HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:09:14 GMT

In article <69615@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.180933.4236@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@euterpe.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>
>>I imagine this situation.  The year is 1963.  A group of people have
>>the nerve to picket a restaurant because it won't serve black people,
>>and recently decided to fire all of its black staff. Richard is
>>terribly upset at these bad people who have spoiled his nice dinner,
>>and can't understand why people aren't sympathetic to his trauma.
>
>I believe you have confused the analogy.  For the pickets in the
>60's were Peaceful, Non-violent protest.  

Disturbing all the passengers by not moving to the back of the bus...

>I just saw them re-enacted
>on the PBS's LBJ Presidential Series.  There was quite a difference.
>Dr. King was very vocal on being non-violent and peaceful - the
>recaps of the civil rights protest I hear today continue to echo that theme.

I don't remember QN calling for violence. Even after the 300 gay bashings
and recent murders in Oregon QN hasn't physically attacked the OCA's 
offices.

>Find out where Act-Up or Queer Nation is protesting and go and view it.

If I knew of a protest nearby I'd join in.

>>As a Christian, you ought at least to *try* to have some tiny bit of
>>fellow feeling for your fellow humans.  I'm not asking you to love your 
>>neighbor, but to get beyond complete contempt and disregard would be a
>>start.
>
>As I said in the previous post, don't confuse my speaking out against
>this as a hatred for the individuals.  They are not one and the same,
>for me.  I love my neighbor.

To bad you remain silent while your friends kill your neighbor.
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS ALL THIS?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:58:43 GMT

dale.lature@cccbbs.UUCP (Dale Lature)  writes:

>I wonder if there's anyone who looks through this stuff that gets as
>sick as I do at the level of discussion.  Sure, it's very intellectual
>and many participants ave well thought out positions,  but is any of
 >this really crucial?  What about society and the world?  Is there any
I agree wholeheartedly.  I share the same frustration with much of the church in general.                                     

>interest in something like what the church can be doing to have a
>positive influence?  No one is impressed with the kind of theological
>tennis that goes on here.  I've been looking for some people who might
>be interested in putting together an on-line place for , yes, some
>discussion, but also a place to find contacts with others who share
>common concerns about social issues, technological issues and
>theological community, and ways that those in the church who can use a
>computer and a modem can hook up with others across the country (and the
>world) to share resources, common experiences, etc.  How's that sound?
>Anyone else want something different.  Drop me a response

I would be more than happy to contribute to such an effort.  If religion is
indeed sucha liberating, inspiring thing, it ought to bind us together to do
some good.  

Good idea.

Matt
>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Peace & Justice Week in Oregon
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 4 Oct 1992 21:17:20 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

The following information comes from the October 1992 issue of "Still
Point", a newsletter of the Dharma Rain Zen Center in Portland, OR.

Buddhists in Oregon are participating in the Religious Response Network
(RRN), an interfaith group which evolved in response to recent initiatives
to curtain the civil rights of homosexuals.  The RRN opposes any
action which uses religious doctrine for the purpose of oppressing minorities.
The latest such effort in that state is Ballot Measure #9.

The zendo in Eugene, OR in contact with the Buddhist Peace Fellowship is
acting as the focal point for engaged Buddhist involvement in opposing
Ballot Measure 9.

As part of Peace and Justice Week declared by People of Faith Against
Bigotry for October 18 - 23, the Eugene zendo will hold a half-day
Buddhist Social Action Retreat on Sunday, October 18th.

There will be meditation, the Kanzeon Ceremony and a seminar on organizing
at the local level.  There will be a vegetarian lunch for which a $5.00
donation is suggested.  The number of the zendo in Eugene is 345-0361.

On October 21st there will be a statewide meditation/prayer vigil in
Portland, Salem, Eugene and Ashland as part of Peace and Justice Week.

Jack Carroll
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:19:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <fS9wJ9P@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
wrote:
> No, no filtering out of the pain and suffering in this world. Joyful
> participation in the SORROWS of the world, that is the way of no crutch
> needed. And God responsible and there to help YOU out? You are a free
> man, you have free will, the Lord has delivered your kind FROM slavery,
> any clinging to the broken shackles is of your own design.farI!

So it is I who am responsible for people dying in Somalia. Or it's 
actually they themselves who are responsible. Why an omnipotent
God that started it all is not. Isn't this just trying to get rid
of the responsibility? Let's say I have a 16 month old son, and he's
getting ill, and I won't take him to the hospital because it's his
fault anyway? Gee, nice logic. Sorry, I have higher moral values
than that.

> Metaphor. What is the meaning? Trancendence.
Nice words - no substance.
 
> >You still haven't explained why God introduced/created AIDS, my original
> >question. Remember that one?
> 
> I gave an explanation but perhaps it was the sound of a tree falling
> with no one to hear. I repeat: All Life has the right to Life. Why did
> God create sharks? Because He couldn't surf anyway and he enjoyed
> barbequed shark steak? Com'on man, use your mind. This isn't Disney
> World, this IS the Lord's Kingdom. 

All life has the right to kill other life. I agree on that. I think
we are dealing with satire, and I'm not on the same wave-length concering
the jokes.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Jesus for President
Organization: yeah, i was once
	<1992Sep30.134238.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> <BvEp46.MHn@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:55:14 GMT

In article <BvEp46.MHn@acsu.buffalo.edu> 
v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>This whole thread leaves some interesting thoughts in my head:

You devil you!

>1. Who would be His Running Mate?  

It would be an entirely new concept. No more VP, just the Holy Trinity. 
Father/Son/Holy-Ghost. That way if they ever disagree, they can just vote
on it! And don't forget, a clean sweep of both houses, Christians only.

>2. Would he wind up marrying for political gain?  If so, would the First Lady
>be chosen from non-christians to "round out the ticket"?

Round out the ticket, please. This is exactly the kind of wishy washy
Democratic party type stuff that the blond one would be opposed to. Besides,
He's already married to all the followers.

>3. I could just hear the Presidential Debates years after He leaves office 
>(two terms, or maybe an impeachment by a new Pontius Pilate?): "Jesus Christ 
>was a friend of mine.  You, sir, are no Jesus Christ."

What, you figure He'd be a Perot type and just quit? Then sneak back in
saying that if the Christians vote for him, he'd do it? And once He's in,
there'd be no more elections, just Eternal Christendom. Happy happy joy joy!

>4. I could imagine the attack ads:  "His father killed millions because they
>did not worship him.  Do you really want a chip off the old block for four
>years?  Anton LaVey - Tough on criminals."

The big problem would be when Mary Magdelane shows up with her incredible
stories. You'll get to hear Stuttering John ask, "Will you be sleeping with
any of the other candidates" and "Does He use a condom?"
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: On the Hunt for Elusive Family Values
Keywords: values, television, families, goals, `Woof!'
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:33:18 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <1992Sep26.183550.28205@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>
>I believe that traditional sexual morality has numerous benefits for society,
>and I believe that people should take seriously who they get in bed with and
>whether they have children.  But depending on the government to promote such
>ideas is ridiculous, and I think it betrays laziness: if certain values are
>important to you, do something yourself to make a difference.  Don't push off
>your responsibility to your neighbors on elected officials who couldn't care
>less.

Well said, Darren!  Depending on the government to promote a moral idea,
however good it may be, is, after all, another form of "social gospel".
It is an attempt to replace the working of the True Gospel in the hearts of
the individuals to come to the godly living through Jesus Christ.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 10
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:16:20 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <aa9M02Kq23cl01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
> If you don't believe this is Doctrine and taught by the church, check
> out the references for yourself.  Look at the title page and preface to
> the Journal of Discourses Vol. 8 and see that it IS CONSIDERED CANNONIZED
> SCRIPTURE BY THE CHURCH, and that each church member should welcome each
> and every volume.  Do you do that Jason?

I you want to ignore the historical context of JoD, that's fine
with me.  I know what is LDS canon and what is not, and JoD is
not.

Why did they wait till volume * to let us know that it was
scripture?  Why not in the preface to Volume 1?

I'd just *love* to lug around 26 volumes of "canon" wouldn't you.

Ask *any* Mormon, even *any* General Authority, ask Erza Taft
Benson if the JoD is canonized scripture, and the answer you'll
get from all of them is "no".

What part of "no" don't you understand?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are LDS Christian?
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:59:07 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <2615@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>,
 tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>> Mormons take passages in the Bible refering to the
>> anthropomorphic corporeality (what a mouthful!!) of God very
>> literally.
> 
> Just curious, but do they also take literally the words of Jesus when He
> said, "This is my body" (Matt. 26:26) or "I am the living bread" (John
> 6:51)?

In light of other Mormon scripture, I'd say that the above two
passages are not usually taken literally by Mormons.

>> It seems to me that the question is not whether God has a body or
>> not, but rather that is literal and what is figurative in the
>> Bible.
> 
> A correct answer to the second question will help lots in
> getting the correct answer to the first. 

Are you trying to say that if I say the above passages are
*not* literal, then *none* of the passages referring to God as
being anthorpomorphic are literal?

Sorry, but I do not subscirbe to such binary reasoning.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Freemasons and Christians: How Compatable Are They?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.182352.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>> This can be documented in publicly available documents, evidently.
>Given that the rituals are secret, I doubt it.  If the ritual is published, the
>credibility of the writer is suspect.

This is a catch-22.

Of course, the solution to the catch-22 is to realize that to publicize a
ritual one promised to keep secret may involve breaking one specific oath,
but the fact that someone breaks one specific oath doesn't mean that their
credibility is gone as far as everything and anything.  There are lots of
potential motives for breaking specific oaths that do not generalize to all
oaths, let alone to all matters of trust.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally)
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:11:35 GMT

Methinks you are a pinhead.  This is not to say that I am a major league
Christian, or anything.  I just have this gut feeling that 'perfect living
masters' wouldn't have p.o. boxes and advertise.  I'll bet if I offered this
master a guest shot on Geraldo, he'd jump at it.  After all, he is a perfect
money maker, I'm sure.  Or a perfect goob.
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why can't most leave other's FAITH alone
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:35:15 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <92279.210546U52539@uicvm.uic.edu> U52539@uicvm.uic.edu (--- BORYS ---) writes:
>
>    It has come to unnerve me that most religions out there today try to
>exemplify a way of life that allows for tolerance or at least love of the
>man.

They do?  It seems to me that a number of the big religions out there today
prescribe a "morality" which must be followed within very narrow limits,
including believing the right nonsense, else one is considered immoral
and therefore fair game.  Don't let the doubletalk fool you.  Tolerance
and love of man have nothing to do with it.

>Why do so many people become FANATICS and violate other peoples' lives.

It's a natural result of teaching people that they are in possession
of The Truth.  Bigots like Pitts never have to stop and question their
actions, because they know that their way is the One True Way.  Funny
thing is, if you ask them about, say, The Inquisition, they'll say
"Those weren't True Christians", but they never seem bright enough
to realize that they're doing exactly the same things as those False
Christians did, with a change of names here and there.  They think
that if only they can get rid of everybody who doesn't satisfy their
definition of a True Christian, life would be wonderful.  It never
quite dawns on them that it is exactly that attitude that leads to
nightmares like The Inquisition.

>FAITH can not be proven.

It doesn't matter.  It's The Truth.

>QUIT TRYING TO SHOVE IT DOWN UNWANTING THROATS !!!

Yes, that would be nice, wouldn't it.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:37:22 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <fTpjdel@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>I would indeed say that that meaning of "slave" is fairly useless,unless you
>>want to distinguish degrees or types of slavery.
>>Do you care to distinguish different kinds of faith?
>>Sure, why not? OK, you first.
>>Huh?  I didn't say that _I_ wanted to distinguish different kinds of faith.
>>I only know of one kind.  Pointing out that your position leads to recognizing
>>two kinds of faith doesn't mean that my position leads likewise.
>You mean you can only see ONE kind of faith? And is that kind of faith
>true or false?

How should I know?

I was saying that some metaphors are true or false, not that faith is.  You
accuse people of reductionism, yet you are yourself doing it--you see that
because I want to say that something is true or false (myths), and for
absolutely no reason whatsoever you suddenly decide to assume that I want to
say that _everything_ is true or false.

Why do you assume that just because I want to call myths true or false, that I
want to do it to everything?

>I thought it was pretty obvious that there is at least
>one kind of faith for every person on the planet.  Clearly what I refer
>to as faith and what you refer to as faith are two different things,
>that's two types already.

I would call them different things, but I wouldn't call them two kinds of
faith.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:39:51 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <BvIDuG.FAE@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>You can't prove a universal statement with one example, and to show that one
>>metaphor cannot be true or false does not prove the same about all metaphors.
>How do you prove a universal statement?

I don't know.  You were the one who made the universal claim, so it's your
business to prove it.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:46:46 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Regarding LDS prophets:

In article <Bv9ox1.BAt@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
[...]
> Is there any way that we could use a standard to discern if 
> they are false? How do *we* know that they are false?

For the LDS, the standrad expressed in D&C 50:19-24 seems to be a
good one.  The witness of the Holy Sspirit is the best standard
of all.  What greater proofcan there be than from God?

This is all by LDS standards.  I'm sure that there are other
standards that could be used to determine whether a prophet was
true or false, but the LDS might not accept the standards that
are provided to to so, so one must use a standard that the LDS
accept in order to make any difference to them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep29.233203.6672@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:49:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.233203.6672@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>Why don't you just answer the question, Mr. Harvey?

I did, but I guess it went right over your head. Did I ever tell you
that my dog is always barking? But doesn't he remind you of Toto? Learn
from dogma, but please don't be dogmatic. There is a whole world out
there beyond true/false reductionism. Word! Check it out! Out like BUSHit.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:32:49 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <16671@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.000948.22140@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>
>>1.  We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the _only infallible_,
>>authoritative Word of God.
>>
>
>Would this mean that if someone believed in evolution instead of
>the Adam and Eve story or rejected the idea that all life except
>two of each type of animal Noah had on the Ark became extinct
>at the time of a global flood in 3000BC, they aren't a Christian?
>
>
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely irrelavent to the current discussions
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc