HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)
Subject: Shut up, already!!!
Keywords: angry young man
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:08:58 GMT


First, an aside to the homosexual community and to those who in this context
would be termed "homosexual sympathizers:"

Guys and gals, homosexuality eventually  WILL be socially acceptable, just
like shopping malls and television. The trend is just WAY the fuck too big.

Having said that, I will once again attack the bible thumpers, having found
friends on this group. (Sorry, Wayne, but God's dead - Ah kilt 'em!)

Can't any of you fools think for yourselves, instead of letting an old book
that's been through God-knows-how-many translations (note that in original
language versions, Mary was just a "young woman;" it was MIStranslated into
English (or possibly Latin) as "virgin") do it for you? Besides which, since
God didn't write the fucking thing, isn't it possible that either a) God likes
homosexuals just fine and various disciples misunderstood, or b) the bible was
only applicable to ca. the time in which it was written on a few points or
(horror of horrors!) c) THE BIBLE IS WRONG ON THIS CALL?  Nothing is a hundred
percent, friends, and while a lot of that don't-lie don't-kill
love-thy-neighbor stuff is dead on the money, maybe the Bible is wrong.

Finally, a word to my detractors:

If god doesn't have three minutes to help out a scared lonely kid (read: me,
five years ago) then FUCK GOD, and he better take care of me, or he'll have
some serious shit coming his way when I have to talk to the man after I die.

Also, to the gentleman who misunderstood, what I wrote a few posts ago didn't
say that I knew what life was all about, only that I had a better idea when I
started thinking about it instead on consigning all my philosophical thought
to a priest.

thankslaterbirdman
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
   My employer, ACNS at NWU, tells me I must have a disclaimer in my .sig, so
  here it is: If these were the opinions of ACNS, I wouldn't have to post this.
From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Cath. Christianity 101 - Good Friday - Isaiah 52:13-53:12 text
Date: 17 Apr 1992 10:06:56 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu


Hi all,

I'd like to post today (Good Friday) the reading from Isaiah read out
at services across the Catholic Church on this day:


The Suffering and Triumph of the Suffering Servant of the LORD
--------------------------------------------------------------
		    [Isaiah 52:13-53:12]


See, my servant shall prosper,
  he shall be raised high and greatly exalted.
Even as many were amazed at him --
  so marred was his look beyond that of man,
  and his appearance beyond that of 
    mortals --
So shall he startle many nations,
  because of him kings shall stand speechless;
For those who have not been told shall see,
  those who have not heard shall ponder it.


Who would belive what we have heard?
  To whom has the arm of the Lord been
    revealed?
He grew up like a sapling before him,
  like a shoot from the parched earth;
There was in him no stately bearing to make
    us look at him,
  nor appearance that would attract us to 
    him.
He was spurned and avoided by men,
  a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity,
One of those from whom men hide their faces,
  spurned, and we held him in no esteem.

Yet it was our infirmities that he bore,
  our sufferings that he endured,
While we thought of him as stricken, 
  as one smitten by God and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our offenses,
  crushed for our sins,
Upon him was the chastisement that makes us
    whole,
We had all gone astray like sheep,
  each following his own way;
But the LORD laid upon him
  the guilt of us all.
Though he was harshly treated, he submitted
  and opened not his mouth;
Like a lamb led to the slaughter
  or a sheep before the shearers,
  he was silent and opened not his mouth.
Oppressed and condemned, he was taken
    away,
  and who would have thought any more of
    his destiny?
When he was cut off from the land of the
    living,
  and smitten for the sin of his people,
A grave was assigned him among the wicked
  and a burial place with evildoers,
Though he had done no wrong
  nor spoken any falsehood.
[But the LORD was pleased
  to crush him in infirmity.]

If he gives his life as an offering for sin,
  he shall see his descendants in a long life,
  and the will of the LORD shall be
    accomplished through him.
Because of his affliction
  he shall see the light in fullness of days;
Through his suffering, my servant shall justify
    many,
  and their guilt he shall bear.
Therefore I willgive him his portion among
    the great,
  and he whall divide the spoils with the
     mighty,
Because he surrendered himself to death
  and was counted among the wicked;
And he shhall take away the sins of many,
  and win pardon for their offenses.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Prayer and Religious Activities in the Public Schools
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:53:53 GMT

In article <s3kHiB4w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>ddehay@triton.unm.edu (David B. DeHay) writes:
>> 
>>      I am planning to give a persuasive speech for my communications
>> class on this issue.  Do any of you have any stories, strong opinions,
>> or ideas you'd like to share with me?
>>      I would appreciate your comments.
>> 
>        Well, there are several really dramatic gambits you could try. One of 
>which is to lead the class in a Christian prayer-- but before doing this, ask 
>the Jewish and Muslim kids to stand at the side of the class. This would 
>graphically illustrate the discrimination people of minority faiths feel when 
>schools conduct prayers. Or, similarly, you could separate out the kids of 
>specifically Protestant faith, and lead everyone in a Jewish prayer.

There's a bit of a problem with this -- Jewish prayer is highly specific.
You're not allowed to just say it whenever you like; there's a set Hebrew
liturgy for set times, and non-Jews aren't allowed to use much of it anyway.
Prayer aside from at the specified times and with the specified prayers is
fairly strongly discouraged, at least for men. So using a Jewish prayer
may not be the best idea -- you end up breaking the rules while you use
them to prove a point. It would probably be better to pick some other
religion for the purpose. I do like the idea in general, though, very much.

>Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
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: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:26:49 GMT

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...]  

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.  

As a member of the Jehovahs' Witnesses yourself, you have access to this
book.  If the library at your Kingdom Hall doesn't have it, you could
write to the JW's HQ in Brooklyn, NY; they have it.  Or, you could ask
some of your JW friends here on the net about it.  Steve Peterson in the
past has had access to Watchtower magazines from the turn of the century,
he might have access to that book for you, too.

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.

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

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: 00bjmccauley@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Someone needs help in believing!
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:38:25 GMT

The following is a post which was posted to a local newsgroup.  If anyone
can offer him some advice, I would urge you to send mail directly to him.

Thanks,
Brian

>From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington, Ball State University)
>Subject: Why?
>
>Hello everyone...
>
>You all know me.  So I'll forget the introductions (if you don't know me 
>my .sig is below).  Anyways I consider myself a Christian.  However I'm 
>not an extremely good Christian (in my own definition, one who goes to church
>every sunday and spreads the Word).  My reason is because I have doubts.
>I am a very analytical person so I see things in a cause and effect sort
>of way.  So in order for something to happen, something caused it to happen.
>That's where I get all messed up religon-wise.  I have a hard time believing
>in something that I can't prove exists.  So my question to you(meaning those
>who are of good faith, you know who you are), why do you believe?  Now don't
>go off and say "because the Bible says so."  Why do you believe the Bible?
>
>Why?  I can't believe fully until I answer that question myself.
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Rob Harrington	            VAX -- 00rdharringt                Unix-- herring
>Aoibheann beatha an scolaire!                               Eireann go brath!
-- 
Brian J. McCauley				

Bitnet:		00bjmccauley@bsuvax1
Internet:	00bjmccauley@bsu-ucs.bsu.edu
Unix:		brianm@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:00:15 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr9.023301.18568@serval.net.wsu.edu> wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:
>When Christ condemned judgement, he condemned the sentencing of others.
>That is to say, somehow punishing the other because of their fault.
>To includes censorship, racism, deprevation of basic rights, ect.

  Right now in Portland Oregon a Fundamentalist organization, the
_Oregon Citizen Alliance_ (OCA) has successfully gotten on the ballet 
a law, which if passes, WILL deprive homosexuals of their basic 
human rights by punishing others.

  The way this would be done is that by law, the homosexual will be 
marked the same as a person who is having sex with animals, or a person
who rapes children.

  The potential of Fundamentalism, of any stripe, really scares the 
shit out of me. :-(
 



        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


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: shouse@oscar.UUCP (claude shouse)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:16:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.211932.9963@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> 
> I know many gay people out there are going to hang me for this, but I do not
> beleive that the spiritual bond which sex helps to reinforce between man and
> wife is possible for gays, simply because it was not intended.  Heterosexual
> sex is a gift from God, and therefore has benefits (both obvious and
> spiritual - "of God") when properly managed (not abused).  Homosexual sex is
> a perversion of man, which can only mean fleshly gratification.  Clear up my
> stance any? 
> 
> John M.

It sure does.  Your stance is that you speak for God and what God
intends.  Much like Pat Robertson turning the hurricane away.  This
kind of hubris is what give religion a bad name.  If being homosexual
is such a perversion against God,  why not let God take care of it?
Do you feel God needs your help with it?

Would you and the others who condemn homosexuality please answer
this simple question?

 
         Do you like girls only because the Bible commands it?.

Yes or no.  I await your reply.

Claude Shouse
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Bible
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:59:20 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <17384@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
writes:
> 
> In response to a nutty experience that Steve Adams shared:
> > A little voice in me started telling me what to do and change in my life,
> > and leading me down a path that I never planned to go, nor did I want to at
> > the time.  But as I followed that voice, I saw that the way was correct and
> > that the outcome appears to be proper.  Call it what you will.  I call it
> > God.
> Kent (ksand@apple.com) writes:
> >>Maybe the voice was your own conscience, it works with me as well,
> >>but I don't name it God, I name it 'my common sense'!
> 
> ...Kent, you sound like a genius!, special "can accomplish 
> everything without anyone else's help" sort of person.  Can you 
> really, or do you not attribute anything to anyone else?
> Are there such people on this net with this mindset?
> (I think John Dunn had a different attitude.)

Hah, I don't consider myself to be a genius, rather a very normal
person. Anyway, what other people consider to be the voice of God
speaking through their minds, I rather call it my own mind telling
me things. It's nothing special.

As for attribution to other persons that have modelled my world view,
there are many, my mother, my father, my sisters, my wife, my kid,
all my school teachers, my colleges, net people....

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 04:22:21 GMT

In article <3338@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.041703.10698@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr10.033217.3373@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve
>Dyer) writes:
>
>>>You don't have the first idea what the experience of gay people is.
>>>Shut up about us.  Try listening.
>
>>OK, what am I going to hear?  Here's a prediction:  What is "right" or
>>"wrong" is relative to every person and there are no absolutes when it comes
>>to a relationship with God.
>
>>Is this what I will hear?  It is what I have heard so far.
>
>I haven't heard it from anyone so far--this sounds like a complete red
>herring. In fact, there *are* things which we need to pay attention to
>because they are serious mistakes. What I've been trying to get across
>is that *you* are making one of these mistakes. This seems to me to
>become clearer as you post more. It is not a matter of the "morality
>of homosexuality", as if the only issue is that gay people stand
>accused, and the question is, can they get off?  To me it is also a
>question of the morality of the kind of judgmental and condemnatory
>attitude you bring to the issue.

I think you are thinking of someone else.  Never have _I_ said that gay
people were damned for their gayness, or that they could not be
Christian, or that they needed to be reached for Christ.  I have wondered how
effective _they_ can be for Christ, but if you read my later posts you will
see that I have "mellowed out" quite a bit.

>You mentioned before "reaching people for Christ". What I would really
>like to do, if I knew how, would be to reach Christians for Christ. To
>convert a Christian to Christianity seems to me at times the hardest
>thing of all. Have you felt the touch of the Spirit? Why then cling to
>your notions of sin and judgment, broken toys that they are? Open up
>and let the Spirit in!  You will be happier, people will like you
>better, and you will be doing what God wants you to be doing.

I have learned quite a bit through this discussion, but never did I dwell on
sin or judgement - rather on not living the fullest life for Christ.

John M.

P.S. - If you don't keep up on a thread, or haven't read the news for awhile,
may I recommend saving things you're going to respond to until you are caught
up.  Then you know the current state of the thread before you respond.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:21:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.155311.21560@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>>Most gay couples would be happy to marry each other.
>I don't know if this is statistically accurate.

At least you're admitting ignorance here.

>But from a Biblical perspective
>there is no such thing as a same sex marriage.  Marriage that God ordained
>and Christ taught about involves a MAN cleaving to his WIFE.  

There are a couple of points here.  For myself, I don't insist on
the word "marriage", though I note that others prefer it.  In its favor,
it is the closest word we have to encapsulating all of the religious and
legal rights, responsibilities and benefits accorded to such a union.

>Suppose there was a man who was "in love" with his sheep, but he did not
>want to fornicate with it.  Could he Biblically get married to a sheep?
>Can people marry rocks, fish, or trees?  You can perform a ceremony and
>call it a "marriage' but this is not what God ordained as marriage

You may like to consider sheep, rocks, trees and fish as
analogous examples, but I think they're extraordinarily feeble
as well as leadenly repetitive: do all you people get the same
dumb arguments from some central source?  And don't insult the
Bible by trying to have IT take the rap for such silliness.
We're not discussing rocks, trees, sheep or fish: we're discussing
two adult human beings making a committment to each other for life.

I don't know what you mean by "biblically get married".  It's
clear that your notion of things bible-based is very different
than non-fundamentalist notions.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:36:50 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr15.201134.9974@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>Actually, that's sort of the way I view our relationship with God...

  Which is just the natural way things work because the way we
view our relationship with the Divine will pretty much define how 
we will view life in general.



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

	David Hatcher



Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:6447 rec.arts.comics:12484
From: alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.comics
Subject: Re: SANDMAN: LUCIFER'S NAME
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:29:32 GMT
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=

In article <1992Apr7.112217.1234@wkuvx1.bitnet> charyma@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>The Dead Sea Scrolls have been translated the most part (well over 99%)
> and The Gnostic version of
>Genesis dates so late that it is almost certainly NOT the original
>I laughed at the drivel in the previous post so much that I hope
>the author flames me  just so I can be more explicit in e-mail.
>(No smiley, come on FLAME away)  BTW, The Nag Hammadi Library 
>in English is editted by James Robinson for any one who wants to
>check for themselves.


    Well over 99% translated? NOT!  What's the reference for the English
language version of the Dead Sea scrolls that I can just run out to my
local bookstore and buy?  I don't happen to know which version of Genesis
the Scrolls contain.  (Anyone know fer sure?)  But certainly the Dead Sea
Scrolls are much older than the traditional Old Testament / Torah stories
and thus the MOST ORIGIONAL existing versions.
    I have heard references to Sumerian stories similar to Genesis which
are more similar to the Gnostic version than the currently accepted versions
which indicates that the Gnostic versions may indeed the closer to the
origional.
    I'm not too much for flaming, but I will try to back up my own drivel.

-- 
****************************************************************************
* Dave                          *               The Alpinist               *
* alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com *            DARE to be stoopid!           *
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dledelen@wheaton.edu (Daniel Lane Edelen)
Subject: Re: Line and Verse PLEASE
Organization: Wheaton College
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:41:25 GMT

In article <adams.702587692@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr6.025907.8226@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just
>>drieux) says:
>>>
>>>1. where does it say 'thou shall not kill'????
>>>are you referring to the ten commandments where it
>>>says that thou shall not commit murder....
>
>>Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."  from the KJV
>>note that it is _not_ "murder," but is actually "kill."
>>So that's where it says it.
>
>Yeah, except KJV is a poor translation in many cases.
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> -Steve

It is admittable that the KJV needs some revisions in the Hebrew, but for the
most part it is an outstanding Greek translation. After taking several Greek
classes at Wheaton I began to realize that the KJV takes few liberties and
adds little commentary to the actual "literal" translation. The NIV, on the
other hand, tends to be much more free. 

Dan

-- 
 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @              Daniel Lane Edelen            @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
  @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @           dledelen@david.wheaton.edu         @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
   @ @ @ @ @ @ @      uunet.uu.net!tellab5!wheaton!dledelen     @ @ @ @ @ @ @
    @ @ @ @ @ @     "No matter where you go, there you are."     @ @ @ @ @ @
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc