HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: women's ordination conf.
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: talk
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:16:52 GMT

sjsup@bucknell.edu (stephen sup `94) writes:
: 
: I would be interested in some verses supporting the ordination of women.  i am 
: a Christian who is concerned that ordination of women may be contary to scripture,
: ie, a woman should not speak in church-type verses, and a woman should not
: teach a man [scriptural areas]-type verses.  whether or not i agree with them,
: they are there, and i must accept the Lord's wisdom as whole.  now, women as
: deacons were primary a servant position of the church and not one of authority,
: but where is a precedent for women ordination?  (also, in matthew, Jesus says
: to call no one *leader* or *father* for we are all brothers and have but one
: Leader and but one Father).
: 
: that acts verse could be used to support the apostasy as well, as this is part
: of God's plan and WILL happen as well.  but that verse specifically refers to
: the growth of the Christian faith, not for anything else.  the role of the
: woman was neither addressed nor hinted at in the passage.
: 
: like i said, i really would like more information, and Bible-based.  if the Lord
: is calling women to such places of authority, provisions probably were made
: somewhere.  keep it to N.T. unless prophesies of this sort could be found.  to
: tell you the truth, i think nothing *wrong* personally, unless its against the
: will of God, which is above all else, Holy.  i am nonetheless confused, as many
: born-again Christians have accepted this, while many have refuted this topic;
: hence, i cannot depend on any particular brother or sister in this matter.
: 
: i would prefer a personal statement, if possible, as i read news few times as
: i am a student (a science major and an engineering science minor).
: 
: thanks all, and much love to you, and may providence shine in your favor,
: for the Lord loves us all that none may perish, but come to learn what love
: is through His sacrifice.  grace to you all.

Yes, please please help.  I have read the Bible and can't figure out
what it says I should think about this matter.  Since I know for
a *fact* that the Bible contains all the answers I should ever need
to know, could someone please tell me the *correct* interpretation.
Ever since I lost the ability to think for myself, I have depended
on others to do it for me.  Life is so much easier since I found God.

*****

I am really, really sorry for that.  I just can't help it when I
see such a pathetic display.  The least you could do is pray to
your God and ask him to guide your heart in the matter.  Why do
Christians have to constantly be reminded what they are supposed
to think?  Why the Hell did God give us a brain if he didn't want
us to use it?  Of all the sublime creatures in God's creation,
why did he pick a sheep as the Christian role model?
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Homosexual Nightmare
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:20:40 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <Petch-171192080213@oboe.gvg.tek.com>, Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com 
(Chuck Petch) writes:
> I do not want a teacher influencing my child, either directly or
> indirectly, toward a lifestyle that is perverted. 

Fine.  Then let's ban Christian teachers as well, because I don't want a
teacher influencing my child, directly or indirectly towards a Christian
lifestyle.  And Christians are *known* to seek converts.

> If you think this is not a legitimate concern, you should watch a little
> more television. Last Sunday I turned on the tv just in time to see a news
> report in which a lesbian sat with a group of 10 year old kids at some
> public school telling them all about how wonderful it is to be a lesbian.

Context, please?  Had someone asked her what being a Lesbian is like?  What do
you *expect* her to say about it?

> I have nothing agaist any homosexual as a person, 

Bullshit.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:06:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov22.212639.18796@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov22.192305.23123@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
> >Mr. Sandvik asks more questions, but still refuses to either retract
> >or defend his claim that he is morally sound.  I am forced to repeat
> >myself.
> 
> Requiring him to defend a claim of being morally sound is somewhat equivalent
> to the following: I claim that only axe-murderers watch MTV.  You say "well,
> I watch MTV and I'm not an axe-murderer".  I reply "prove you're not an axe
> murderer".
> 
> Under any reasonable definition of morally sound, most people are morally
> sound.  The default assumption, then, is that someone is; they may freely
> argue based on it, and it is up to you to prove them wrong, not the reverse.

