HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date:  9 Apr 92 13:55:37 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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.

 -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: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:37:18 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <adams.702824507@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>There are no grades of sin (expcet for blasphemy against the Spirit, ie
>denying God's saving grace), and as such all sins are equal.

Where do you get this?  All sin is evil, because it is disobedience to
God.  But there are some sins that are "worthy of death" for example,
homosexuality, murder, covenant-breaking, and disobedience to parents.
There are some sins that are abominations.  All sins harm a relationship
with God, but I would like to see where people get that all sins are
equal from Scritpure.  
What about sin in ignorance.  Paul obtained mercy because he sinned in 
ignorance.  (I Timothy 1.)  What about wilfull sin by a believer?
(Hebrews 10.)   What about sin unto death, and sin not unto death?  (I 
John 5.)  

And where does it say that blaspheming the Holy Ghost is simply
denying God's grace?  Paul "kicked against the pricks" before he finally
repented.  He did not accept God's grace, but did he speak evil of the
Holy Ghost?

>Do heterosexuals have a choice of being "heterosexual"?  I didn't one day
>decide to be heterosexual.  I just am.  Of course, I'm mostly right-handed,
>but only because the nuns in the Catholic School wouldn't let me write left
>handed.

Most of us have what could be called a natural "urge" to fornicate.  Does
this mean that we are to fornicate because we have this urge?  No.
We are not even to lust.  

>I used to take your position.  Then I read the Gospels and prayed.  I spoke
>with my Pastor and others.  Mostly, the Gospels are about love and
>sacrifice.  God so loved us that he gave his only begotten son.  Jesus only
>asks that we love God and each other unconditonally.  Paul does the same in
>I Corinthians 13.

Unconditional love does not equal tolerance of sin.  If a brother stumbles,
we are to go to him in a (S)spirit of love to restore him.  We are not
to sit idly by and watch him follow the path to destruction.  We are
to convert the brother who errs from the truth.  It is not love to stand
quietly while someone sins.  
Look at another example from the same book that you mentioned (I Cor.) that
shows how we can exercise love.  Look what the church was to do to the 
sexually immoral mn who was among them.  They were to cut off fellowship
with him that he soul may be saved.  Also, this keep s unnecessarily
reproach off the name of Christ, and keeps others from following the
path of sexual immorality to destruction.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Line and Verse PLEASE
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 09:01:50 GMT

In article <adams.702736628@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
><MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>Quit whining! It's a commandment; it speaks for itself. There isn't much
>>context involved. I know the bible orders people to be killed left and
>>right all over the place, but I am not trying to prove it's logical.
>>Also, the other idea which you like might be better--god ordering man to
>>kill is awfully merciful...
>
>But it is contextual.  If you want to defend the line as "kill" you have to
>explain all of the text that contains orders from God to kill, including
>the Levitical Laws.
>
>Since you admit that the Bible gives such commands, then defending "kill"
>becomes tougher.
>
>As for the wisecrack, I'm not in a position to know the mind of God.  I
>won't try to sit in judgement of Him.

You do so whenever you claim your God to be "good" and "merciful".  The
only difference is in your verdict.

Those who claim not to judge their God are bullshitting, unless they
refrain from doing anything but describing their God's actions.

> -Steve


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)
From: emarsh@hyperon.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:38:54 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hyperon

In article <92098.121653SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:

>Perhaps the Love-That-Dare-Not-Speak-Its-Name has something to
>teach the Religion-That-Can't-Shut-Its-Mouth.

Bravo!

>Jack Carroll

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 16:24:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.060003.3049@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
[...]
>Snort.
>
[...]
>This reminds me of that Monty Python skit about "Men, men, men, men".
>Listen.  Monty Python is even flakier than your interpretation
>of the Bible when it comes to synthesizing a theory of sexual ethics.
>
[...]
>Neither do mine, or the men I have sex with, for that matter.
>
[...]
>Can someone translate this for me?
>
[...]
>Where are my smelling salts?  Or a gun?  Do people _really_ think this way?
>
[...]
>WRONG, pal.  Gay men aren't feminized men, and lesbians aren't
>masculinized women.  More ignorance.
>
[...]
>What a yenta he's becoming!  Oy!
>
[...]
>Um, are you sure they're claiming what you think they're claiming? :-|
>
[...]
>Huh?
>
[...]
>_People_ are designed for sex.  Not organs and orifices.
>
[...]
>Because I like my partner to have a lot of body hair, a beard and a
>cock.  Plus a nice personality.
>
[...]
>Excuse me?  You're suggesting now that lesbians have sex with gay men?
>Now _that's_ perverse!
>
[...]
>Complement.  Not _my_ complement.  I am not interested in having sex
>with women.  I am not interested in being in a committed 1-1 relationship
>with a woman.
>
[...]
>No thanks, pal.
>-- 
>Steve Dyer
>dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer

If this is all you are going to contribute to what I am _trying_ to turn into
a civilized discussion then drop the thread already...


John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:55:19 GMT

In article <MIB.92Apr10094445@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>Actually, my toolbox of proofs *does* include conviction, feelings,
>and the like.  And, stunningly, my convictions, feelings, and the
>like, lead me to a different conclusion from you about my relationship
>with God.  Now, if you knew me, then we might discuss it, but you
>don't, and yet, you *still* insist that I'm somehow not in-touch with
>God's will for me.

Is it safe to let these take precedence over the Bible?

John M.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:00:04 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Mar30.133722.2953@infonode.ingr.com>,
stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens) writes:
> We are independent to choose, but ultimately our happiness must reside in
> our Creator.  "Happiness" and "independence from God" cannot exist together
> in his universe.  Satan and his host independently chose separation from
> God and, consequently, eternal torment, just as you and I can freely do.

The interesting note is that there are many individuals - including me - that
have personal happiness and joy, and are not tied to any particular religion.

Either we are freaks, or then the emperor has no clothes. Even if I'm a friek
by other definitions, I'm a happy freak. Freedom is not to tie yourself to
ancient nomadic norms.

Cheers,
Kent 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Line and Verse PLEASE
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:15:41 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>In article <adams.702736628@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>><MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>Quit whining! It's a commandment; it speaks for itself. There isn't much
>>>context involved. I know the bible orders people to be killed left and
>>>right all over the place, but I am not trying to prove it's logical.
>>>Also, the other idea which you like might be better--god ordering man to
>>>kill is awfully merciful...
>>
>>But it is contextual.  If you want to defend the line as "kill" you have to
>>explain all of the text that contains orders from God to kill, including
>>the Levitical Laws.
>>
>>Since you admit that the Bible gives such commands, then defending "kill"
>>becomes tougher.
>>
>>As for the wisecrack, I'm not in a position to know the mind of God.  I
>>won't try to sit in judgement of Him.

>You do so whenever you claim your God to be "good" and "merciful".  The
>only difference is in your verdict.

>Those who claim not to judge their God are bullshitting, unless they
>refrain from doing anything but describing their God's actions.

I describe my God in those terms you use, but I disagree that this is
"judging" God.  I do not propose to determine that any particular action of
God is good or bad.  It just is.  And it is His will.  Thus, whether or not
I like it, it is good to Him.

I'm not forcing you to believe...you have the free will to ignore the
message if you wish.

 -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: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Franciscans down a F117A with a prayer ...
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:22:02 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Apr1.213754.16453@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> zazen@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (East Coker) writes:
| 
| Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from majic. The
| plane crashed because of error though. Get your dolls and pins and start
| poking if you don't like that.

No, no, no.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged
demo.

   Fritz

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:02:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.001434.25229@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>I hope I made my point...  I realize that sex can be a very fulfilling
>experience for two people, but homosexual activity was obviously NOT intended
>for anyone ...

It is amazing the things people find "obvious" which are not.
--
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)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: peterd@polari.com
Subject: Name Calling / Collective nouns
Summary: are pagans going to be the lutherans of the 22th c?
Keywords: pagans infidels goyim infidels
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 06:08:47 GMT

Coming totally out of left field - I find it fascinating
that certian religious peoples are taking to identifying
themnselves with a term from Christianity's past; namely 
the "pagans."  It has been my understanding that 'pagan'
has its roots in Roman Army Slang for 'civilians'; 
eg 'those poor sods who are not members of the glorious
Imperial Army'.  (Some one with and OED online probably
can 'clear this up.'
	And like wise for "'eatheans".  I was taught that
it was another term of diasprobation fromt he days when the
majority of christians were urbane (living in the cities)
as opposed to "heathens" living out in the 'heath'. Then
again I could be victim of a false cognate.

So - the "point" of this thread is that these silly 'pagans'
are following in the footsteps of the Lutherans who took
to heart the unkind appelation "Lutherans" and made it theirs.

chus
pyotr

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Secrecy in the Mormon temple
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:05:34 GMT

In article <92103.185403ISPBJH@ASUACAD.BITNET>, ISPBJH@ASUACAD.BITNET (Becky Harris) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.230525.3420@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu
> (John Muehlhausen) says:
> >
> >I guess what scares me more than anything about Mormonism is that there need
> >to be any secrets at all...
> 
> This is my first post to this group, so please be kind.
> 
Thanks much for your honesty Becky. I have met only two net.mormons
whom I could consider honest, and none of them are participating on
this board. 
I have been an active participant on this board for at least five
years. the ones I consider dishonest are most likely so lost in their
religion, they wouldn't recognize what true honesty means.
I don't want to pit you against the others', but to thank you for
being honest!

God Bless you,

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date:  9 Apr 92 20:18:05 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>I heard
>of a homosexual church opening up in Washington D.C. not long ago.

So what.  Mosques and synagogues exists here in Chicago, along with every
possible protestant denomination and Roman Catholics.  The Hare Krishnas have
a meeting place here.  So do others.  I don't interfere in their worship.
They don't interfere in mine.

SO WHAT IF A HOMOSEXUAL CHURCH OPENED IN WASHINGTON DC!  How does this hurt
you?

 -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: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:17:16 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

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

>In article <1992Apr6.102038.5349@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	Now you start this again, when we ask for PROOF. When I asked you
>>	proof for year 1925, you promised to order me a book. NOTHING happened.
>>	It seems that you're just making empty claims. OK, I can do that as 
>>	well: Have you heard that the pope has won the break-dance championship
>>	of Vatican ?

>Andreas, I definitly did not promise to order you a book.  (In case anyone
>following this thread is wondering what the *&^ he's talking about, a while
>back it was claimed that the JWs predicted the world would end in 1914, and
>when that date came and went, they predicted the world would end in 1925.
>Andreas claimed "garbage" [suprise...]  

	No you didn't. You promised the send the list, but you haven't sent it.
	Nevertheless, it's not important. 

>What I told you I would do is tell you which JW book contained the prediction
>for the year 1925.  It was "Millions now living will never Die", written by
>then JW president, Joseph Rutherford, published by the Watchtower Bible and
>Tract Society in 1920.  

	Would you be surprized if I've stored all mails you've ever sent to me ?

>Seeing as you claim everything I write is a bunch of lies, and that
>I'm being paid off to write them, I doubt you'd put too much credence
>in it if I sent you a photocopy of the book; the only way you're
>going to believe it is if you hear it from another JW.

	OK, a photocopy will do. 

>How far back does your library stock Watchtower magazines?  1940s?  50s?  60s?

	1922, but it lacks most articles from the earliest centuries (never 
	translated ?). I think we've everything from 1950s. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:14:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr11.161445.13576
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr11.040116.20323@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>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  :-)]

The point was that the verse in question exhorts us to live such that bad
things are not thought of us, "as is proper among saints".  Of course it
matters whether we are immoral, etc but it also matters whether or not other
people _think_ we are whether we are or not.


John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:05:31 GMT
Summary: unfortunately, a suspended judgment is needed here

In article <12636@pogo.wv.tek.com>, daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:

> And I had just read read a recent excerpt from "The Other Side", an ecumenical
> Christian magazine, and found the following:
> 
>    "John Boswell has uncovered has uncovered news evidence that the early
>     catholic church celebrated same sex marriage centuries before it
>     celebrated heterosexual ones.

Problem is, Boswell has been making the rounds with this claim for several
years now, but has published nothing.  He is an exceptionally fine historian,
and I am not going to second-guess him -- but until he puts his supposed
data into a form where it can be confirmed and criticized, it counts for
very little.  I am truly hoping he will do this Real Soon Now; but it may
be the case that he is too good a historian to publish without adequate
response to evident criticism -- but not so inhuman as to avoid a casual
statement of what he THINKS he has found.
-- 
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."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: starpath@athena.mit.edu (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: No such thing as atheism...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:06:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.130250.6060@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>Fancying that the reader will find him clever, John Muehlhausen writes:
>
>>I would like to say that an athiest cannot prove by any method that
>>there is no God, so he is agnostic (looking for the truth).  The atheist then
>>says "Well then there can be no religion but agnosticism, because no religion
>>can _prove_ their claims".
>
>He proclaims:
>
>>Wrong.
>
>apparently on the basis of a rather peculiar understanding of "proof",
>equating it with personal conviction. Well ok, let's go with that.
>
>>No religion can prove their claims with
>>the atheist's tools - logic, reason, science, etc.  However I do not doubt
>>that many (if not most) religious people would say that they are convinced
>>100% of their religion and that to them it is proven true, which it is.
>
>...as long as "proven" here is understood as "proven only to themselves",
>which doesn't mean very much, does it? But that's ok...
>
>>The
>>fact that they have emotion and respect for intuition and feeling in their
>>toolbox does not make it any less proof _for them_.  So then the atheist says
>>"I have those things too".  Well that may be but in order to use them in
>
>"may be"? Are you possibly characterizing atheists as being meat-clad
>computers?
>
>>defense of atheism you would be resorting to the tactics of any common
>>religion!
>
>You mean proof by personal conviction? Well, proof is proof, m'boy.
>
>>In using these things the atheist has undermined the basis of atheism,
>
>which you seem to think is the proof of God's non-existence by
>reason and scientific means. To use your word, Wrong.
>atheist: one who denies the existence of God. hint: denies != disproves.
>Here, try this on for size:
>The (a)theist cannot (dis)prove God's existence, but believes it extremely
>(un)likely.
>
>>Guess what?!?
>
>You've been caught in youthful ignorance again?
>
>>All you atheists do not exist!  You are agnostic, so face it.
>
>Leaving aside the fact that you're wrong, what does this belief
>buy you? What do you gain for yourself by mentally erasing the existences
>of people you dislike or have strong disagreements with?
>
>--
>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


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
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: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:33:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.152254.8046@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>loot, and terrorize?
>
>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 

And which are those?  Can you give a few examples, please?  No need for you
to include the Jehovah's Witnesses in your list, but can you think of
any others?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc