HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stmarys@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ted Babcock)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:10:41 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <1992Jul29.000427.18038@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) 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.
> 
>QED.  Duh.
> 
>Only troglodytes with axes to grind (on the necks of gay people)
>would choose to describe being gay as a ~physical defect".
>Perhaps Jesus was left handed, too?  Naaah!
> 
>-- 
>Steve Dyer
>dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer

The point about homosexuality being a "defect" follows from gays' own 
definition of their condition as "sexual orientation" rather than 
"sexual preference."  It is not a choice, they say, but an in-born 
fact about themselves.

While this is still a matter of dispute, I accept it for the purpose 
of discussing the morality of homosexuality because it doesn't affect 
the Christian's case against it.  Gays would have us believe that, 
because it is something over which they have no control, it cannot be 
an object of moral disapproval.

This is not so, any more than the modern notion of alcoholism as a 
disease cancels the Bible's injunctions against drunkenness.  We must 
distinguish between the _condition_ and the _behavior_.  It is the 
behavior that the Bible condemns, not necessarily the condition; the 
only way that the condition itself could be condemned would be if it 
were chosen.

The condition of homosexuality--like that of alcoholism--is a defect 
in the sense that it is an in-born propensity toward immoral behavior.  
It makes one more susceptible to the temptations that lead to the 
actions.  If sin is separation from God (and therefore a bad thing), 
and a certain condition tends to lead one to sin, then I would call 
it a defect--a physical defect to the extent that the condition is 
physically based.  QED.

Ted the Troglodyte
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:55:46 GMT

Eric Rescorla writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>  yeah, i have considered that it's all crap.  the overwhelming despair that
>>plagued me for a decade of thinking that led me to consider that it's not
>>all crap.

>I want to point out at this juncture that whether or not the concept
>that there is no God is depressing or not is of absolutely zero
>relevance to whether or not the concept is true.

>The truth of a statement is not measured by how comfortable it makes
>one to believe it.

  i did not mean to imply that because i was depressed and despairing that
god necessarily exists.  rather, i meant that thinking the whole biblical
ball of wax was just crap was an opinion i began to re-assess when my life
was miserable.  my belief in jesus, the bible, god etc depends on more than
just me having been depressed.  it had to do with my internal belief in god,
rationally analyzing the irrational hatred of christianity i held, clearly
and calmly exploring why one would be a christian and comparing it with the
dozens of other spiritual practices/thoughts that i had examined and that
had utterly failed to provide any peace in my heart.
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:46:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Jul26.083543.10897@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>>What plan is it a part of?  What biology course tells you that a penis 
>>doubles as a rectal thermometer?

>What does this have to do with homosexuality? Lesbians do not have
>penis's, many homosexual men do not have anal sex, many heterosexual
>couples do have anal sex (if you don't believe me ask on alt.sex).

Since the question had to do with biology, we might also take note of
the fact that some animals do practice anal sex.  Whether this
involves a violation of God's plan in such cases would be interesting
to know.

So far as I know, only humans shave the beard or wear two different
kinds of fiber in their clothes.  Such activities are apparently a lot
less natural than anal sex, so perhaps the Leviticus proscriptions
should be taken more seriously here.  If, that is, logic is the
issue--which manifestly it is not.
--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@cs.concordia.ca
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:03:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Jul23.201032.23026@athena.cs.uga.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>And at the same time, you can't read homosexuality into a verse of Scripture
>because of the connotations of English words.

People read it into the Sodom story, why wouldn't they read it into
the Beloved Disciple story?  What you see depends in part on what you
want to see.
--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@cs.concordia.ca
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You are right David
Keywords: pleading the promises
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:47:05 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <12368@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <33167@zephyr.ens.tek.com> 
>davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>  This reminds me of a story told to me by a very close friend.
>> ... she worked and worked on her faith so that it got to what she thought
>>was a VERY strong and deep faith in Jesus Christ. And than she took
>>that step into thin air......
>>  Though she was lucky in that she only sprained her ankle, her faith
>>in Christianity has been forever shattered.
>
>                                                                     If
>you endanger your life and assume someone will save you, you have only
>proved yourself to be a fool.

  In the case that I related, the person was young, I'm not sure how
young, but a child still. Call the child a fool, but I put some of
the blame on the Sunday School teachers who were so intent on teaching
"faith in Jesus Christ that they may have over stepped their bounds in 
what they were teaching. It's a hard fence to walk, that's for sure. 
And in the case of my friend, she slipped across the fence and took her 
Sundy School teachings quite literally. When a child is told that if
they have enough faith in Jesus Christ that they could also walk on water
like/with Jesus, it leaves a lot of room for a child's mind to roam
and to daydream. And Sundy School teachers are suppose to be trusted.
They are after all the folks who are teaching youngsters about God.
From that childs position, a lot of trust is held for those teachers.




        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


	David Hatcher
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Just Curious
Summary: learn from dogma, but don't be dogmatic
Keywords: Luke 14:26
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:20:31 GMT
	<1992Jul28.190209.3235@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <12547@inews.intel.com> 
	<1992Jul29.021852.11762@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>

In article <1992Jul29.021852.11762@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
Sure there is.  They contradict.  You can't simultaneously believe A and B
when A says that B tells untruths and B says that A tells untruths.  You can
believe large _parts_ of all religions, and you can even pick some parts as
important and claim to believe all the important parts--but that's not the
same as _all_.
This is a matter of playing with words.  If I say "Paul, print out this
article", I am telling you to print this article out.  The fact that you then
choose not to print it out doesn't mean that I have not told you to do so;
that's not what the word "tell" means.  You seem to think that the word "tell"
means "tell and be obeyed", and it doesn't.

----
Yes, it is all a matter of playing with words. And these issues you raise 
cease to be significant if one is not dogmatic, don't they? Why not "believe 
large _parts_ of all religions" as you say? Why not interprete for yourself 
the meaning of the written words. If the Bible says one should hate all, does 
that mean one should follow that commandment? What is the meaning of dogma and 
dogmatic? What is the meaning of Luke 14:26? Could it be some type of test? A
test of the individual? Follow me and be free? And your last sentence, "You
seem to think that the word 'tell' means 'tell and be obeyed', and it doesn't".
I believe that sentence, but do you? If Jesus tells you something, must it
be obeyed? If He warns you of penalties for not obeying, must it be obeyed?
Isn't word play fun. Isn't it a wonderful day to be a free individual? Free to
interpret all as one sees fit?

Be seeing you!

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: jw's and the 144000
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 07:25:39 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  Who merely proposed (and quite hesitantly) the theory in it's original form. 
>Evolution, as it stands now, bears almost no relation to the one proposed by
>Darwin.  When you say you know better than the creator of Evolution, you are
>really saying you know better than thousands of PhD biologists, geneticists, and
>even most ornithologists.

	No, I don't claim that. I only said that I've studied my subject better
	than Mr. Darwin, so I have _right_ to express my view as well as Mr. 
	Darwin did. 

				Andreas
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:58:01 GMT
Organization: Eschew Obfuscation, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

>>}>	Well, perhaps I'm unusual, but I put myself in the agnostic camp. I
>>}>say that at the moment the evidence I see would weigh more towards the 
>>}>conclusion that there is no "God", but any contrary evidence is welcome.
>>}
>>}  have you thought about what kind of evidence you would need to believe 
>>}that god does exist?  if so, what do you require?

>>Can you precisely define what "god" you are talking about?  It is rather
>>difficult to provide evidence for and tests to validate an ambigious
>>concept.

1) One needn't define god to define agnosticism and atheism.

2) Evidentiary and Validation tests have no bearing on agnosticism
   or atheism in term of the definition of the particular term;
   the can, however provide a large measure of why people believe
   or disbelieve in a particular theology or perspective.

3) Why is this beling posted to: rec.arts.books,rec.humor,
   talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic? It would be nice
   if people would learn to use their headers. . .

4) Of course at this point neither of you is interested anymore
   in the meanings of agnosticism and atheism; instead you are
   using this as a pretext to get into a debate: one will demand
   to know why the other doesn't see the obvious and glorious
   GOD that the other deems a mere psychological construct
   devised by pre-literate primitives. . .

Dano
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Wit and Wisdom of Antti Siivonen
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:27:58 GMT
Organization: Lurker Liberationists
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird


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

>>out on a full extended family, etc.  I'd be absolutely crushed,                 
>>knowing that the intolerance of people was causing everyone I love              
>>and who loves me to be losing out on so much.                                   

(Antti Siivonen) writes:
>
>	No, you are a wolf. 

How about:

    No, YOU are a wolf.
    No, no, no, you ARE a wolf
    <ad nauseum>

Well, Antti, I give you -15 points in your persuasiveness. Poor Walter
Smith exposes a real feeling - treats you like a real human being - 
and you call them a wolf. Can you sink lower in your post? I think so:

>	The apostates are Judas Iscariots. Catholics love everything apostate in
>	Christianity. 

Yes. Antti Right. Everyone else = Wrong. Glad settled.
Lunch time now. Hungry we are yes?

Well no argument there. You see Antti, we all really DO agree
with you. We are merely testing your faith and loyalty. . . :(

>	This can never happen as you've been told many times before. But you 
>	are Satanist and you follow Satans path and you continue your reviling
>	until you die. 

Thus spake Antti. Antti Know Scripture. Antti Know God. Antti Know Bo.

>	No, that is how your own rapist-priests tell. 

Yes Antti Know Everything. Antti Intolerant of Others. Antti Has
God on Side.

Antti Go Home.

--
Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<drice.711701689@ponder> <1992Jul21.192501.17284@rice.edu> 
	<12394@inews.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 04:57:41 GMT

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

[ on various translations of the Bible: ]
>Most of these come very indirectly from the Latin Vulgate which comes
>from the Greek Septuagint which comes from the Hebrew as translated during
>a time when they really didn't know how to translate, it's not easy you know.

Not really.  All the modern scholarly translations use the Masoretic
text, supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, and any other
manuscripts or archaeological discoveries which might clarify the
meaning.  St. Jerome did not rely on the Septuagint; he was very well
aware of its deficiencies.  Jerome did consult with Jewish scholars
when he prepared the Vulgate.

>It's hard enough for someone who reads modern Hebrew to figure out what the
>writers meant in the Hebrew they wrote in. With that in mind, the best English
>translation of the "Old Testament" has got to be JPS Tanahk.  As for the
>"New Testament", well you take what you can get. 

The JPS translation is quite good, but unfortunately the only edition
I'm aware of lacks a really extensive set of scholarly notes.  Also, it
does not include the Apocrypha and of course it does not have the New
Testament.  Therefore it should not be the first choice for someone
looking for a study edition.  It would be an excellent supplement,
however.


Keith
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong?
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:29:10 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul29.204736.3336@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Some "divinity".  Claims to come down to earth as a human so he can experience
>what all us other humans have to go through...  and then he exempts himself
>from sin and imperfection?  Isn't this cheating?

Being sinful is not a requirement for being human.  In the account of
Genesis, man was created without sin, and he was human.  Christ was the
Last Adam, who was sinless and gave back what the first Adam took away.

>If he _really_ wanted to experience what it was like for all the other humans
>on Earth, why didn't he choose to become a sinful human?  Every other human on
>earth has a sinful nature; how could he claim he wanted to be like us, yet
>decide to have this one characteristic totally different from us?

The point of the incarnation was not just so that Christ could understand what
it felt like to be human; Christ came to redeem us from sin.  Though He
is human, He is still Christ.  

>How could Jesus _really_ understand what it is like to be a sinful, imperfect,
>human being without becoming one?

Jesus came to conquer sin so that we could live in victory over sin.  But
He does know what it is like for us to be sinful because He took all the
sins of the world on Himself when He was crucified.   Scripture actually
says that He became sin for us.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:56:08 GMT

daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:

>Gregg, please get any really good reference on logic and rhetoric (even
>Encyclopedia Britannica has a discussion of the classic fallacies).  I believe
>you will find a discussion of rhetorical fallacies in Alfred Tarsky's
>"Introduction to Logic and the Methodology of Deductive Sciences" but its been
>a while.  As you are at a university though, I would also suggest you look at
>the book that your university uses for their basic logic and rhetoric courses. 

I've taken these courses and have read their texts.  I haven't seen
Tarsky's book, though.  I'll see if we have it.

>The tool "False until shown true" is used all over
>the place and I find it a bit odd that you should be so singularly surprised
>and ignorant of its existence.

Of this tool I am well aware.  I don't think you apply it correctly,
though.  I read in your post not "false until shown true," but "false
because not shown true."  I think the latter is a stronger statement.
This is a subtle distinction, but worthy of note.

I've registered my complaint; this is all I want to say.
--
Gregg Skinner  g-skinner@uiuc.edu   I do not speak for any organization.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:05:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <4609@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:

>People read it into the Sodom story, why wouldn't they read it into
>the Beloved Disciple story?  What you see depends in part on what you
>want to see.

I don't remember if the angels are specifically described as men or 
appearing as men in this story, but they do generally appear as men.  It
is not unreasonanble to assume that they people did not consider them to
be angels.
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey says]
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:31:08 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Jul31.082736.858@yvax.byu.edu>, mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
> In article <LAURAF.92Jul30155204@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>, lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes
> But Paul, the bible is a book telling us how God intervened directly in Man's
> affairs back then not now!!!  The bible was written aforetime for our
> instruction today.  Why would GOD have any reason to involve himself in our
> affairs today if we already have an instruction book per se?  Tell me, how many
> times have you heard the phrase: "if all else fails read the instructions"?
>
> 
 	This sounds familiar.  Isn't this what the Jews said to the early
Christians (more or less - not the exact words but I think you get my meaning)? 
 	Isn't God the same yesterday, today and forever?  Why then would He 
involve Himself in people's affairs before our time but not in our time?  What
about Armageddon?  
 	I am not aware of any text in the Bible that declares it (the Bible)
a closed set of scripture.  Indeed this would have been quite difficult since
when the individual books were written the Bible as we know did not exist, as
I'm sure you're well aware.  So I guess this goes back to the old Bible
inerrancy question.
 
-Mark
 
> Laura 

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:45:11 GMT

In article <sbuckley.712266946@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>Eric Rescorla writes:
>
>>Stephen Buckley writes:
>
>>>  yeah, i have considered that it's all crap.  the overwhelming despair that
>>>plagued me for a decade of thinking that led me to consider that it's not
>>>all crap.
>
>>I want to point out at this juncture that whether or not the concept
>>that there is no God is depressing or not is of absolutely zero
>>relevance to whether or not the concept is true.
>
>>The truth of a statement is not measured by how comfortable it makes
>>one to believe it.
>
>  i did not mean to imply that because i was depressed and despairing that
>god necessarily exists.  rather, i meant that thinking the whole biblical
>ball of wax was just crap was an opinion i began to re-assess when my life
>was miserable.  my belief in jesus, the bible, god etc depends on more than
>just me having been depressed.  it had to do with my internal belief in god,
>rationally analyzing the irrational hatred of christianity i held, clearly
>and calmly exploring why one would be a christian and comparing it with the
>dozens of other spiritual practices/thoughts that i had examined and that
>had utterly failed to provide any peace in my heart.
I don't understand. HEre again, you imply that the fact that Xianity
has not failed to provide peace in your heart is evidence that it is
true. This is simply not the case.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Get a life
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:17:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:


>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.

Please tell me exactly where it says that God wrote the Bible.

Explain for example, why we see in the prologue of the Gospel of Luke, 
that he investigated the events and interviewed people, and consulted other 
sources.  Why would he need to do this if God were dictating the book?

>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.

Me too.  Did you miss the parts about loving your enemy as your friend?  Or
the part about hating the sin yet loving the sinner?  Or the fact that
Jesus hung around with those people who, at the time, were the scum of the
earth?  'Tax collectors and sinners' were shunned...and fishermen weren't
exactly on everybodies list of great people...

You sound far too much like the Pharisees that Jesus condemned...

 -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