HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:21:40 GMT
	<1992Jul28.201756.13138@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <1992Jul28.201756.13138@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

   In article <92121@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
   >One finds the spirit of Christ through self-acceptance.

   Rather, one is empowered by the Spirit of Christ through self-denial.

But, if your straight, you should pat yourself on the back for having
been born with such a righteous inclination.  You should spend your
time harassing gay people, and inciting others to go kill them.  Give
me a break.  

Three years ago, this month, a friend of mine was killed in New York
City.  The teenage boys that killed him shouted "God hates fags" as
they beat him to death.  This is the poem I wrote on that occasion:

		Shadows

The shadows hide us from our deepest fears:
Two people walking hand in hand at night--
They stop and kiss each other by the light,
But one is scared of what he thinks he hears.
It sounds like screams; it sounds like taunting jeers;
But this will not be just a normal fight.
It matters not if they are wrong or right;
This fight will bring out more than simple tears.

The preachers in their darkened office write;
They call for morals, call for "families' rights."
They do not care to know what they create.
The man who lived will hold the mem'ry tight;
The man who died did always love the nights
Until he was attacked by boys with hate.


--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: stmarys@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ted Babcock)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Hear Ye Him!
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:13:57 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <1992Jul22.202158.16042@uwm.edu>, glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes...

>Believe in me or you will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
>If that's supposed to be the good news, I don't wanna know
>the bad news.
> 
>Glenn 

This is an interesting point that misses the real point.  It's not 
that God will condemn us if we don't believe.  If we turn away from 
God, then we are separated from him, and being apart from him IS hell.  

The good news is that we don't have to remain apart from him, thanks 
to the free gift--oh oh, there's that phrase again :) --of salvation 
through faith in Jesus Christ.  There's no bad news, Glenn, unless you 
choose it.

Ted
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Date: 20 Jul 92 15:38:20 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>>gt9351c@prism.gatech.EDU (David D. Chow) writes:

>>>The harlot in Revelation refers to the Catholic church.

>>	Not only. 

>No, JW's are first on the list.

	Have we affected kings (politicians, that is) ?
	Business world ?
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus Would Gag
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:21:38 GMT
	<1992Jul24.144417.18904@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> <sbuckley.712264209@sfu.ca>

simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
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.

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
true.  but that book would no longer be the bible.  it would be santa's
scriptures which i would disbelieve in as much as i disbelieve in hindu
[or any other religion's] scripture.  

Why? And what makes you think Yahweh/Madonna/Jesus scriptures are the one true 
path? What if God turns out to be Saint Nick? Why risk it? He brings free gifts
every winter solstice, why not just accept these gifts? Or are you just being 
didactic and following the teachings of Luke 14:26?

En Santo Nicolas, 
in vino veritas, 
hoe-hoe-hoe ...
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:17:56 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <92121@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

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

Rather, one is empowered by the Spirit of Christ through self-denial.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Reply-To: wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales)
Organization: UCLA CS Department, Los Angeles
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 06:07:53 GMT

Laura Falk wrote:

	Creation is evidence enough for me.  I cannot comprehend
	how man could just evolve.  Humans today cannot create
	life or duplicate the healing process of the body.  Does
	all this not account for something?

Yes, but (as far as I'm concerned at least) it is evidence only that
there is a God.  Not necessarily that Jehovah's Witnesses have the
true understanding of that God.

	I guess everything is dependent on one's heart's condition.
	As the Bible says, Jehovah draws the right-hearted people.

I am LDS (Mormon), and -- curious to observe -- I would say something
reasonably similar in support of my own beliefs.

I am not a Biblical inerrantist, BTW, and I don't believe the Bible
teaches inerrancy.  Even inerrantists of different persuasions (e.g.,
Jehovah's Witnesses and Four-Square Pentecostalists) come to different
conclusions and honestly feel their teachings are the only ones sup-
ported by the Bible.

--
Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (310) 825-5683
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 18:34:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.005000.15405@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>> 
>>>> Hard to believe an omnipotent being didn't realize the end results of his
>>>> actions.  If it was only to benefit the individual at that time and not to
>>>> gain converts later then I'm sure that this god could have kept these
>>>> "miracles" out of the bible altogether.
>>>
>>>In fact, he did keep most of them out.
>> 
>> Ok, Suzanne, Prove this one.
>
>Scripture itself tells us that there were many other signs as well, "signs not
>recorded here".   And those were merely during the days of biblical times.

No, no, Suzanne.  I asked for proof.  Like, for example, the Bible saying that
"God has performed many miracles not recorded here", and the Roman/Jewish/
Whomever historians of the time recording that "The man known as Jesus of 
Nazareth today caused a rock to put forth wine".  I mean the National Enquirer
claims that thousands of people have seen Elvis, but unless there's some
independent collaboration, I'm not gonna believe it...

>Still, we need not even look to biblical times for miracle cures by Jesus which
>have not been recorded in the bible.   History is full of such cures and signs
>at places like Lourdes, France, not to mention cures and signs so close to home
>as to touch one's own family, including my own, and probably that of every
>Christian family at one time or another.

History is full of people claiming that the world is flat, that the sun
revolves around the Earth, and many many other things.

>
>See whatcher missin', Keith?

Yep, I know exactly what I'm missing.  I'm missing out on the jealous, vengeful
God that hates and hates and hates.  I do have a very person relationship with
God that contains nothing but tons and tons of love.

There's been several times in my life when I've had to walk out onto the thin
air over the bottomless chasm, and had to pray that God would build a bridge
under me.  And he always has.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Date: 20 Jul 92 19:55:00 GMT
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <l6b7l6INNg1f@news.bbn.com> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>
>Much that occurs in Revelations is, of course, symbolic.  But on occassion
>it spells out its meaning, as it does here: The Harlot is herself symbolic
>of a city.
>
>...and the most likely interpretation is that the writer(s) of Revelation
>were refering to Rome.

Close, but no cigar.

  And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood,
  saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that
  worship therein.
  But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not;
  for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under
  foot forty and two months.
  And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which
  spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
  (Rev. 11:1,2,8)

  And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen,
  that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the
  wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8)

  And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over
  the kings of the earth.  (Rev. 17:18)

The "great city," according to Revelation, is Jerusalem (cf. Jeremiah
22:8).  Because of its gross sin and pagan worship, it is called spiritual
Sodom and Egypt.  Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, not Rome.  The "harlot"
represent unbelieving Judaism (cf Isaiah 1:21; Ezekiel 16).

Symbolically, the "great city" of earthly Jerusalem, the spiritual harlot
who fornicated with pagan Rome, is contrasted with the new Jerusalem which
comes down from heaven (Rev. 3:12; 21:2ff).

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:38:59 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <3997@news.duke.edu> John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu writes:

>Jesus and the beloved disciple who laid his head on Jesus' breast were involved
>in at least a homoaffectional relationship. It wasn't like everyone laid their
>head on Jesus' breast.  Just one.  Lovers. 

Yep. Why is that the story of the beloved disciple, John Mark, is overlooked?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (#Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:44:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

The recent exchange of postings brought on by Corey's publically posting
an email message from Andreas has really shown how the Jehovah's
Witnesses are in action.   For instance:
 
Mark Sornson writes:
 
>    "Christian loving niceness" may be extented by some Witness if
>there's no evidence that it will be rejected outright; but Corey has
>made me feel that sending him private mail of any sort is now just too
>risky.
 
Another example of where the mind-set of the Jehovah's Witnesses has
abandoned the idea of mercy, love thy enemy, etc.  What is Christianity
supposed to be all about?  Love your enemy, love those who persecute
you, but not those you suspect might publically post your email?
 
And on the subject of people applauding Corey for having the guts to
decide he doesn't believe in the religion he was brought up in (JWs),
Mark said:
 
>    I see a double standard here which is pandering to prejudicial and
>bigotted thinking.
 
You see that, because you want to feel predjudiced against.  (have we
stumbled on the old "persecution complex" here again?)  People
applauding Corey for his actions are no different than when Jehovah's
Witnesses applaud someone for renouncing their faith and joining the
JWs.
 
>Based soley on what Corey has
>posted in public, what reason do any of the Witnesses looking on have
>for having "dear" feelings toward Corey?
 
Because that is one of the main things Christianity is supposed to be
all about.  Love your enemies.  And as you yourself stated in another
post, Corey's actions are making him a 'spiritual enemy' to JWs.
With the attitude you have taken in your posts, and Mr. Siivonen took
in his email, how can you guys love him?  What your mental stance is
doing is setting the stage to internally justify writing the man off
as an 'evil slave' or apostate.  This sort of mindset, which seems
so prevelant among Jehovah's Witnesses, is one that promotes
permanent division among people, not peace.
 
========================================================================
Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<MIB.92Jul27141316@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Jul27.231706.8230@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:13:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.231706.8230@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

   My point was not that natural is good.  It was that you cannot simply
   change words around in Scripture that apply to homosexuality and make them
   apply to heterosexuality.  Homosexual sex between men for example is 
   described as abandoning the natural use of the woman and dishonoring the
   body.

So?  God abandoned the natural use of the tree of Israel and grafted
on the unnatural wiled olive branch of the Gentiles.  

Moreover, we can use the mind we are given and notice anal intercourse
between males in other mammalian species.  Are they sinners?  Are they
unnatural?

The only sense I can make of Paul's words are that he believes gay sex
to be unnatural, and that it is therefore contrary to God's wishes.

But, Paul himself does not identify the natural with God's wishes,
and, in fact, he is *wrong* about whether gay sex is natural.

The only conclusion is that Paul opposes the twisting of our natural
sexual inclinations in an unnatural way.  Since we now know that
people have a variety of different natural sexual inclinations, rather
than a single natural inclination for all people, we must conclude
that the wisdom of Paul would have us refuse to pervert our nature and
attempt to violate the will of God as expressed in our creation.
Attempts on my part, for example, to be straight, would represent just
such a violation of nature.

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Number of books in the Bible
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:26:02 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

>However, all the major English translations of the Bible (except,
>possibly, for the NIV; I'm not sure about it) include the Apocrypha as
>an integral part.  The decisions of printers to publish only part of
>the translators' work is a different matter.

Yep.  I can't find an NIV Apocrypha (and haven't take the time to call the
International Bible Society or Zondervan), but I can get (and have ordered)
the NRSV Apocrypha.  It's a companion to my Oxford Annotated NRSV.

Thanx for confirming what I wrote in an earlier post that the KJV guys did
translate and publish the Apocrypha.

 -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: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Summary: So many options! Who would have thought?
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:56:16 GMT
	<1992Jul21.192501.17284@rice.edu>

In article <1992Jul21.192501.17284@rice.edu> 
mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller) writes:
>The KJV and NKJV are actually very good translations, especially for the time.
>The NAB is OK but not real good. (The Catholic Bible)
>The Oxford Study Bible (Available in NRSV and RSV) is very good and expensive.
>In my experience, the NRSV (and the RSV) are the versions most reccommended
>for their precision. I want to get an NRSV whenever I've got $30 to burn.

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.
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. 

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: B. Thiering and her new book
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:48:23 GMT

In article <thurston.712260648@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu>
thurston@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Tad Thurston) writes:
 
>
>
>
>Hey, has anybody read Barbara Thiering's new book called Jesus and
>the Dead Sea Scrolls?   I just bought it and scanned it through, as well
>as being familiar with the PBS special that gave her theory some lip
>service.  Does anybody have some good refutations to her theory?  It
>sounds pretty good and thorough to me, but I am interested in hearing
>some critical discussion by those much more knowledgeable in the field
>than I am.
>
>Lemme have it!!!
 
I've read it, and I like it!  Coupled with the other books I've
read, its just a plausible as the 'stories' in the Bible.
 
The theory of pesherism is not new, the Egyptians used it all over the
place in their RELIGIOUS materials as well as secular activity of the
fay-rows!  Abraham, Moses and the boys were schooled in Egypt, is it
unreasonable to believe they picked up on the mysteries of Egypt and
how to hide varying degrees of 'truth' within stories?
 
If we start right, it is an easy thing to stay right, but if we
start wrong, it is a hard thing to get aright.  This applies to
all things in life--including the origins of the Bible stories.
 
Once having an understanding of the general direction, understanding
specifics are made much easier.
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
 |             not your's either!                                      |
 |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
 |                                    or: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Predestination To Mr. Mueller
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:17:19 GMT
 <1992Jul30.162647.17711@rice.edu> <1992Jul31.193436.6073@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>There is nothing mocking about what Jesus or any other NT writer said Mr.
>Mueller.  Rather, it is consistent.  Jesus clearly says in the bible that
>we are the instruments through which the world will hear his message.  He
>can die but once.  If we don't tell people the message, then God's word
>cannot act on their heart to spark the salvation process.  
But why is this necessary if God has predestined a person to salvation.
That person has no NEED of the Gospel!  They are already saved!  Or are you
saying that without the message they are damned?  If that's the case, then
what happened to predestination??

>It is reasonable to assume that God commanded us to go and tell all the 
>world, because through us as a medium of sorts, he could reach everyone he
>intended to reach.  Thus, letting us feel needed by following the will of
>the God who saved us.  Pretty happy too.
Happy in the idea that God may have created me with the full INTENT that I
would burn in hell?  Hardly.  I give God more credit than that.  God gave
me free will and an intellect.  It's up to me to use it and have faith in
Him.

>I'm sure that God could do something miraculous so that everyone would
>become saved, but where is the fun in that?
Fun?  Fun has nothing to do with it.  How about 'agape'?

Steve, why should we even bother with religion or God if everything is
already predestined and determined?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 23:21:58 GMT

<1992Jul24.215359.20714@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) said:
>In article <91776@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>>I do disagree with the implication that Christ was sexually immoral.
>>
>>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.

How can you conclude this?  In Deut. your god proclaims that no
illegitimate son may enter the kingdom of heaven.  Jesus claims to have
entered the kingdom of heaven, but he was illegitimate.  He was conceived
out of wedlock and his parents weren't married -- that makes him
illegitmate.


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