In addition, we might argue for the next 2Mbs or so about what the
definition of 'moral sound' implies. I'm sure that even Ted Bundy
assumed he was morally sound. I'm also sure that Mr. Skinner's and
my views differ concerning what is morally sound and what is not. And
my moral soundness definition certainly differs from Skinner's, which
I assume is flavoured by Judeo-Christian religious values.

So that's the core issue why I do think we should talk about more
interesting issues. Such as why moral values break down during
critical historical events (wars and similar cases).

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<ksand-141192162324@wintermute.apple.com> 
	<1992Nov15.064219.19630@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 1992 07:02:39 UTC

In article <1992Nov15.064219.19630@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> 
lungtt@gus1.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>In article <ksand-141192162324@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>>As for defining the ultimate morals, you might ask atheists
>>why they follow the law, instead of acting like barbaric
>>destroyers on the streets. You can't connect religious worshipping
>>directly with a morally correct state.
>Following the law?  I've encountered and read of many atheistic barbaric
>destroyers on the streets.

What?

>Which religion did Attila belong to?

I doubt he was an atheist. Probably a tribal religion or perhaps he was
the tribal war God. Sound familiar? Attila's exploits pale in comparison
to what the Christians did to the Americas and to what Hitler did in the
name of Jesus.

>Worshipping or not, morality seems to at least have a quasi-chance
>at quasi-limiting that law of the wild.

What if the religious morals are worse than the "law of the wild?" For
example, Luke 14:26?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21711 alt.atheism:21778 talk.philosophy.misc:2548
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Immortality
Date: 21 Nov 1992 01:35:47 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
=You have to come very close to death at 
=least once, preferably several times, before you actually start to live as 
=if there is a time limit on your personal survival.  You won't even 
=understand this point until....well until you understand it really.
=A few really nasty car crashes or diseases may help you get there, or maybe 
=having a friend die in the next room at the age of 20 would do it.

In other words:  "it's not the age, it's the milage."

-- 
	Truth is an evaluation of a statement within a context.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Christmas
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:27:15 GMT

In article <75901@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>
>The book of John tells us that Jesus birth came about by the will of
>God and not by the will of man.  He was born of a virgin (the seed of
>a woman - no male sperm was needed.)  God caused Mary to conceive - that
>is the miracle of the birth.  God humbled himself and was found in
>the form of a human - he was made flesh.  However, God is more than
>just Jesus, for there is the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.

  Let me see if I've got this myth straight?  God Causeed Mary to be
  pregnant, not in any ordinary way, but some special way (primarly to
  fufill some prophecy from Isaiah, that's not really recognizable as
  a prohecy except after the fact) just so that he God, can play at being
  in two places at the same time.  Some how the image of God as some
  magician is more than a little offensive.

  To cap it off, you said that you get this mixed notion of the Birth
  of Christ from the book of John?  Not hardly, John _ignored_ the 
  birth and childhood of Jesus, proably because _he_ didn't think it
  was significant. On the other hand the synopic gospeles were _not_
  written by anyone who actually knew Jesus, but more than likly
  wrote from an earlier account, which we do _not_ have and if we did
  it _still_ wouldn't be canon.
>
>>Everyone celebrates Christmas now.  It is a national holiday, no longer
>>purely religious. 
>
>This is true.  But the religious tones are still very strong.  Why do
>you think we have this season?  Is it not because of the greatest gift
>of all - Jesus the Christ, the Savior of the World?

 This would be nice if it were only true.  The reason that in Amerika,
 that people celibrate Christman has more to do with Santa-Claus than
 it does with private religous devoition.
>
>
>
>
>
>>that reason.  But was the pregnancy or birth supernatural?  Nah...
>
>Why do you say "Nah" - do you discount miracles and so discount before
>hand that Jesus was born of a virgin????
>
>>keith
>
>Richard Pitts
>


  In every other part of the Bible and under Christianity, the SuperNatural
  get's short shrift, only in some muckked up account of something sacred,
  does some account of the Supernatural take precident over the things
  of the spirit.

  Beside the point of Jesus doing miracles, of what value would there
  be to haveing Jesus born either by Magic or by A-Sexual fission?


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:06:07 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov18.045607.11737@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>Where does this business about "godless" hordes from the east come from?

Mediaeval Christians.  Or?

>"godless" sure sounds like "atheist" in a nutshell.

So it sounds, but it ain't.  It used to mean `not worshipping our god(s)',
not `not having any religion at all'.  In the Roman Empire during the
first century AD Christians counted as "godless", because they didn't
follow a _religio licita_.

>I dunno know.

Interesting.  "I dunno know" < "I don't know know".

>I think the the "law of the wild" is worse.  For example, Judges Chp 19?

... and Ch 20 and Ch 21?  Let's see.  There is a number of events there,
to wit:

(1) A woman is raped to death by a crowd of men.  (That's odd to boot
  -- the men are first said to be homosexuals, and I'm told homosexual
  men don't care for women, but what do I know.)
(2) Her husband carves her up into twelve pieces and mails them around.
(3) The Israelites put the Benjamites to the sword, together with the
  cattle and everything that comes their way.
(4) A group of men are instructed to ambush a group of women and rape
  as many of them as they can.

So which of these is the law of the wild and which is the law of Yahweh?
They all look appalling to me.  So much for this book.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:23:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov16.174939.1229@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu
(Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> 
> It is quite bold for a person to claim that he is morally sound.  
> 
> Kent Sandvik writes:
> 
> >You are just now dealing with a morally sound man that does not
> >exactly belong to any of the current religious orders.
> 
> I must question the accuracy of this first part of this claim.  In my
> opinion a morally sound man acknowledges an error when it is pointed
> out to him.  From Kent we have not received any acknowledgement of the
> logical mistakes made in earlier discussions (e.g. calling the logical
> inverse the negation).

And Gregg is acting as a real Christian by not judging others. Actually
if he wants to be morally correct he should also state that I in my
private email conversation with him said that I was wrong in some of
my statements concerning logic (but not the actual intent). Note
how he's hiding this fact as well, just to do a personal attack that
is not even related to the discussion topic. Sigh.

We might still argue for eons if I'm morally correct, but at least
I'm sound. If you also want to raise your level of Christian and
moral values, please do something instead of acting like a bitchy
dog.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Truth in topic
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:11:23 GMT

In article 11977@en.ecn.purdue.edu, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>It is very interesting to scan through all the topics addressed on
>this group (misc. religious) and note that overall Christianity in
>its various forms is discussed much more than anything else.
>
>Could this qualify it as a "best bet"?

Id say no- it qualifies it as most popular. But I seem to recall
that smoking used to be rather popular too. Popular != true.
At least I hope so. Otherwise Elvis is alive, and I was never
too fond of his music. :)

>Is there relevance to the fact that Jesus was the most influential
>man who ever lived _by far_, even though we are in disagreement as to
>the type of influence?

This is a loaded question. Before you can say that Jesus was the most
influential man who ever lived you have to proved that it was his influence
(and not that of his church, which came after his death). Also, are
you sure you'd place his influence above, say, Aristotle? After all,
his attempt to describe the whole world wo/ appeal to authority eventually
mutated into science. And his logic contributed greatly to this. What
about that Arab gent (whose name escapes me, but that's ok I could
probably never pronounce it) who invented Algebra? Without him science
would have stalled for lack of math. Now imaging how many more of
these folx I could spew forth if I actually, like, did research! (no!
not that!)

Also, don't discount Mohammed so fast. It aint over 'till the
fat lady sings; Islam may take over the world yet. (nothing would
please me less, but it could still happen)

However, if you asume that Jesus WAS the most infuential man who
ever lived, it doesn't help you. You don't have to be right to
make a difference. Ask Hitler or Stalin about that. :) Also,
what if someone elses influence overtakes him? Does he cease
to be right?

>Just wondering...

Well, don't stop wondering on account of me. Wondering is good for
you. :)

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21426 alt.sex:36672
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:47:19 GMT
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.sex
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



Chuck Petch writes:

>Unfortunately, there are many homosexuals who *do* try to influence
>children toward the homosexual lifestyle. I just saw a tv news report last
>Sunday in which a lesbian was talking to a group of 10-year old public
>school children about how wonderful it is to be a lesbian. I think that's
>wrong, and I have the right to demand that the schools not expose my child
>to that kind of indoctrination.


I find it interesting that you consider that "indoctrination," Chuck.  
Have you considered that perhaps the purpose of the lesbian's talk
was to reassure children who felt that they might be gay (or who might 
feel that way in the future) as well as others, that it's *okay* to be
that way, that they shouldn't feel bad or excluded because of something
that they were born with?  And that someone's sexual orientation isn't 
a valid method of evaluating him as a person?  

It's always amazed me that people feel there's a real threat of children
being "indoctrinated" or "converted" to homosexuality.  When you were a
kid, Chuck, do you really think anyone could have turned your own sexual
orientation around 180 degrees?  I think sexual orientation runs a lot
deeper than that; that it's not something that can be changed by external
pressure or example, any more than a person's race or eye color can.


>Accordingly, I believe a law preventing schools from advocating 
>homosexuality and other forms of immorality is entirely reasonable. 
>My value system (the Bible) is banned from schools; why should yours 
>(which I find highly offensive) be permitted?

Two reasons:

(1) Your value system is based not on secular principles, which are what 
    public schools deal in, but on religion, which is a private matter
    that has no place in publicly-funded schools;

(2) The other value system (saying that homosexuality is okay) is accepting
    rather than exclusionary and condemnatory.  Given that there will always
    be homosexuals, I find that approach not only more compassionate, but
    also more realistic.  If you want your kids to be shielded from this
    particular aspect of reality, then you should move them to a parochial
    school.



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: Steve.Gross@launchpad.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Secret Society
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:51:08 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service


  
    ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
about what   
    gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes...

>Steve Gross says, "The Bible" explains the amazing uniformity of teachings and
>doctrine among so-called "born-agains."  Is this reasonable?  Is the Bible so
>easily understood, so lacking in ambiguity?
>
>In my opinion, history refutes this explanation for why the "born-again"
>movement acts like a denomination, seems like a denomination and teaches a
>single doctrine like a denomination but claims to be nondenominational.
>
>Historically, the Bible has be{en understood differently by different groups of
>Bible-believers because different verses receive emphasis while others are
>largely ignored.  Also, in many cases, the same verses are understoood
>differently according to the inspiration or lack thereof of the the reader. 
>This has given rise to the factionalization of Christianity into
>"denominations."  Therefore, "the Bible" is not sufficient explanation for the
>apparent uniformity of teaching among the so-called "born-agains."  There must
>be some other explanation.


----  The apparent rise in fractionalization of the "church" is not due to
any ambiguity or discrepencies in the bible.  This fractioning arises when
certain people get it in thier heads that they can interpret scriptures
better than anyone else, and decide to start their own church with their
own beliefs.

If one takes the bible as a whole, and asks for the instruction and
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then that person would always get the same
doctrines and the same teachings.  If everyone did this, as all true
"born-againers" are supposed to, then it would be easy to see the
uniformity of it.

One last thing.  When it comes to being "born again", history is
irrelevant.  In order to be born again, one must give his or her life
entirely to the Lord Jesus Christ.  When one does this, there is no more
baptist or catholic;  no more assemblies or fundamentalists;  there is
only the Lord.  If you are going to conduct an accurate study of
Christianity, then I suggest you find some better examples than you have
found.  True christianity is an open and loving RELATIONSHIP with Jesus
Christ.  True religion is something entirely different.

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit
the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself
unspotted from the world."
				---- James

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:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:28:27 GMT

In article <30420@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>God doesn't demand that we obey under the pain of eternal suffering as much
>as call out to us to come to Him so that we can avoid eternal suffering.
>TO be without God is to be in eternal suffering. They are one and the
>same. 
Funny. I'm without God now and I'm kind of enjoying it.

>Evolution is a theory, nothing more. It doesn't make much sense as a 
>theory. Creation is far easier to believe than evolution.
Only if you're a fool. There is ample scientific evidence that
creationism is garbage.

>As far as conflicts with biology or physics, you'll need to get a bit
>more specific as to the conflicts if you'd like an answer.
Compare the age of the earth.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc