HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:05:01 GMT

I have restored talk.abortion, but not redirected follow-ups, something 
I still do not know how to do.  

In <30202@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.120413.27404@wam.umd.edu>, judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein

>>> Here's another question for you: is masturbation ethical?

>>        Why yes...masturbation IS ethical...but not morally right.
>>Masturbation is an act to relieve sexual tension to get...once again...self
>>gratification!  This is also frowned on by Christianity.

It depends on whom you talk to.  Certainly it is not thought of as ideal
behavior, but there is divergence of opinion as to whether it contravenes
the tenets of Christianity.

>So you miss everything else (or agree with it) and then respond only
>to this last tidbit. I've got some further questions for you:

Heh.  This from the guy who flames me for leaving so much of other
people's posts in my follow-ups.

>If masturbation is immoral and frowned on by christianity, then what
>does christianity think about the masturbation of stud horses?

Christianity does not care about the morality or immorality of the
behavior of non-human species.  Presumably if the deity cares about these
things, they can be taken care of within the various species themselves,
and the rest of us can take care of the morality of our own.

[This answers the remaining questions of Bense, who does not appear to
have made a U-turn to God.  Apparently his understanding of the bumper
sticker that used to be quoted in his .sig lies in the deeper levels
of priceless irony behind it, or maybe in the iron that forms the bumper.]

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14927 alt.politics.clinton:21046 alt.politics.bush:16299 alt.politics.homosexuality:10137
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:59 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1jpi0eINNepf@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...

|What is "strictly defined as Christianity".  I'm curious to know what 
|you consider to be it, if Paul doesn't fit it.  Frankly, it's hard to 
|take seriously a discussion of Christianity with someone who thinks 
|Paul was really seeing Satan when he saw the 'light'.  Do you consider 
|yourself Christian, and if yes, what do you base your beliefs on?  

	Well, "Christian" meant one who is a follower of Christ.  Christians 
can follow Christ's teachings and also those of Paul, and still be called 
Christians.  So, to distinguish that kind of Christian from who follows
only Christ's teachings, I use the term "strict" Christian for lack of a 
better one.  Now, someone can believe that Paul's teachings are somehow
from Christ, and thereby call himself a strict Christian too.  It all
depends on who's talking and what they believe.

	I didn't say I believe that Paul was deceived by Satan... though
I would not be surprised.  I consider myself a Christian... a non-Paulian
Christian.  Incidentally, my beliefs make me a Jew too.  

	In answer to your question, all religious beliefs are based on faith.  
My beliefs are no exceptions.

	If you find it hard to talk with such a Christian who is not
also a Paulian, I can't help you there unless you can understand the
difference.


|> I'd be a bit inclined to call that hypocritical if a follower of Christ
|> uses the authority of Paul to ignore selected Mosiac Laws.  G-d
|> doesn't deal lightly with such ilk.
| 
|See Acts ch15 to see that it was the general church, and not just Paul, 
|that shared the view on the Law. 

	Quite true.  So, just add St Peter to what I said above.

Gadson Sandor
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Stations won't air RL's show during day
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:42:17 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:10:24 GMT, root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
J.R.> said: Station managers are not idiots.. the reason they run
J.R.> RL at night is that he's currently 3rd in the late night
J.R.> ratings, the 2 in front of him have networks behind them.
J.R.> He's currently beating the shit out of Arsenio, Letterman &
J.R.> Woopie.

And here CBS just signed Letterman for $14M.. What fools! I'll bet they
could have had Rush for a lot less. And Dave is no doubt shakin' in his
boots over the prospect of facing off with Rush.

Then there's CNBC firing up old Tom Snyder again. More cannon fodder for
Rush!

J.R.> I'm glad the station managers aren't shoot from the hip morons like
J.R.> you...

Good Thing. With all that success, we can expect a whole flock of Rush
look-alike programs along soon.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
O Fair New Mexico! Landfill of Enchantment. And home of THEM (Atomic Ants)..
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14967 talk.abortion:57562
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Different Point
Date: 23 Jan 93 17:16:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: na
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
: second place, they don't use _human_ placentae. In fact, they can't,
: because all carnivorous animals (such as cats, dogs, and humans) eat
: their placentae as part of the birthing process. The placantae used
: in makeup come from herbivorous animals...mostly cows and sheep.


I'm not questioning your main point, but I don't get the placenta 
eating thing.  Are you saying that women typically eat the placenta
following birth?  I ain't never seen this, and I've been present at
several births...

Bill
 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Clinton blows it twice in just 3 days!
XXXDate: Mon, 25 Jan 93 20:26:48 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A7899B187C050614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:26:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.193840.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> Daniel Rouse,
cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
>	First of all, gays do not belong in the military...we need toughies,
>not pseudomen.  Most gays are either effeminite or else they are like
beasts
>(in other words, they either are too compassionate or else they are all over
>everyone).  The military needs a balance of the twowhich only hetrosexuals
>have.  Don't pull the "substitute black" reply because I'm referring to
>homosexuals of ALL RACES, COLORS, AND CREEDS.  They don't belong in the
>military!  A heterosexual has a more "stable" brain which can both be tough
and
>be compassionatea homosexual's brain has a disorder (as medical evidence
has
>tried to prove to rationalize this irregular behavior) which prevents
him/her
>from being both!

Ah, yes... another social and medical illiterate heard from.  I think a
brief trip into the 20th century is in order here.

Obviously you aren't aware that all gays are =not= effeminate pansies, just
as there are heteros that =are=.  If you doubt that gays can be as "macho"
as anybody, then someone here can probably direct you to a leather bar your
nearest city where you can see for yourself.

>	And now for the gag rule!  Clinton should have left it.  My tax dollars
>fund federal clinicsand I don't want my tax dollars paying any
practicioner
>who counsels someone on the ooption of abortion!  Abortion is not a natural
>method of birththerefore, it should not exist...except for an emergency
rape
>case!

Obviously you'd rather have many times more of your tax dollars spent to
support indigent mothers.  Not me, Dan!

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | The only thing
Genie: G.BRADT                    | we =dare= not tolerate
Compuserve: 70206,172             | is intolerance.
BBS: (303)290 9243                |
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:05:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

 (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
> 
> The appointment of Hillary to head up anything, regardless of her 
> qualifications, views of the degree of power is just one more of what is
> fast becoming a - growing larger by the day list - of lies, broken promises
> and outright deception that Bill Clinton used to get elected.  

	so??!!   name one president/senator/congressman who did
	NOT lie/break promises/deceive to get elected.  why should
	you be surprised that slick willie has done and is doing
	the same thing??  all this *list of broken promises* is
	proffered by rush for entertainment purposes.  you ought
	to star thinking for yourself and stop living in a
	vaccuum...  [not meant as a flame]  do you really believe
	there is such an animal as an *honest politician*??!


oh to be young and ignorant again,
pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 12:15:20 GMT

In article <1jmogjINNpp4@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter
Smith) writes:

>Melinda, please point out to me where _I_ have said that anyone 
>_I_ disagree with should lose their jobs, homes, or children; 
>that they should be beaten up or murdered on the streets; that 
>their civil rights should in any way, shape, or form be curtailed.
>Yet, I can be called a bigot and a homophobe.

The question is not whether you advocate doing these things, but
whether what you do advocate can lead to them, and this question you
have failed to address.  It is the sort of question familiar to
Christians of conservative views in other contexts.  People
complaining about such things as rap music are not saying that
Time-Warner advocates the murder of policemen, they are concerned that
a climate of hate is being created which makes such a murder more
likely.  This principle, if it is a good one, is also applicable to
what Christians say and do.

>Like Leviticus?  Anyone who questions why Christians view 
>homosexuality as wrong, but don't have a problem with eating 
>pork, haven't the slightest clue as to what Christians believe 
>on these things, or why.  Definitly one of the more bizarre 
>red herrings you'll find.  

Your claim that all Christians think homosexuality is wrong is false,
and you should refrain from speaking for all Christians.  The reason
why this is *not* a red herring has already been pointed out to you,
and again you have failed to respond.  You have given no criterion for
distinguishing the ceremonial from the moral in Leviticus.

This is a typical example of the circularity we so often see in such
arguments, in fact.  How do we know the prohibition belongs to the
"moral" rather than the "ceremonial" law?  Why, because we *already
know* that homosexuality is immoral.  The challenge to Walter and
whoever else wants to attempt it is to make sense of using Leviticus
here without resort to a circular argument.

>And those that do are generally mainly concerned with what they
>percieve as an atmosphere of anti-morality that is surrounding them,
>and influencing their children.

Which brings up my first point again--why is it OK for conservative
Christians to worry about the atmosphere of anti-morality other 
people create, but not for those other people to worry about
the atmosphere conservative Christians create? 

>The nastiness and venomness of typical posts from Tim Pierce and
>others shows _deep_ hatred.

This is a low blow unless you can document it.  In any case, it sounds
to me like a complaint I've sometimes heard from white people, to the
effect that black people have a chip on their shoulder.









-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15098 talk.abortion:57812
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:23:13 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <93027.071500KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.232350.25390@rchland.ibm.com>, jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
>(Jared Dahl) says:
>
>>|> And the best part is they all achieved their success as individuals.
>>|> There was no government program to "help" them.
>
>>They also live in a world where there is no racism,
>>people are fully educated, and the human race is united.
>>A little more ideal than anything on earth these days.
>
>Means nothing.  The show is being aired right here and now, in the evil
>latter 20th century.

That's not so bad, according to the fictional 'Star Trek' history, around
this time WWIII (the Eugenics War) should have been under way for the past
6 months or so!
:-)

Does science fiction EVER end the 20th century on a positive note?

:-)

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:50:06 GMT

In article <1jmp7mINNmdj@transfer.stratus.com> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>Because I
>stand against homosexual behavior as sin, and despite my explanation of
>how this differs from hating homosexuals, you still choose to
>propogate this myth that they mean the same thing.

Actually, this addresses a question I've been asking all
along, which is:  If it's homosexual behavior that you all
have big problems with, why are celibate/unpartnered/
virginal gay people treated as badly as those who are 
sexually active?  

Here's an oft-mentioned experiment:  try wearing a t-shirt
that implies that you're gay.  Don't commit any homosexual
acts, just try to suggest that you might be homosexual.
See how you're treated.  Did you get harassed on the street?
Did you get beaten up?  Did your coworkers treat you 
differently?  Is this difference in treatment due to your
having committed any affront against God, or because
those around you think that you might have feelings (acted
upon or not) towards someone of the same gender?

And if you take a look at the material coming from the
religious right (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and so
on), you'll see that they aren't attacking homosexuality,
they're attacking homosexuals.

> there are indeed Christians
>who are not as you try to portray them. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "try to portray them," but
I've never asserted that all Christians are bigots or that
all Christians are trying to turn the US into a theocracy.
You'll also note that I haven't mentioned my own religious
affliation, and the reason I haven't is that *religion is
not relevant to civil law or civil rights.*

>Oh, and thanks for the name calling. 

You'd be welcome, I guess, except that I didn't call you
an idiot.  I called Walter an idiot (he's surely as stupid
as a short piece of rope) and AAP a buffoon, but I never
called you an idiot.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mcgeege@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (MCGEEGE)
Subject: Re: Moral responsibilities of parents (WAS: using the bible...)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:40:00 GMT

In article <C11Grv.Fo5@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes...
>In article <AWERLING.93Jan17184455@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes...
>> 
>>I would consider the better parent to be one who helps to prepare the
>>children to deal with life as it comes, and to develop morals of
>>his/her own.  Trying to infuse morals into kids merely muddies the
>>waters for this process. Treat kids with respect, fairness,
>>discipline, and let them develop their own value system.
> 
>And where do they get their values from so that they can "develop their
>own value system?
> 
>> 
>>-Those are of course the values that were taught to them and that 
>>-they developed further as adults.  
>> 
>>Most adults fail to actively test and question their own 
>>moral/value system, so it's practically useless.
> 
>Most adults?  Any references for this?
> 
>You just said let them develop their own value system.  But, you
>then argue that most adults fail to actively test and question their own.
> 
>Now, I would think that if you realy are correct (in that "most adults"...)
>then those that really _do_ "actively test and question their own
>moral/value system" should be qualified to teach their values to their
>children.
> 
>Again, they have to start somewhere...
> 
>> 
>>-The children will do the same as they grow
>>-but they certainly need a solid moral base to build on.
>> 
>>Nah.  Raise your kid a Catholic, for example, s/he will grow up 
>>feeling guilty about everything.  That stunts personal happiness.  
>>What good is that?
> 
>But you just said that "most adults fail to actively test and question
>their own moral/value system".
> 
>Which is it?
> 
>> 
>>--
>>Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
>>"Books are burning/ I hope somehow, this will allow/ A phoenix up from the 
>>			flames"
>>					---XTC
> 
>Jim Graham 
> 
>        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
>                          Neither do they speak for me.
> ______________________________________________________________________
>| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
>|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
>| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |

You guys need to get a life.



>|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
>|______________________________________________________________________|

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS (Re: Read this if you are straight!)
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:03:28 GMT
Organization: Clarkson University

mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:

>gadson@zeus.tamu.edu wrote:
>: In article <1993Jan25.002341.4612@midway.uchicago.edu>, sals@deirdre.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes...
>: 
>: |The point of anti-discrimination laws is to interfer with a person's  
>: |ability to choose who he wants to deal with based on his personal criteria  
>: |and to enforce what modern liberals say should be the "correct" decisions. 
>: 
>: 	True.  So, do you think we'd be better off without 
>: anti-discrimination laws?
>: 

>Look up Plessy v Ferguson sometime.  We'd be better off without 
>anti-discrimination laws - YES.  We'd be much better off without
>laws that discriminate, which is a better place to focus.

I won't get into a debate about discrimination in private places but
there is no way in hell that we should go back to "separate but
equal" on public places. Maybe (MAYBE!) what you say has a bit of
merit on an individual level but certainly not in the government level.
Racism by individuals may be constitutionally protected but certainly
not racism (or other prejudice) by the government. Everyone, blacks,
whites, etc, are equal citizens under the law and should be treated
equally under the law. The law is supposed to treat everyone equally.
I don't believe in separate but equal anywhere but your argument especially
doesnt hold true in public areas like schools. 

In short, the government should not be operating in a racist or otherwise
prejudicial manner. It is the government of ALL Americans.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU	Get involved (or shut up)
CLARKSON '95				 
Majority rule does not mean mob rule
============================================================================
		
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 21 Jan 93 07:39:43 PST

In article <LARRY.93Jan20233147@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>>>>>> On 18 Jan 93 22:58:11 GMT, clinton@uark.ark.edu (Jim Clinton) said:
>Clinton> Well I was just wondering, to me Rush looks old enough to
>Clinton> have served in Vietnam and all.  So what is Rush's
>Clinton> military record?
>
>They ain't none. Adoring Dittos insist that he had some sort of physical
>problem which prevented his military service. The rest of us just think he
>must be a yellow hypocritical coward who managed to avoid the draft.

Be careful - you very successfully undermine your own credibitly when
you do things typically done by those of very low inteligence, such as
supporting ideas that you just dream up with no factual basis,
especially when all the info you may have (e.g., Rush's word) is to the
contrary.  Alas, this is typical of your posts.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14854 alt.politics.clinton:20965 alt.politics.bush:16266 alt.politics.homosexuality:10053
From: KENH@YaleADS.CIS.Yale.Edu (Ken Hudson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:49:14 GMT
Organization: Yale University

In article <1jn8kkINN4pk@hp-col.col.hp.com>
smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
 
>KENH@YaleADS.CIS.Yale.Edu (Ken Hudson) writes:
>>
>> To one who reads Christ's words closely, it would not be surprising if
>> He gathers up a greater percentage of Gays and Lesbians as purified in
>> heart while rejecting outright the fundamentalists who spent more
>> time judging and persecuting others than tending to personal growth...
>> and this includes many who denounce Gays and Lesbians from the pulpit,
>> presenting a facade of righteousness, while their hearts are black with
>> spiritual sin...
>
>Ken,  you wrote a good post on the importance of self-reflection and not
>judging others, and then ended it by looking into the hearts of others
>and judging them as having hearts that are "black with spiritual sin".
>
>Walter
>
 
Not so.  I didn't name names and don't know which or how many of the
broad class of fundamentalists this pertains to...only they and an
omniscient judge know.  Key phrase:  "...it would not be surprising IF..."
I don't know.  You don't know.  Nor did I say that a person is
necessarily "pure of heart" just because they are Gay or Lesbian or
in disagreement with fundamentalists.  But I AM postulating that
individuals suffering under persecution and still striving to be loving,
caring human beings, good citizens, may be approaching a more
Christ-like state than those who make themselves "feel righteous" by
condemning and attacking what they see as other "sinners."
 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14895 alt.politics.homosexuality:10109 talk.religion.misc:27306