HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hayek@eemips.tamu.edu (Khalil Hayek)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Summary: Exclusion in religion...
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:52:35 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University

In article <22816@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>As I stated earlier, every religion has a carrot, usually it's either
>eternal life, or a lot of money, or zapping your existence. Marketing
>and religion has a lot in common, watch for instance TV-evangelism
>programs for the ultimate combination of the worst of the both worlds.
>
>Cheers,
>Kent

Yes, I agree, every religion has its carrot. But there's something else that's
funny too, exclusion (or exclusivity whatever.)
See, most religions claim salvation for everyone... It might not be in the 
form of biblical heaven, it might come after an infinite number of 
incarnations, but it comes eventually. The religions that came out from the 
Semites, i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam claim salvation only for
a subset of their followers (we have to agree that Christianity is the most
universal of the three and that the exclusion in it is not so explicit or
strict as in the other two). 
Furthermore, these three religions are about the only ones that claim that
their God is the one true god, and that all others are false. That is not
the case in any religion (that I know of, and I might be wrong) that exists 
now or existed in history.


Just a point to consider.
Khalil




-- 
|=============================================================================|
|  Khalil Fares Hayek                |   Home Tel.   (409) 260-2651           |
|  POBox 5834, College Station       |   Office Tel. (409) 845-3558           |
|  Texas 77844-5834                  |   E-mail      hayek@eemips.tamu.edu    |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sococulture.jewish
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:11:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.045730.26885@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>It's anger at religions which devalue and marginalize gay people and
>those who persecute others (here, gay people) in misguided service to
>their religion.  As has been said before a number of times, Judaism is
>no less guilty of this than Christianity.  Just talk to a few lesbian
>and gay Jews who take their religion seriously, or who are members of
>an observant family.  It's not a happy situation.  The anger Jack
>expressed is on behalf of those gay Jews he knows who have been
>similarly hurt and ostracized because of their sexuality.  I know these
>people too.  ...

Then why did Mr. Carroll post this?  (And I _thought_ I had pointed this out
already....)

]The example which began this thread was homosexuality -- this
]is little more than a detail in the entire panorama of violence
]which is venerated as holy by many Christians and Jews.

His anger is not because of Jewish (or Christian) attitudes towards
homosexuality.  That's just a minor detail.
--
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,soc.culture.Jewish
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:24:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.021947.20074@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>>Secondly, while I find a literal reading of this pretty gross, it's pretty
>>clearly metaphorical (it's been some time since Christians killed anybody for
>>heresy, and even longer since the Jews invaded Caanan).  As a metaphor, the
>>quoted section works well to illustrate Mr Carroll's perspective.
>Precisely.  It's known as rhetoric, and the purpose of that rhetoric
>is to communicate the overwhelming anger which is the result of such
>mistreatment.  The language is designed to be shocking; it's a punch
>to your gut so that you're inclined to listen up.

The treatment he actually described was not by Jews--it was by Christians.
Perhaps his anger is misdirected.  Anger directed at minority groups is
particularly misdirected.
--
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: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:10:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr9.211059.16517
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr9.035059.23832@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.210212.7990@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>I think the homosexual who substitutes homosexuality for God (or anyone for
>>whom sex is their god - quite a few people) is a victim.
>
>Has anyone said a word about deifying sex? Regardless, if none of those
>directly involved feel that they are victims, if all interested parties are
>consenting, then there are no victims. Your opinion is moot.

The deification of material things without admitting it (even to yourself) is
the oldest trick in the book for doing what _you_ want with your life.
Likewise the most pitiful victim is the one who is being raped (by Satan as
it were) without even knowing it.  Of course the Prince of this world can
make it seem appealing.  One of my most basic beliefs is that man almost
never knows what is best for him, because he is restricted to his own
space-time reference frame.

>>Lets assume that
>>homosexuality is still not accepted _at all_ instead of just a little in the
>>right circles.  Then someone who was homosexual would either go insane from
>>frustration or read Pauls letters and decide that they are called to be as
>>Paul was - single, of the Spirit and not the flesh, and devoted to spreading
>>God's word.  An acceptance of homosexuality allows them to go on worshipping
>>this god (as with food or money).
>
>So, stepping up the oppression will bring the oppressed around to see
>the error of their ways, eh? Paul's letters'll be the first things they
>go for? Amazing. It's guys like you who are always the first to die at
>the end of a revolutionary's bayonet, cursing him for his ingratitude, even.

How can you type something like this when right below it this | exists?
							      |
>>As with anything though, yanking
>>homosexuality out from under someone is disastrous unless you present the
>>godly (and beneficial) alternative.
>
>How do you plan to realize this beneficial yanking? Right off, I can think of
>another form of yanking that would work wonders for someone like yourself.
>Show me someone who rants against sex-as-deity and I'll show you a repressed
>prude.

Don't think have haven't been on both sides of the road... And I prefer
driving on the right, thank you very much.

>>God is not about the negative - rather the positive.
>
>Oh, I can see that. So many of his dutiful servants just *exude* benevolence.

It is amazing how genuine concern for the welfare of others can be turned
into this.

John M.
From: joshuaf@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: SANDMAN: LUCIFER'S NAME
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:00:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: yang.1992Apr14.140008.16967
 <1992Apr7.112217.1234@wkuvx1.bitnet> <1992Apr8.182932.8819@eskimo.celestial.com> <1992Apr9.002450.2440@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Apr9.002450.2440@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.182932.8819@eskimo.celestial.com> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
>>    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.> They are pretty much the same text, actually.
> The differences are pretty minimal.
> 
> Time out...have you done any study on the Dead Sea Scrolls or are you 
just regurgitating what you have seen on 20/20.  To begin with the scrolls 
HAVE been released to the general pool of Biblical scholors through a 
weird chain of who-owns-what rulings between the U.S. and Jerusalem.  
These have not yet been translated because scholors have not had the time 
to do the work yet.  The reason the Israeli Antiquity Society never 
released them was because they did not have the expertiese to finish all 
the translations....

	Which leads to point two, the reason they could not perform a good 
tarnslation was because the text was full of aramaic and other ANE 
(ancient near eastern) languages that were common in 200-75 B.C.  There is 
NO QUESTION that these texts are younger than the Old Testament which was 
cannonized around 250-200 B.C. (with most of it complete by 400 B.C.)...

	The Dead Sea Scrolls tell scolors much about the community from 
which they com (the Qumrans) but they DO NOT hold any new stories or 
secrets that challange the Old Testament's content. 

-Joshua Fraser                      "Who Me?!" -Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc.
 Student Bible Scholor
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon FAQ (part 1 of 2)
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:10:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr17.041032.20475
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

A good point is brought up that no individual can claim to represent their
religion with 100% accuracy.

The difference between Mormonism and "mainstream" Christianity is that the
Mormon Church has _nothing_ that is "Momron Doctrine".  The BoM is not, nor
is anything else.  It is always in a rather unsteady state of re-revision.

On the other hand, Christianity _does_ have a concrete doctrine: the Bible.
We have something concrete that we can point to and say "this is it".

I must say that it grieves me to see fellow Christians let go of this
"rock", as I have said before.  Once the Bible is eliminated Christianity is
on shakier ground than Mormonism, as has been recently pointed out.  Lets not
let this happen!


John M.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:54:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>In article <adams.703260182@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>[...]
>>There is no unforgivable sin.  

>Oh?  What about the "sin" of not believing?  Is this, too, forgiven?  If
>so, then we atheists have nothing to worry about, do we?

>Unless, perhaps, we still refuse to believe even when face-to-face with
>God.  But I don't know *any* atheist that would be *that* stupid.

>So: when I'm face-to-face with God, *then* I'll believe in him/it.  And
>at that point, my "sin" of not having previously believed will be
>forgiven, right?

With God, all things are possible.  I cannot say whether or not you will
have this chance.  That is up to God.  I don't propose to limit what God
can do.  It is his pergoative to deal with you as he wishes.  I can't claim
that it is fair or unfair, either.

>>The Lutheran Order of Public Confession in
>>fact says 'We confess we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves.'
>>The absolution says that 'God, who is merciful and just forgives you all
>>your sins.'  Since Luther taught Justification by Faith, there are
>>absolutely no works that I can do to help me gain salvation, nor can I
>>possibly avoid all sin.  Remember, Paul was a sinner.  So am I.  So are
>>you.  None are hopeless except those who do not hope.

>None?  What about those who do not believe?  Those who *cannot* believe?

Sorry, this entire post was in response to comments relating to
homosexuality and the condemnation of homosexuals.  Thus, the information
related to believers.

As for non-believers, there are a number of views among Christian
theologians past and present.  Some believed that God continues to work on
souls of those who have died, so that in the end, all souls are saved.
Ireneaus wrote along these lines.  In his theology, every single soul is
saved.  That would include Hitler, Ted Bundy, etc.

Again, my personal belief is that atheists may be able to gain salvation.
Of course, just because I believe doesn't guarantee that I will gain
salvation.  I too, will have to stand before God and be judged.

 -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: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:21:50 GMT
	<GOEHRING.92Apr14153441@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Apr15.001138.26039@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>[I wrote:]

>>What is immoral about sex (heterosexual or homosexual) involving
>>more than one partner?  I have seen no conclusive evidence that
>>promiscuity is inherently immoral; merely that it requires a greater
>>deal of care and caution in choosing partners.

>This once again relies on God's plan as defined by the Bible. He set
>down the plan for intercourse (with both positive and negative
>reinforcement), so we believe it to be the best course of action for
>our lives.  We are to "become one person" with our physical mate
>(provided we choose to have one).

But what reason, beyond the Most Holy Word of Your God Which I Do Not
Accept, is there for this?  I did not ask you to recite dogma to me.
I asked you to *JUSTIFY* this restriction on behavior.  Please do so.

Please present a reason, beyond the fact that your holy scriptures say
so, as to why polygamy (multiple consensual partners) is
unconditionally wrong and monogamy is unconditionally right.
--
The real question for 1988 is whether we're going to go forward to tomorrow or
past to the -- to the back!
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:17:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>In article <adams.703284892@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>Again, my personal belief is that atheists may be able to gain salvation.
>>Of course, just because I believe doesn't guarantee that I will gain
>>salvation.  I too, will have to stand before God and be judged.

>The Bible _guarantees_ salvation for Christians.

BZZZT.  Thanx for playing.  Where do you get this from?  Try reading the
following verse:

[Matthew 7, NIV]

   "(21)Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom
    of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
    Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in
    your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
    Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you.  Away from me you
    evildoers!"

See anything wrong with your 'guarantee' now?  Looks to me like some
Christians will be condemned....

[opinion follows]
This verse would also seem to imply that non-Christians who did the will of
the Father will be saved....

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:6209 misc.legal:8854
From: lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Graham Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: International Rights Question (was JW booklet)
Keywords: law, courts, rules, rights, speech, protected, libel, `Woof!'
Date: 6 Apr 92 08:30:11 GMT
Organization: abUSENET, Coventry Polytechnic, Coventry, UK

In article <1992Apr4.090517.13891@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Apr1.181033.626@gboro.glassboro.edu>, kilroy@gboro (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>>1) Does Finland really jail people for libel?  I understand about protected
>>   and unprotected speech, but it was my impression that the only penalties
>>   for libel were `gag orders' and monetary awards.  Now that I go to ask it,
>>   does the US jail people for libel?


** Out of interest it is possible to jail someone for Libel under English
   law. Although no specific statute has been passed by Parliament, the 
   offence of "outraging public morals" does exist at common law. The offence
   of blasphemy also applies to the traditional English church.

   The last known prosecution for outraging public morals took place 2 years
   ago. The prosecution was taken against the Young Unknown Artists Gallery
   after an artist desplayed a set of ear rings which were made from real
   aborted human embryos.  In the last 200 years there have only ever been 
   3 other prosecutions under this common law.

-- 
          ****************************************************
          *      Graham Wilson      *  lsg001@uk.ac.cov.cck  *
          *    LL.B. Law  Year II   *  Coventry  University  *
          **********Life Sucks - But Death Swallows***********
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs Child Custody booklet, and why a judge might have felt it promoted "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:54:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: apollo.1992Apr8.155411.7980
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

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.

>		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.

>		How do you explain that I haven't seen any references to this
>		booklet in our literature ?

Where did you look?  Did you try doing what I said in my post, and
contact the Legal Department of the Watchtower Society in Brooklyn?
                     
You know, Andreas, you shoot off your mouth, and make serious charges.
At least when I claim the JWs recommend "untrue" testimony under oath,
I try to show, in as much detail as possible, why I think so; that way,
readers have the information and can decide for themselves what they
think.  If you want to be viewed as anything but a crank, you might
consider backing up your claims a little.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM')
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:40:12 GMT

You know, I don't really understand why the big deal about secrecy,
because it leads directly to what are claimed to be misrepresentations
of Mormon practices.  If the temple ceremonies were an open book, you
could at least dispense with this particular argument.  Hiding such
practices gives unbelievers the sense that there is something shameful
about them, or at least that there is something vaguely unsavory.
Now I grant that such openness doesn't remote the chance to be mis-
interpreted, but you'd at least be in a position to defend yourself.
Right now, when a Mormon has to answer to such charges, all they have
are ad-hominems to defend themselves.  ("Would YOU trust someone who
violated his/her oaths?"  "Well, maybe" is not what you intend to hear
in reply.)

I know very little about Masons, but I have a similar jaundiced
opinion of their need for secrecy, as if it's a little boy's club.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:29:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

OK, OK... I give up.  I know that homosex (to borrow the term) is
wrong, and everyone who does it knows its not wrong, and I have made
some foolish statements, and everyone else has made foolish
statements (especially by trying to work their way around issues),
and I have exhausted all the angles I can think of.

I have lost ground, but one think remains untackled (call this a
last ditch effort):  Assuming (which I do not) that homosex is
allowed by God, isn't it also confined to two lifetime partners?

If not, then its hopeless.  I just hope you guys come around sooner
or later.  Now to the Mormon thing...  :-)

John M.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Letters to Tom [1 to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000]
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:08:56 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada



Re: Letters to Tom [1 to 1,000,000]


< YAWN > 

More Fundie propaganda. Won't they get a shock if it turns out
the New Agers are right about all these spirits, 
and the Holy Spirit is really a super-being from the 144th dimension 
playing the biggest practical joke of all time?

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca