HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:40:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: oasys.18323
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Kent Sandvik (ksand@apple.com) writes:
>I would suggest you should do some reading about Einstein, he believed
>Nature itself was God, and it's a far cry from the Christian nomad-based
>war-God.
The point was not whether Einstein subscribed to the Christian God.
The point was he believed there exists a God.  Would you have a 
reason to believe otherwise?

>Newton was a 'lunatic' Christian, I don't think Christians today believe
>in alchemy, do they?
I don't think Christians' belief in alchemy would amount to anything.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:03:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>OK, OK... I give up.  I know that homosex (to borrow the term) is
>wrong, and everyone who does it knows its not wrong, and I have made
>some foolish statements, and everyone else has made foolish
>statements (especially by trying to work their way around issues),
>and I have exhausted all the angles I can think of.

>I have lost ground, but one think remains untackled (call this a
>last ditch effort):  Assuming (which I do not) that homosex is
>allowed by God, isn't it also confined to two lifetime partners?

Sex simply for sex sake, outside of marriage, is fornication.  As such, it
is to be avoided.

>If not, then its hopeless.  I just hope you guys come around sooner
>or later.  Now to the Mormon thing...  :-)

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.

 -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
From: QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:09:19 GMT
 <1992Apr10.041703.10698@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <1992Apr10.062939.8905@spdcc.com>
 <1992Apr10.165122.14722@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Apr10.165122.14722@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) says:
>
>[...]
>New prediction:  Gay people are made that way by God and have just as much
>right to a fulfilling sexual relationship as any straight person, because the
>Bible has been misread in this area.

Well, John - You are learning.  The above is EXACTLY how I feel.  You
MUST admit that others posting here have showed you the translation
problems with the Bible (homosexuality being a fairly new word).  Yet,
with all this, you cling to a re-re-re-re-re-re-translated version of
the book, and claim it is so clear regarding it's prohibition of homo-
sexuality.   Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?

>
>Let me remind you that this is the same line of thought that almost _all_
>Christian based cults take:  "The Bible is correct as far as it has been
>correctly translated..."  Of course they mean "We will listen to what the
>Bible has to say as long as it does not conflict with our own interests..."

No, what this shows is people THINKING, using their intelligence to see
that certain parts of the Bible are ridiculus, but yet the basic message
is a Good One [tm].

Why would is it so hard for you to admit that perhaps some of the original
writers were either unclear, or wrong.  (It was you who said something
false "voices", or something to that effect)

Wouldn't your energies be better put encouraging gay people to get into
loving relationships (and marry, gotta allow that one too)?

On your other question to me - why would God make me gay?  I dunno -
he chose that for me.  The sin would be for me to lie to myself, and
then lie to my wife.  You don't seem to understand this - I didn't make
any choice.  (If I made a choice, so did you)  In a previous post,
I asked which part of my rural, strictly Catholic, non-abused,
generally happy, hard-working (farm chores) childhood somehow made
me gay?  I had such feeling even before I knew what "homosexual" and
"gay" meant.  Oh, and if there was some 'thing' in my family that did
it to me, explain why my 5 brothers and sisters didn't have the same
thing happen.  You can't.  Therefore, God made me gay - again, it's
that simple.

-Tim
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:30:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: noose.1992Apr14.033036.23845
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <MIB.92Apr13111119@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>In article <22913@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>   Something that many modern Christians don't realize is the strict
>   adherence to the law of Moses that the original church with James
>   and Peter adhered strongly to. For instance Christians attended
>   the Sabbatical temple ceremonies every week.
>
>But, once again, you presume knowledge about the origins of
>Christianity that is simply not there.  How much of the Law did the
>early Jerusalem Church follow?  Nobody knows.  We have only three
>pieces of evidence that address the issue:
>  1) The writings of Paul,
>  2) The book of Acts, and
>  3) The later Christian tradition
>

Yes, that would be the early christian sources.  How about other external
sources ?  I would add a #4 depending on whether the early christians were
persecuted any differently compared to the the other followers of the "Law" ?
My guess would be that it would be tough to determine since for the Romans 
(the main persecutors of that era :) it didn't make much of a difference 
as to who was following the Law.  Everyone in Isreal was pretty much 
clumped together.  Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the situation 
changed drastically after the attack on the temple ca. 70.  May be someone 
has investigated the matter in more detail.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cwblack%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Charles W. Black)
Subject: Re: Secrecy (was Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM'))
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:46:54 MDT
Organization: University of Utah

In article <1992Apr11.025754.24110@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>	And, of course, all promises and commitments are entirely voluntary;
>>	a participant is allowed to leave at any time.  You might notice
>>	that I have just told you exactly what happens in such a ceremony,
>>	yet I have not broken my solemn oath of secrecy.
>
>Someone had just finished saying that people who don't like what goes on in
>a ceremony cannot be trusted, since they violated their oath.  Yet you seem
>to be able to speak about it without violating an oath and being untrustworthy.
>
>Make up your minds, will you?

Make up my minds?  I'm not sure to whom you are referring; my opinion
is rather firm on this issue.

As you have pointed out, my statement does seem somewhat
contradictory.  Using the word "exactly" is misleading to what I meant
to say.  If you put what I said back into context, you will see that I
described many general things that may occur in a general secret
ceremony.  For example, I said that some organizations have a secret
handshake.  It is *very* common to have some established, private
method of greeting fellow members.  I did not, however, describe the
handshake to you.  In fact, I could not have done so, since I was
describing the typical content of secret ceremonies in general.  I was
*not* describing any particular ceremony.  This was for the benefit of
those who have not belonged to any such organization and might think
that the contents of such ceremonies need be kept secret, perhaps for
reasons of legality or morality.

One of the main points this discussion was designed to emphasize was
that speculation on the unknown is not justified simply because of the
mysterious nature of the proceedings.  For example, someone speculated
(I hardly believe that they were at all serious) that temple
ceremonies involved human sacrifice.  This type of speculation is
entirely unfounded and certainly needn't be vocalized.  There is
simply no justification for such an assertion.

I was just suggesting that we direct our discussions on this topic to
a more realistic level.  Obviously, we cannot discuss this on a
detailed level, but we can at least debate the purported "need" for
secrecy.

              ----------  Charles W. Black  ----------
                  ------  cwblack@asylum.utah.edu  ------
                     ---  Department of Computer Science  ---
               ---------  University of Utah  ---------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:30:22 GMT

In article <MIB.92Apr16120458@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 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 have always heard Shintoism described as a form of Buddhism.

No, shintoism is a religion of nature worship indigenous to Japan.
It is not buddhism at all, though the two get along together quite
well. It's not unusual to find elements of both shinto and buddhist
belief in a given Japanese household.

>The arguments of the used by the one with Shintoist parents ran
>roughly along the line of homosexuality being un-Japanese.

This seems to be a social position then, not a religious one (though in
shinto, religion and nation are very closely tied). Do you know if
anything in shintoism itself could be construed to speak expressly
against homosexuality? I have no information either way.

>The arguments described by the one with Mahayana parents were more along
>the line of violating one's nature, and spreading discord.

Well, then I guess we have buddhist homophobes, too, which is not
unexpected. But, I wonder where the various sects stand collectively,
and what buddhist leaders' positions are.

--
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: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:10:38 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

cosc143u@jane.uh.edu (91F9774) writes:
>This is the terrible thing about being part of the religion if indeed there
>is a book that says that you should lie under oath.  

>Once it is established that you are taught by your religion to lie to 
>outsiders, how can I take any statement you make to be true?

>You could be spinning a wonderful yard designed to counteract the "leak"
>that you had approved by your local high holyness of propaganda.

>I'm not saying that you are but this is the *first* thing that came to mind
>when I started reading your post.


	Not very long ago there was a discussion about JWs and lying (It was 
	about "lying is a war strategy") and the person, who originally made
	such claim (Karri Palovuori) apologized in public that he had mis-
	understood a quote from WT. I think this shows that someone else is 
	lying here but the WTBTS. 

	We believe, what is said in Rev. 21:8: "...all the liars, their portion
	will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the 
	second death".
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:24:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.134014.23423@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Lutheran 
>	priest blessed the soldiers in Winter War 1939-1940 causing a massive
>	bloodshed.

What exactly are you driving at?  The priest's blessing of the soldiers
increased the effectivness of their combat, so they killed more of the
invading Soviet troops?  Was it wrong for the Finns to fight to defend
their country against the Soviets, or would the correct thing have been
to let the Soviets overrun the country?   Would that have made the outcome
better, or worse?  (how do you pick between 2 losing chioces?  don't pick
at all?)  Or is your problem that the priests shouldn't bless people who
are about to go off and likely be killed?

>	As mafia, the church blackmales money from companies. You pay to the 
>	church from every litre of milk. 

Wow...what was that you were saying before about slander?  Note: while
in most areas of doctrine, Andreas does relfect accurately what the
JWs are taught, I believe here he has gone a *bit* beyond...or do the
other JWs here also think the church acts like a mafia??

>	A true follower of Christ doesn't take part to this Satanic intrigue.

Uh, yeah, whatever....

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 09:04:17 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

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

>In article <1992Apr15.131643.22736@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	That was not my INTENTION. I wanted to point that many people know
>>	hardly anything about the Bible and we must start from the begin-
>>	ning. Hebr. 5:12-14

>Which is?

	The Kingdom of God and the theme of the Bible. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Summary: but it DOES matter
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:01:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

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:

> >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.

??? I should think it DOES matter whether we are immoral, impure or greedy.
Are you saying it doesn't matter? or that whatever ANYONE claims is so is
something we have to accomdate?  In other words, am I accountable to ALL
of a) the Rev. Jesse Jackson, b) the Rev. Billy Graham, c) His Holiness
John-Paul II, d) the Rev. Oral Roberts?  [I will refrain from naming other
names  :-)]

> 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...

If this is intended to describe the "average person" are you willing to
apply it to yourself?  One thing about the faith I attempt to cleave to
-- it does not distinguish me from the contemptible masses.  I am one of
them.

> Over all though your points were deserved and well taken.

It gives me great hope that you are able to hear me.  I will pray for you.

-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 23:56:07 EDT
From: Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject:    Who knows? (Homosexuality & the Bible)

I've seen lot's of back and forth - the usual it is, it isn't, it is, it
isn't to the point that it makes me sick.

My message to all Christians:  If you have a personal line to God, and he
told you that homosexuality is bad, then fine, it's bad.  (Of course,
you have to prove to me that you have this personal line to God, and then
you have to prove that s/he said that)  That's a tall request, I know.

The rule is, you're not allowed to rely on existing 'documents' - I only
want to hear from those among you who have actually talked with God on
this issue.  If you haven't, you are unable to take a position on the
issue.

Seems simple, but it's not.  My talk with God was refreshing - I learned
that I am gay because he wanted it that way for me.  I almost cursed
but, i caught myself - it was sensed anyway.  "Humans are hateful
creatures" was the reply.  "I created diversity, and you fight because
of it" - I stared, dumbfounded.

This may seem "stupid" on the surface, but WHO of you is willing to
challenge that I didn't have a conversation with God?

With him loving me as I am,

-Tim
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:28:37 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr8.200944.265@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <22507@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>>Granted.  Does this [love] not directly imply reaching them for Christ? 
>>
>>        No! 
>>
>>        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
>
>So without the natural gift of sainthood it is hopeless?  

  I have no idea from where this came from!?! What ARE you talking about?

>I'm sorry, but God
>desires that all come to know Him...

  That's not the issue in the quote. What is at issue in this quote is how 
a person looks upon other people. It a look into from where we are coming
from as we do interface with other people.

>If I truly love a non-believer do I sit back and watch him grow farther from
>God or do I try and reach him for God?  

  The problem here is that you can not do a thing. The bottom line here is 
that it is only between the self, and God. 

  If you truly do love a non-believer, I think that it would be much 
more helpful if a person were to open their heart to them and help
them in the ways that they need it. One need not even talk about 
God to be teaching a unity with God.

  It's just loving them the way they are. 



	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:04:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.145952.26475@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>>>>OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>>>>loot, and terrorize?
>>>>You mean you don't _know_?
>>>	Yes, I know fairly well, but if I say, you wouldn't believe, so it's 
>>>	better that you go and see with your own eyes. 
>>Go ahead, tell me, even if I _don't_ believe.  I just want to find out what
>>_you_ believe about it.
>	Religion that is not Biblical is false. Isaiah 43:10 says "You are my
>	witnesses is the utterance of Jehovah". If you are not a Jehovah's
>	witness, your religion is not biblical. 

You didn't answer the question.  The question was not "what religion is false",
but "what religion teaches children to lie, steal, rape, etc."
--
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: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:14:45 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Apr14.144241.2204@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>etc.   Are the Jehovah's Witnesses on the list?  Is there anyone
>>besides the Jehovah's Witnesses who is *not* on the list?
> 
> 	I don't know why you insist this, when you know the answer yourself.
> 
> 	"Neither am I telling YOU by what authority I do these things."
> 
> 			- Mark 11:33

	Andreas, you are equating yourself with Christ here - are you
as great as He?  Do you have the same authority as He?  I find your attitude
very condescending, besides the fact that you've quoted this passage completely
out of context.

-Mark
> 
> --
> 
> 		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:53:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr9.225334.1232
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <adams.702827737@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>
>>The Bible is relevant to all. To say that some action is evil
>>because the Bible says it is evil is not "passing judgement."

>Not true.  Jesus says that before you judge another, you must be sinless.
>Read Matthew 7.

You'll notice that actions are not "another"...

John M.
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:50:48 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <53767@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>> (1) I'm the way, the truth.
>
>    In context, I am the way the truth and life, NO ONE comes to the Father
>    but by me (Jesus).


   Except that in practice, people the world over ARE uniting as One 
with their Beloved God with out going through Jesus.




	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher