Jehovah's
Witnesses like to cite...

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:59:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In article <adams.703272915@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>>>Suppose there was a man who was "in love" with his sheep, but he did not
>>>want to fornicate with it.  Could he Biblically get married to a sheep?
>>>Can people marry rocks, fish, or trees?  You can perform a ceremony and
>>>call it a "marriage' but this is not what God ordained as marriage
>>Sheep do not have souls.  They are created and at the mercy of man.  Men
>>and women have souls and free will.  Sheep do not.  Rocks, etc are
>>inantimate objects which also do not have souls.
>>
>>This is a false analogy.  Try again.
>>
>>     Steve Adams             

>I do not agree with you.  (Of course it is my analagy.)  What specifically
>makes the analagy false?
Comparing animate, souled people with souless animals or inanimate objects.
There is no comparison.

>God ordained a marriage between one woman and one man.  Two were to be one
>flesh.  Jesus quoted this is Matthew 19 in His teachings against divorce.
>Paul associated two becoming one flesh with the sex act when he was 
>discussing staying away from prostitution in I Corinthians 6.  
That's true.  But again, the Bible is silent on marriage between same-sex
couples.  It neither approves nor disapproves of such unions.

>Both male homosexuality and beastiality are specifically condemned in the
>Bible.  I think this is a good analagy because, Scripturally speaking,
>a man cannot marry a man, and a man cannot marry an animal.  The sex
>acts between a man and an animal, and between a man and a man are both 
>forbidden in the Torah.  The Scriptures never institute such perverse
>"marriages."  When marriage was created it was between a man and a woman.
Firstly, these items are condemned in Leviticus.  I reiterate that
Leviticus does not apply to Gentiles.  It applies to Jews only.  Gentiles
are required to follow the Noahide Covenant.

>Do you believe that beastiality is sinful.
Yes.  Copulation between a souled, reasoning person and an unsouled,
unreasoning person is most certainly sinful.  It cannot in any way, shape
or form be an expression of mutual love and respect.

 -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: kiledal@lisp.cs.psu.edu (Erik Kiledal)
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith 
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:56:10 GMT

In article <srqjlpn.rohwerwd@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
writes:
>     As you should know by now, the Bible contains many contradictions
>and errors and as a consequence does not stand up to logic.  

Why don't you list a few?

>A couple of errors are the creation story and the virgin birth.  

There is no controversy between the creation story and science. The
virgin birth was a miracle, not an error. [The virgin birth cannot be
_proven_ to be either true or false.]

Erik Kiledal				| kiledal@cs.psu.edu
The Norwegian Institute of Technology   | "Nietzsche is dead"
Computer Science			| - God

>-- 
>  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
>|  \X/       Go A's!     \X/ 3000UX   Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:54:25 GMT

In article <22921@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>  I can see how that may seem so by how I have been coming across. But
>remember, what got me started in this thread is that you wrote that the 
>resurrection of Jesus Christ is "fact". To me that "fact" is more
>rooted in a belief that is being pushed as "fact".

No, I wrote that the question of _whether_ Jesus was resurrected, is factual
in nature.

More to the point, there are facts which are both true and unpleasant.  The
best choice is to believe them, even if you don't like them.  If God sends
you to Hell for not bowing to him five times per day, then you bow to him
five times a day, just like if you get injured by jumping out of airplanes
without parachute, you probably should never jump out of planes without
parachutes.

>>If by guide you mean a human guide, then our hypothetical powerful being can
>>poke your guide in the brain too.  ...
>  Ya, it can go on for a long time. But sooner or later someone is going 
>to poke their inner eye of love through the veil and behold God in all 
>of His majesty, just as the prophets have done. ...

You have no way of knowing that this hypothetical brain-meddler hasn't meddled
with the brain of all the prophets either.

And because these experiences are private and cannot be compared against
anything else, you can never tell, either.
--
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)
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Gay Marriage (was: Homosexuality and Christianity)
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:15:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Paul Hudson Jr apparently didn't care for my mention of Boswell and the
Christian wedding rites for 6th century Gays:

> The 6th century is hardly the time of the Bible.  But even in the time of
> the apostles there were those who taught false doctrines.  Paul, for 
> example, showed his disgust with homosexuality in Romans.

Paul, you seemed confused on two different points.  

First I pointed out that I wasn't using it a evidence for biblical support,
but rather I clearly stated I was using it as a "counterpoint" to your
assertion that homosexual weddings are not Christian.  Apparently (if Boswell
is correct) some Christians who lived much closer to the time of Jesus
disagreed with you on the subject (not that this is proof, but Christianity
does tend to give a lot of credence to the views of early Christians and
Church fathers). 

Second, you again repeat your assertion about Paul being anti-homosexual in
Romans, as if that assertion is supposed to be compelling to me.  On several
different occasions Michael Siemon and Charles Hedrick (among others) have
presented a detailed exegesis showing why the statements in Romans are quite
ambiguous and are not restricted to the interpretation that you would force on
them.  You have not replied to any of their points, or shown fault in any of
their arguments, and the limit of your criticism seems to be on the order of:

			"TIS NOT!!" 

This is essentially "proof by repeated assertion" and I find it in no way
compelling.  Now you have the right to personally dismiss and reject their
arguments for any reason you deem as appropriate: intuition, revelation, or
even just plain prejudice.  But Paul, you do not have the ability to simply
dismiss or reject those arguments on behalf of myself and others.  So for you
to simply repeat an argument that has already been dealt with, is both
impotent and a bit silly. 
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    And I tell you this: "proof by repeated assertion" is of the most 
    foul of crimes! Yeah Verily! Yeah Verily! Tis So! Tis So! 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Shut up, already!!!
Keywords: angry young man
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:58:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.200858.8206@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>that's been through God-knows-how-many translations (note that in original
>language versions, Mary was just a "young woman;" it was MIStranslated into
>English (or possibly Latin) as "virgin") do it for you? Besides which, since
Not quite. The Hebrew of the prophecy(Isaiah) usually considered as
referring to Jesus(the birth of Emanuelle) refers to "alma" == "young woman."

The Greek translation in the LXX uses "parthenos"=="virgin."
However, in every version of the NT, Mary is referred to as "parthenos."
-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? 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: dweinste@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:40:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.213407.29011@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> er@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Elie Rosenfeld) writes:
#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.

It looks like we are going to be opening up the entire "ideals vs
practice" can of worms again.

Last year, the Denver City Council approved an ordinance which among other
things extended civil rights protection to the issue of sexual orientation.
Those opposed to the ordinance succeeded in getting a proposal to exclude
sexual orientation from the ordinance on the ballot, and among those
in favor of removing the clause were several very vocal orthodox Jews
(including, if I do not misremember, at least one Rabbi).

Since it looks like this issue will be on the statewide ballot this
Fall (a proposal to ban any local governments from banning discrimination
based on sexual orientation looks to have gathered enough signatures),
I have no doubt that we will see more letters to the paper from the
Orthdox community...

--Dave

-- 
Dave Weinstein
Internet: dweinste@gnu.ai.mit.edu
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are XXX Christians?
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:29:59 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <MIB.92Apr14144142@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

>The attack on gay people consisted of the bigots trying to prove that
>gay sex is sinful.

Calling people who believe homosex is sinful "bigots" does not change the
fact that the Scriptures condemn homosexual sex.  I believe murder is
sinful.  Am I bigotted (is this a word?) against murderers.  
Christian teaching, as found in the Scriptures (e.g. Romans 1:27) is
that homosex is sinful.  

To the world, homosexual sex may seem just fine and dandy.  They may not
see anything wrong with it.  But Christian teaching, according to the
Scriptures shows us that homosex is sinful.  At some point the beliefs
of the world and the beliefs of the church will diverge.  It is not
wise to stand on two ships that go in two different directions at the same
time.  One has to choose one ship or fall into the water and drown.  

Christian morality may not be the same as the morality of the world.  It
may even appear foolish to the world.  Paul wrote in I Corinthians one of
how the things of God appear foolish to the world.  
This is true of morality as well.  Preaching against the Greek gods may have
seemed foolish and immoral to the Greeks.  The resurrection seemed foolish
to some Greeks, who laughed out loud when they heard of it.  But
it is better to appear foolish and be right.  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: A correction is in order (was JWs Child Custody booklet ...)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:13:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.200057.14358@e2big.mko.dec.com> sornson@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:

Mark Sornson posted an article recognizing that the booklet in question
does exist, and is written by the JWs, not the "Anti-christ", as Andreas
had asserted.  

Mark also made it clear that he felt I was abusing the spirit of what was
in the booklet (a booklet that he said I should not have access to), and
said that people were welcome to contact him by private email, where he could
express his opinions about me and what I have written.

