HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "Evidence" of god
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:06:22 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <trumpet-user.24.711960655@dkfz-heidelberg.de> trumpet-user@dkfz-heidelberg.de (Don Ward) writes:
>Scott Gibson writes:
>>Finally, evidence which is not reliable cannot result in judgment.  When one
>>ponders a decision, one discards those pieces of evidence which cannot be
>>validated, and which are not therefore reliable.
>
>Do you only use 'proven' evidence to make decisions??

Nope.  I have already been taken to task for the severity of my
statement by Mr. Wingate, and have responded to him.  When I try
to make decisions about things, I try to exercise some test of 
reasonableness.  Of course, it should have been obvious to you 
that the test of reasonableness used to answer the question 
"Should I have another cup of coffee?" is dramatically different 
from that used to answer the question "Should I sacrifice this 
goat to Jahweh?".

Mr. Wingate believes that this test of reasonableness is to
ill-defined to be of use, but I disagree.  However, that's 
another posting.

>The thousends of people who have 'belived' in a God had reasons to do that.
>It is true that the reasons could be wrong, however denying the validity
>of these reasons based soly on the statement, 'they can't be proved by my
>(scientific) methods' is takeing the easy way out. Just like 'beliving' 
>becauseother people (whoever they are) do.

Don't be deliberately obtuse.  A large number of people who currently
believe, do so _precisely_ because other people (their parents, family,
and society) do.  Besides, count the number of people who believe in
the God you do.  Then, count the number of people who believe in 
something, or nothing, else.  Then explain why you would take refuge
in the notion that the number of people who believe implies some
threshold level of valid reason for belief.



-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: n5ppm264 (Charlie Board)
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Organization: bnr
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:48:33 GMT

In article <jWcqr*5h1@bkhouse.cts.com>, nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com (Norman Kraft) writes:
> 

> This is one of the fun parts of the Old Testament. Those who site it
> as support for anti-homosexual arguments often are being *very* selective
> about what they choose to read. There are few things more fascinating
> than someone who says they read the Bible "literally", and find it
> "inerrant in every word", yet ignore most of Leviticus and accuse others
> of being "cafeteria Christians". I'll tell you what, folks: we all
> so some shopping.
> 
> Some examples from Leviticus 19: (Jerusalem Bible)

[Examples of laws Christians conveniently ignore deleted]
And let's not forget Numbers 5:12-31, where god not only approves of but
COMMANDS that abortions be performed on women suspected of adultery. This
is the ONLY place the Bible directly addresses the subject of abortion...
have you ever heard a fundie anti-choice preacher address it?
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Norman R. Kraft 			   INET  : nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com
> Senior Partner				   UUCP  : ucsd!crash!bkhouse!nkraft
> Argus Computing 			   GENIE : N.KRAFT3
> San Diego, CA				   
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:03:32 GMT

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>>David Hatcher writes:

>>>And I always thought all a person needed to do to be a Christian 
>>>was that they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour.

>>exactly.  that is the message of the new testament--that jesus will 
>>reconcile us to god.  this covenant replaces the one of laws in the old
>>testament.  the new covenant is accepting jesus as our saviour.

>Which is why when people claim that practicing homosexuals can't
>possibly be "really" saved, they are ignoring the proclaimed nature
>of salvation, that it is "personal".

>One finds the spirit of Christ through self-acceptance.

  i do not recommend people seek the spirit of christ, rather i recommend
people seek the person of jesus to live in them.  with the inborn spirit
of god people will then seek to live a holy life.  thus unconditional
self acceptance [if you implied unconditional] is not in the spirit or the
person of christ, for jesus calls us to be pure and to try to rid ourselves
of our uncleanliness, not to accept ourselves.  if you didn't imply 
unconditional, could you let me know specifically what you mean when you
say self-acceptance?  thanks

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Terence`s homophobia
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:06:42 GMT

In article <22668@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>     Car la parole de Dieu est vivante et efficace, plus aceree
>     qu'aucune epee a double tranchant; elle penetre jusqu'a la
>     division de l'ame et de l'esprit, des jointures et des moelles;
>     elle est juge des sentiments et des pensees du coeur.  Il n'y
>     a aucune creature, qui soit invisible devant lui:  tout est mis
>     a nu et terrasse aux yeux de celui a qui nous devons rendre compte.
>
>It's your turn to translate...

For those interested, it says

    "For the word of God is living and active.  Sharper than any double-edged 
     sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow;
     it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.  Nothing in all
     creation is hidden from God's sight.  Everything is laid bare before the 
     eyes of him to whom we must give account."  [Hebrews 4:12,13 (NIV)]

It sounds nicer in French.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

     "Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
	                     -- Matthew 15:4

          "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on 
                       to the traditions of men."
                             -- Mark 7:8  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Number of books in the Bible
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:54:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.192608.7655@dg-rtp.dg.com> grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross) writes:
>The concept of sin is clearly defined in the Bible (a book of 66 books
>covering a period of over 4,000 years).  Check it out sometime.

   Actually, there are 73 books in the Bible.  You must be using the
King James Version, which removed several books from the Bible.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Structure of Time
Date: 29 Jul 92 03:27:28 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc.

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------

Could it be that the reason fewer young ladies are interested in
physics and cosmology nowadays is because they receive such rough
treatment at the hands of know-it-all netters?  It seems to me that for
a little
girl of 5 years old to even know about neutrinos and radiation and
electricity  is quite a bit to ask.

After all , it was only ten years ago or less that the rage in cosmology
was to dream up new particles and determine what effect they might
have on the universe.  Why not the space potato?  It's no more exotic
than many particles which well-known theorists have published papers on, and
are no more likely to exist than the space potato.

Steve Timm

Good point.  I found the story amusing, harmless, and much
more refreshing than the foul language that has been flying
around here lately.

I was sorry to learn that, apparently, a few people felt threatened
enough by a story of 'the space potato' to contact his employer and
jeapordize his position.

Mark
<I have always beleived in a cosmic spud, but my employer does'nt>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.philosophy.tech
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: jw's and the 144000
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 23:34:33 GMT

<ncgi5ik@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) said:
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|I studied with the Witnesses for a few years.  I'm quite
>|familiar with the practices and concepts.  While they are one of
>|the more reasonable sects of Christianity (they do not advocate
>|theocratic involvement) they do the old "pick and choose" as
>|well as any of them.
>
>The JW hands-off-politics policy is just about their only
>reasonable one, Gordon.  They run their congregations like
>police states.  They package one version of themselves to
>attract outsiders, but enforce another version once you're in.

But, most religions do this.

>They lie shamelessly about their past.  Their scholarship is
>atrocious-- 

As do Catholics, etc.

>            try looking up the references in their
>creation/evolution book, to see how they twist their sources.

I have, I had a great laugh about these "scholars" they quoted.  One
was the guy from Cal that Suzanne is always stroking.

...

>Mainstream christianity is bad enough, but the JWs have all
>those flaws plus ones of their own invention.  It leaves a bad
>taste in my mouth, to think of so many people brutalized by
>disfellowshipping cruelties and preventable deaths because of
>refused blood transfusions.

I agree, it's similar to all the dysfunctional families forced to remain
together because their church won't allow divorce.

>I put the blame on the men who run the organization, the
>so-called "Governing Body".  They set the policies.  I imagine
>that the average Witness is fairly sincere, and would slog away
>just as faithfully in another religion.  The only failing the
>average JW has is that he lets fear of men and laziness prevent
>him from thinking critically about his own religion.

CJ, I don't see how any of the stuff you have brought up here cannot be
applied to the other oppressive Christians sects.  I'm not defending JW as
much as pointing out that ALL Christian sects have the same or similar
attritbutes you apply specifically to the JW.

All in all, I'd rather have the option to close the door or not answer it
(JWs) than have religious views legislated (other Xtian sects).


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:29:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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

>I don't have my Bible with me, but I assume that may be the passage from
>the "secret gospel."  If it is not I apologize for the following tangent.

He gave the actual citation from Mark, 14:51.  It's really there.
It's true that Morton Smith's book about the secret gospel talks about
the passage.  But he hasn't invented Mk 14:51.  Rather, in light of
the "secret" text, he proposes a new interpretation of the passage.
The question is why someone would be with Jesus late at night with not
much clothing on.  One can imagine all kinds of explanations, like
having been awakened after he had already gone to bed because a big
event was about to happen.  Or homosexual activities.  (Or for that
matter, heterosexual activities.  Jesus was well-known for having
women hanging around him.  Just because they're not mentioned in the
upper room story doesn't mean they weren't around at all that night.)
Or whatever you like.  Smith's suggestion was that Jesus had been
giving him a Gnostic-style initiation.  He also implied that there
were sexual aspects to the initiation.  But that isn't suggested in
the text from Clement (indeed Clement specifically denies it).
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Get a life 
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:33:30 GMT


I think it was John_Graves who states that Jesus was at least involved in
a homoaffectional or something relationship with his disciple,  a.k.a. 
"Lover"

To this, I would respond, Get a life.  If you seriously think that Jesus
had anything to do with homosexual activity, you need help.  At least the
other people who reponded negatively to my opinion had some valid points.

Jesus was and is sinless, and forever will be.  You should   "Face it".

As for the others who disagreed with my opinion, thank you for an
alternate view.  I am indeed a sinner, as are all others.  I just happen
to think that if God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit collaborated on a book
that is the authoritative word of God, and that book says that
homosexuality is UNNATURAL, that it is unnatural.

For all you scholars who have read "between the lines" and have theorized a
different interpretation, my sincere apologies.  I read the book as it is
written, no more no less.

God Bless,
Steve.Gross



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Just Curious
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:35:31 GMT

In article <6236@kielouta.fi> 
cskeaa@vehka.cs.uta.fi (Ketola Aarne Vesa Pekka) writes:
>A famous indian, Seattle, put it quite well when he said
>that the red man has same God as white man. And white
>man will find it out some day.

Yes, Chief Seattle wrote a very good letter to the US government, but did
they listen? And we named a city after the Chief, but do we listen? Will we
find out someday?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:25:37 GMT

akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>Excuse me, but in my translation, both those passages speak about
>*four* kingdoms, not seven.

	Yes, the four first kindoms. Three rest are described later. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus Would Gag
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:44:17 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <l6uf2aINNqbq@male.EBay.Sun.COM> lesley@pleasanton.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>
> [...]
>
> Now..could you please answer a question for me? Why don't you beleive in God?


Note: I'm not the original poster.

However, I'm going to ask Lesley a question which I hope will serve as
an answer of sorts to hers:

	Why don't you believe in Santa Claus?

If you believe in God but not in Santa, please account for your different
conclusions. By the way, if your belief in God is based on scripture, no
problem. Take your bible, and do a global substitution of "Santa" in place
of "God". Now you have an authoritative scripture which proclaims the glory
of Santa.


>	In Christ...
>		Lesley

In the UK...
	Simon

-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Subject: Re: Hear Ye Him!
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:25:20 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: drice@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Keith Rice)
Subject: Re: Catholic Distortion
Organization: University of North Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:50:17 GMT

In <92210.183231LXS117@psuvm.psu.edu> <LXS117@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>     As the money gathers dust in vaults and the pro-lifers-
>largely Catholic-gather cash to blow up abortion clinics,thousands
>of people die.

If you are going to make this accusation, please back it up with solid
evidence, not speculation.

Thank you.

Keith (NOT a Catholic)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 17:24:41 GMT

<1992Jul21.184318.19611@news.acns.nwu.edu> daphne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Amy Kruse) said:
>In article <1992Jul21.180424.6522@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>> <10068@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) said:
...
I reread your post and noticed this portion.

>Jesus knew exactly what power miracles had over people, after all he helped
>create them didn't he?  

Who did he help to create us?  I ask you this because you imply that god
and Jesus are two different entities.  For Suzanne, this is heresy.  She
believes that Jesus and god are the exact same entity.  Therefore,
according to her reasoning, Jesus didn't help anyone -- *he* created
humans.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.020720.4894@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.215656.20946@macc.wisc.edu> stmarys@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ted Babcock) writes:
>>
>>But, while a homosexual orientation by itself is not a sin (to the 
>>extent that it is not under one's control), it _is_ considered a 
>>physical defect, and so we may conclude that Jesus was not a 
>>homosexual, either in practice or "merely" in orientation.
>
>Mind presenting some evidence for this view point? 
>
>If homosexuality was a defect rather than beneficial evolution would
>have removed it long ago. There is simply no way a trait that results
>in 10% of the population not reproducing will survive unless it enhances
>the survival chances of the population as a whole.
Pure garbage.
1) Many homosexuals DO reproduce, for various reasons.
2) If sexual orientation is not genetically controlled, then it cannot
be selected for or against.
3) It is not, to my knowledge, known that sexual orientation is
genetically controlled.

Wanna try again, Lawrence?

-Ekr






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:53:21 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul24.215359.20714@athena.cs.uga.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>you shouldn't change "he who sleeps with a man" or aresenokoite to
>"he who sleeps with a woman" to make it read the opposite of the original.

That's not what has been claimed of the mistranslation. In the context
of the original Greek, "arsenokoite" can mean male prostitute. It is
a rather vague term which doesn't speak much of the prostitute's customers.

Me:
>>But you certainly don't have enough information to conclude that he didn't
>>possess a homosexual or bisexual orientation.

>As a matter of Christian faith, I believe that Christ was sinless, and 
>therefore that He was not sexually immoral, either in thought or life.

Christian doctrine now states that homosexuality as an orientation is not
sinful. If Christ were homosexually oriented, or bisexually, or heterosexually
oriented, he was not sinful by orientation alone.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:11:10 GMT

In article <59309@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:
>In article <25032@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>>In article <11455@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes...
>>>Which prepackaged religions predicate "the Universe being roughly
>>>6000 years old"?  I seem to have missed that one.
>
>>Come on, now.  Ask the pope how old the Earth is.  What do you think he will
>>say?
>
>I'm no fan of JP2, but I suspect he'd first plead incompetence to answer
>and direct the question to a scientist. If pressed, he'd probably say, 
>"About 4 billion years."

I believe he has stated that belief in evolution (and an "old Earth")
is in no way incompatible with Catholic faith.  This doesn't say
what he *personally* believes but I think it unlikely that he
would believe in the 6000 year old Earth and make such a statement. 

C Frog