HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs Child Custody booklet, and why a judge might have felt it promoted "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:00:37 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

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

>In article <1992Apr8.132530.1676@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>		Rubbish, you've invented the whole thing, there hasn't been 
>>		such booklet anywhere - if there is, it isn't published by
>>		the WTBTS, but our enemies, the Antichrist. 

>OK Andreas, which parts are the invented rubbish?  Along with the excerpts
>from the booklet, I've included quotes from the Watchtower and other JW
>literature, showing what the JWs teach on the various subjects.  They
>are mostly taken from modern JW literature; ones that you have access to
>at your Kingdom Hall.  It is the excerpts from the booklet that you claim
>are rubbish, the excerpts from the JW literature, or both?  Please give
>detailed examples of why it is rubbish, and especially where I may have
>misrepresented what the Watchtower Society teaches / has taught.

	I've not checked the WT quotes, but John has. He said that they've 
	been taken out of context. I tried to seek the booklet, but it wasn't
	in the WTBTS publication index. I found more about this custody-stuff
	from bookled "Defending..." (published ca 1950) and your information
	was really different if compared with the stuff you provided. Seems
	that the constitution and the judging practices of the USA have 
	totally changed in 40 years. 

>>		Seems you learnt nothing from Palovuori's case and use false 
>>		quotes against us. 

>If I've used false quotes, show it.  Are the "false quotes" just from
>the booklet?  Are the quotes from other JW literature accurate?  Show
>ones that you feel are not, and why.

	The booklet is your imagination, but the quotes from WT are correct, 
	although out of context. 

>You know, Andreas, you shoot off your mouth, and make serious charges.

	I'm using your strategy only. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:19:56 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr10.060702.8179@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.034030.6750@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>>Some interesting notes about dealing with these people is that
>>  1) They do not deny that homosexuality is a blatant sin against the
>>     Christian God.  They get around this by simply not being Christian.

>Or your definition of Christian.  Not everyone is a "bible-believing
>fundamentalist".  Still, it's not surprising that many gay people
>have rejected Christianity as it's often presented.  Look at its
>salesmen!  I'm talking to you, boy.

It is because of people like John that I don't even bother to consider
what Christianity has to say any more. Much of my experience with
Christianity has been of a group of people fighting hard for their right
to intolerance. I for one am simply not interested in even hearing about
it any more.

As for people who are gay, and still seek a spiritual life, they might
want to check out neo-paganism. As a pagan I don't think that a person's
sexual preference is even a matter of debate or discussion. The God and
the Goddess are not so small as to peep into people's bedrooms, like some
KGB spies. There is an alternative to Christian narrow mindedness.

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  *
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.flame
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 06:31:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA

In article <1992Apr14.211039.6388@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <MIB.92Apr14104130@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>>Now, given that the Churches claim to aim at the inclusion of all
>>humanity,
>and given that many of us gay people *are* Christians, and
>>given that we are *already* members of our respective Churches, since
>>our baptisms, what then?  
>
>"Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, as ye are
>unleavened. "

     My translation of your statement, Paul, is "Therefore, purge out the
homosexuals that you (non-homosexuals) may be a new lump, as you
(non-homosexuals) are 'pure'".  In other words, purge all homosexuals from
Christianity.

     You, Paul, and your statement are full of shit.  I would not mind seeing
you, Paul, purged right out of the job-market or your current job.  If my
understanding of your statement is wrong, although I find that very
unlikely, then I will retract the previous two sentences.

     What or who gives you the right to purge homosexual Christians out of
the church???  Your stupid, inconsistent, contradictory and unreliable
Bible?  Your "good" God?

-- 
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
|  \X/       Go A's!     \X/ 3000UX   Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:16:57 GMT

In article <22909@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>The second may be more spiritual in nature, but the first is more factual.  
>  Is that why there are over 2000 different Christian sects, each of which
>is following a different, but what to them is a factual image of that they 
>see in Holy Scripture?

It's possible to be mistaken about facts.  At least 1999 of them made a
mistake.  Just because sometimes people get their facts wrong doesn't mean
things of a factual nature are unimportant.

>>If
>>Jesus really _was_ resurrected, and if he really _does_ want you to have
>>"belief" as Christians describe, it doesn't _matter_ that you decide to
>>"internally experience" since that isn't going to get you into heaven, any more
>>than "experiencing" a fire as nonburning is going to leave you unburned.
>  If one can not internally experience Christ, than I would claim that
>they do not *really* know Jesus Christ, and that they have not *really*
>invited Jesus Christ into their hearts, and because of that, they can not
>*really* know God through Jesus Christ.

This reasoning suggests you should have experiences _and_ beliefs.  What you
advocate is to have them _instead_of_ beliefs.

>
>>By the way, here's an interesting idea: Imagine some powerful being, not Jesus,
>>looking around to see what mischief he can cause.  He sees someone sitting,
>>trying to "experience" God.  Now, this person is not experiencing God.
>>However, our powerful being is pretty smart.  In fact, smart enough that he
>>can figure out exactly what parts of the brain to stimulate to make his subject
>>_think_ he's experiencing God.  He then takes his spiritual needle and pokes
>>the poor guy in the "God experiencing" areas of the brain.
>>Now, how could you tell this from a _real_ experience of God?
>  The more spiritual aspects of the various spiritual traditions, including
>Christianity, offer guides for reasons like this.

If by guide you mean a human guide, then our hypothetical powerful being can
poke your guide in the brain too.  If by guide you mean a nonhuman spiritual
guide, then this powerful being can poke your brain in the "experience the
presence of a guide" area as well as the "experience the presence of God"
area.
--
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: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<MIB.92Apr6094718@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr7.202425.542@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:29:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.202425.542@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

   In article <MIB.92Apr6094718@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

   >Koff, koff, koff.  There are at most a half-dozen texts in the Bible
   >which could be read as opposed to homosexuality, and that by a very
   >relaxed criterion.  On the other hand, participating in the worship of
   >idols is lambasted hundreds and hundreds of times.  
   >
   >Michael Innis Bushnell	 

   I am rather sure that there are more than a half dozen references to
   homosexuality in the Bible.  Some of them are duplicated in more than one
   book, like, He that lies with a man as one lies with a woman is worthy of
   death, or Cursed is he who lies with a man as one does with a woman.
   Both of these are probably mentioned about two or three times each, I would
   guess, since they are mentioned in different books of the Torah.

It is clear that you know not whereof you speak.  Since you are so
sure, why don't you post a list?

	-mib
--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | This is a virulent meme.  Whether or not you place
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | this into your signature file is irrelevant.  You
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | have already participated in its further trans-
			  | mission, and will doubtless continue to do so.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: a little confused...
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:39:35 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

>dove@elaine9.Stanford.EDU (Dav Somebody) writes:

>>---
>>I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
>>fathers upon the children... Exod 20:5
>>
>>The son shall not bear the iniquities of the father... Ezek 18:20
>>---

>Along with the ones I deleted at the top, I have no answer for this
>one on textual grounds.  Any takers?

I can try this one, with help from the NIV editors.  Basically, starting
with the prophecy of Jerimiah (31:29 et seq.), we see God promising to
repeal the application of blood corruption.  Plus, the whole passage of
Ezekiel needs to be read (18:1-32).  Ezekiel took the people to task for
continuing to apply this proverb.

Anybody got anything to add?

 -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: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:56:36 GMT

Let's see if I understand your point.

The only thing that would make someone from outside the church understand
the "deep" doctrins of the church is to see a temple ceremony. Is that your
point.  From the discussions that I have seen on the net, not even LDS
who have been through the temple understand everything that's going on.

Would it be a better assumption, to understand the basic doctrine of the
LDS church and then look for the execeptions. Do you feel that by casual
study of the church and it's doctrines that you'll understand more than
someone who as been activly involved for a number of years.

Well for all *I* know you might be an exception that would understand
it from a purely intellectual point of view.

If the source of your data is the Sacketts (Wasn't the L'Amour fictional
family?) and the Tanner, no wonder you will be confused. There are other
source of information about the LDS besides the Church it's self.


-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: Project EOS - North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:16:24 GMT


>>But the thing about left or right handedness had no basis. I mean there
>>was nothing that held any worth that said a left handed person is
>>sinister.
>
>Left-handedness is sinister by definition. Incidentially, there is some
>evidence of a connection between left-handedness and homosexuality.
>If true, does this make homosexuality less or more sinister in your
>estimation?

Please let me know where left-handedness is a possible cionnection
with being gay.

I find it very difficult to beleive.

Chris
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: If GOD would give me a sign...(attn: atheist, agnostic, etc.)
Date: 12 Apr 92 12:37:23 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

OK, bearing in mind the parenthesised bit of the thread title, I'll finally
bite.

In article <54205@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> In article <22817@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>
>> Jesus spent a lot of time doing miracles in order to justify the faith
>> of his disciples. He even needed to do this after his resurrection.
>
> Jesus, as recorded in Acts, gave many convincing proofs that he was alive,
> after the resurrection.   If it is proven, why do you need to keep proving it?
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No, Richard, it isn't proven to me, and never has been. Is it so hard for
you to accept that atheists are not prepared to believe what it says in a
book just because it says in the *same* book that it's the truth? I can't
believe that I really need to explain this, but here goes.

1. "Santa Claus exists, and by the way, this is The Truth".

Convinced? No? Then add:

2. "The existence of Santa Claus is *proven*, and this is The Truth".

How about it, Richard? OK, add:

3. "Lots of folks *saw* Santa drive the sleigh right up into the
    heavens, and of course, this is The Truth".

Any better? Right, add:

4. "I and a billion other people have a personal relationship with Santa.
    You can have one too. All the good in the world is His doing and all
    the evil is the work of the Anti-Claus. And you better believe it,
    what with it being The Truth and all."

How'm I doing so far? Did you buy into Clausianity yet Richard?
Yes? Why? At which point?
No? Why not?