Maybe I'm being a little sensitive, but this bothers me.  Everything I've
said about the booklet, I've said publically (where the JWs can respond
if they feel I'm being inaccurate), and I've tried to be thorough enough
that people can make up their own minds about what the booklet says, in
comparison to what JWs are actually taught.   Now, Mark Sornson, who
apparently has never actually read the booklet, and says he does not have
a copy of it, wants people to email him privately, so he can rebuff
what I have written, but in a forum where I'm not privy to what he has
to say about me, or what I've written.

Mark, if you have something to say about me, and feel that I'm twisting
things all around, show it to my face; not behind my back.  You've
obviously been accessing the newsgroup enough to have read the articles,
and Andreas' replies, and to make a followup yourself.    For being
members of a group that claims to make a point of publically exposing
false religion, the more "moderate" JWs in this group (like yourself)
sure seem to want to avoid talking in the open.  Only people who have
something to hide act like that, and seek to talk about people behind
their back.  

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 16 Apr 92 09:17:21 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>I don't.  You do.  Our society has had the good sense to restrict the
>control of religion by the government AND the control of government by
>religion.  Do not blame the failures of a State religion on followers of
>Lutheran theology.

	Yes, it's because your country has so many religions. I'm sure that if
	86% of Americans would belong to one church ...
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:08:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <adams.703343127@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>Sounds like a clear condemnation of lust to me.

Certainly.  The lust within them drove their sexual perversion.  What is
lust, but immoral desire?  Lust is sometimes translated as covet in the
NT.  Coveting is desiring something or someone either an object, or
sexually, unlawfully.
In this verse, the homosex acts described as "indecent" come about because
of lust.  If it is not immoral for men to desire to have sex with men, why
is it described as "lust?"  Why are sex acts between men described as 
indecent?

And fornication.

Specifically homosexual fornication between men in verse 27.

LInk Hudson.
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
	<MIB.92Apr10101158@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr10.193012.6932@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 03:03:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.193012.6932@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

   In article <MIB.92Apr10101158@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

   >This is what you will hear from me.  The only two absolutes are these:
   >
   >``You shall love the Lord your God with all your heard and with all
   >your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and
   >your neighbor as yourself.''

   For me loving God means listening to the rest of his Word.

But, you see, I *do* listen.  And, just like you, I must intepret what
I say.  But the result of that process is by no means perfect, so I
muddle through, best as I can.  You seem to claim some perfect ability
to interpret Scripture, and you seem to be ignorant of the possibility
of your own error.

--
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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:30:30 GMT


Ken Arromdee, continuing to fan the flames over Jack Carroll's comments,
writes:

> He claims that Judaism is a religion of intolerance and power.  Not a version
> of Judaism, not a subset of Judaism, but Judaism.  [...]  As a later article
> revealed, the homophobia part is only a minor factor in his condemnation of
> Judaism and the Old Testament. 

Err, so what?  Lots of people condemn Judaism, and lots of people think it is
a religion of "intolerance and power".  Are they all Jew-haters?

Your specific claim was that Mr Carroll was a Jew-hater -- please stick to
the subject.


> It hasn't been terribly long, however, since people called Jews bloodthirsty
> and then persecuted them for it.  (In fact, it's still happening in some
> parts of the world today.)

Again, so what?  That some people called Jews bloodthirsty and then persecuted
them does not justify the idea that _this_ person who called Jews bloodthirsty
wants to persecute them.  This is a fallacy called `guilt by association', and
conclusions drawn from it are logically invalid.


Your specific claim was that Mr Carroll was a Jew-hater.  But the text you
cited only indicates contempt for Judaism, and it includes a _specific_
qualifier to eliminate many Jewish people from his criticism.  The rest of
your argument is a pointless fallacy.

I suspect you'll try again (since you've never, ever, backed down after you
have started a thread) to prove that Mr Carroll is a Jew-hater.  If so, try to
stick to the point of discussion, and avoid the textbook fallacies.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:32:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Apr15.152908.17744@menudo.uh.edu> kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>Me too.  Since God is limitless, He may do anything He choses.  And any
>>Christian who complains may expect to get exactly the same response that
>>Job did.
>
>You realize, of course, the implications of this?  Namely, that either
>everything you see around you is the way God intends it, or God doesn't
>particularly care how things are.  This gets back to the idea that God
>appears to be either apathetic or malicious.

Not necessarily.  Not if when evil appeared, because some of God's creations
chose to rebel, God decided to do away with evil.  We are now in the
breif period of time that God allows evil to exist in the world before He
does away with it.  It may seem like a long time to us, but not to God.


Link Hudson.