Please don't just answer with a bunch of quotes from somewhere else.
It's *your* logic I'm questioning, not somebody else's.

And if you *do* elect to answer with a bunch of quotes, remember I've
got my book here from which I can quote. And it's The Truth coz it says so.


> What Jesus did - he did once and for all.  After he finished his work,
> he sat down at God's right hand.  He did with his body, what nothing else
> could do - he opened the door to God through the forgiveness of sins.

Says who?

> (Hebrews)

Hmmmmm.

> Jesus doesn't have to keep offering himself as an offering for our sins,
> for he did it once and for all.

Says who?

> We preach Christ crucified - not signs and not worldly wisdom. (I Cor. 1)
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ahh. We may have a problem here. Does this mean that arguments based on
logical or rational inference are inadmissible, or at least inferior
by definition? (Serious question).


> Sincerely,
> Richard Pitts


Cheers

Simon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every morning when you wake up and look in the mirror, check yourself
for signs of collective identity" - Consolidated on "This Is Fascism"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:42:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.235156.28506@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.221335.750@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.195454.27979@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>>So God intended for some males to stick their !@#$!@ up another males
>>>#$@#$234.... To what end?  I think it is _very_ clear that this was not
>>>intended behavior.  As always I refer only to the sex act.  Sorry to be
>>>graphic about it.
>>Graphic? What? Stick their finger up another man's nose, stick their
>>tongue up another man's toes, what?
>>
>>Sorry, it's not clear to me.
>>-Ekr
>>
>You forgot the smiley :-)
No smiley. I'm quite serious. What the fuck are you talking about?
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Secrecy (was Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM'))
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 02:57:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.211627.991@hellgate.utah.edu> cwblack%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Charles W. Black) writes:
>	And, of course, all promises and commitments are entirely voluntary;
>	a participant is allowed to leave at any time.  You might notice
>	that I have just told you exactly what happens in such a ceremony,
>	yet I have not broken my solemn oath of secrecy.

Someone had just finished saying that people who don't like what goes on in
a ceremony cannot be trusted, since they violated their oath.  Yet you seem
to be able to speak about it without violating an oath and being untrustworthy.

Make up your minds, will you?
--
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)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Bible
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:01:48 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <53215@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
> The book of Ecclesiastes gives many accounts of how life can be meaningless.
> The writer tells of how meaning less toiling away at life is, but he contrasts
> it to being content in one's work, which is a gift from God.   The writer
> concludes his bood by stating that study and making books is very endless
> and wearies the body, but the whole duty of man is to fear God and keep his
> commandments.

Well, I never had any more meaningful life than today, a kid who does not 
have any ills, a nice wife, a meaningful job, no personal worries. And
no religion. Isn't this funny? I guess it's hard for a religious person
to justify that there are people who live a meaningful life, and there's
no religion involved in their lives.

Could you explain why I have a great time just now, and no religious
needs?

Cheers, happy, and joy!
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 19:23:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.025754.20595@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>Following are some new angles which I have tried to approach in a calm,
>rational, and non-assuming manner.
>
>In article <1992Apr10.222921.5250@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr10.191301.4386@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>>Let me just say that if I were a non-believer, I would still feel that
>>>homosexuality was inherently _wrong_,
>>
>>Now you're getting somewhere.  WHY would you think it is inherently wrong?
>>What is it that makes it so, and what implications does that have for
>>hetrosexual couples?  I believe you said before that hetrosexual oral
>>sex was equally unnatural and perverted; but I don't recall a clear
>>explaination as to why, except the implication that it was over-indulgent.
>>But if one married couple has "normal" sex 3 times a week, and that
>>isn't overly indulgent, than why would a couple who has "normal" sex
>>once a week, and oral sex once a week, be indulgent?  
>
>I would feel it is wrong because it is not natural. 
Neither is air flight, sudafed, or integral calculus. So what?

[Argument based on the existence of God deleted.]
So, why are "unnatural" things WRONG?

>So why would one desire a (|) relationship?     | Is the gay person initially
>1) It is blessed by God                         | drawn to the same sex
>2) It includes the physical compliment as well. | sexually or emotionally?
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you said above that you would believe this even if you
were a non-believer. So, (1) is irrelevant.
(2) I don't find convincing.

>Is this idea clear?  Do most gay men *honestly* find other men *sexually*
>more fulfilling?  To start with?
So I've been told by at least one gay man.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
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 16:32:12 GMT
Summary: weird ...

In article <MIB.92Apr16120458@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
(Michael I Bushnell) writes:

> I have always heard Shintoism described as a form of Buddhism.

That's a bit like describing Santeria as Christian :-)

Shinotism and Buddhsim in Japan sort of co-exist, possibly even in
a mutually beneficial interaction (in some respects like the classical
Chinese interaction of Confuciansim and (either of) Taoism/Buddhism.

As to something that is emerging from more traditional Japanese
Buddhism that has a disturbing resemblance to some of the more noxious
patterns of Christianity, there is always Nicheren Shoshu :-)
-- 
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