HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jeb3@meaddata.com (Jennifer Bing)
Subject: jesus's name 
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:49:04 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc 

Can someone help me on the names of Jesus. I know that Jesus is greek for 
mesiah. Is Emanuel Hebrew? What was Jesus's proper name? Was Jesus a part of his proper name?

Thanks.

-- 
|Jennifer Bing                              | If you do good,             |
|Mead Data Central                          | people will accuse you      |
|9555 Springboro Pike      jeb3@meaddata.com| of selfish ulterior motives,|
|Miamisburg, Oh 45342...!uunet!meaddata!jeb3| Do good anyway.             |

     My opinions are not necessarily those of Mead Data Central
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:19:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr8.211932.9963
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr8.143253.5384@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>It would be useful if you could explain WHY homosexual relations are
>inherintly evil and sinful.  Murder is obvious, stealing also.  But
>why is homosexuality a sin against God?  
>
>That was touched on earlier in the discussion, but when it seemed
>to be headed down the ol' "sex is only for procreation" trail,
>no one wanted to touch it.  It would appear that it is socially
>acceptable to say homosexual sex is wrong, but not to say sex
>for pleasure is wrong.

Notice my heterosexual couple did not overindulge in sex.
An interesting note is that whenever "Adam knew Eve" she conceived.  Of
course this does not mean that he never had sex "for fun", but it is an
interesting observation.

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

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:38:11 GMT

Ken Arromdee writes:
 
> For "experiences", it's consistent for the particular experience to be a
> delusion of some sort, while everything else is what it seems to be.  If you
                                                                        ^^^^^^
> want to hypothesize that I don't exist, you have to explain away the people
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> who claim to have met me, the presence of my name in the telephone book, etc.,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> until you ends up saying that just about everything in the universe is a
> delusion.  This is because events in the real world are connected with other
> events in the real world.  But to hypothesize that a totally private
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> experience is a delusion doesn't require extending the hypothesis at all.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Here's the problem with what you're saying:
 
Each and every experience we have is completely private, in that it is
perceived completely and totally within the brain of the experiencer.
 
Your creature that can tickle someone's "experiencing God" brain area
can tickle ANY area of the brain he wants to.  So, he can make a person
see your name in a phone book; can make a person hear people say that they
know you; etc.  There is no way to confirm ANYTHING if we accept EVEN A
LITTLE of your argument.  Further, we are not required to extend your
hypothesis one iota in order to explain away your examples.
 
I'm not prepared to say, as the Hindus do, that this is all Maya (illusion).
It's not a conclusion that I can support based on my own experience.  But if
a personal spirituality is valid -- and it is my opinion that it is, for
reasons that seem to my mind to be sufficient -- then spirituality isn't
based on the types of unsupportable and unconfirmable suppositions that are
the basis for traditional, formal religious beliefs.
 

-- 
Perot for President.

Boycott Microsoft.
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:20:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.GOEHRING.92Apr16162049
	<18285@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
In-reply-to: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil's message of 16 Apr 92 20:18:23 GMT

lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:

>Try just one: Love your God with all of your heart and with all of
>your soul and with all of your mind.

This presupposes that you have a personal god capable of receiving
such affection.
--
"My TA was about as kind and helpful as a pit-bull on speed."
	-- Comment on a course evaluation form, Brown University
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 04:53:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.193250.13268@portland.mdc.unisys.com> tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>>  The potential of Fundamentalism, of any stripe, really scares the 
>>shit out of me. :-(
>
>Including humanist fundamentalists ...

I'm sure that there is deep meaning in that last comment, but it just
isn't getting through to me.  Would you care to elaborate?  Start by
explaining just what the hell "humanist fundamentalism" is.  For me,
juxtaposing the words "humanism" and "fundamentalism" sullies the word
"humanism".  For you, I suspect that the effect is similar, although
it's the word "fundamentalism" which is adversely affected.  Which
impact did you intend on your audience?
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:38:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.102115.490@yvax.byu.edu>, mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.224846.23272@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> > Lets get one thing straight right now:
> > 
> > The Mormon Jesus is _not_ God.  They are two separate entities.
> > While one might need to believe in Jesus to get into heaven,
> > one also needs to _do_ many things, like knowing the endowment
> > incantation to get into heaven, having a "sacred name", being
> > buried in one's holy underwear, etc, etc, etc.  It is _clearly_
> > a "saved by works" religion.
> >
> 	
> 	The Book of Mormon teaches that man is saved by grace and that Jesus is
> God.
> 	It seems to me that you think you know what the LDS church teaches, and 
> I believe that your intentions are sincere, but what you have written is NOT
> official church doctrine.  Believe what you want to believe - but take it from
> a Mormon - what you say I believe and what I REALLY believe are two totally
> different things.
> 
Another lie, albeit out of sheepish ignorance. Nothing, I repeat
Nothing is official doctrine including what you Mark have asserted
here. Take it from a Mormon, nothing they say is official doctrine.
Although they may be sincere, their assertions are opinion Only.

Love and Kisses,

barry--
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:45:17 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>Oh?  Does that include the US?  How much money would you like to put on
>>this? 

>	Yes it does. I'm sorry but we don't gamble. 

Good thing...I'd take your money.

 -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
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Line and Verse PLEASE
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:10:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92097.121025MVS104
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.

In article <1992Apr6.025907.8226@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just
drieux) says:
>
>1. where does it say 'thou shall not kill'????
>are you referring to the ten commandments where it
>says that thou shall not commit murder....

Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."  from the KJV
note that it is _not_ "murder," but is actually "kill."
So that's where it says it.

>

[possible claims deleted]
It is possible to claim that a christian can't kill in any way from this...
perhaps they shouldn't even eat anything they killed themselves...

>
>ciao
>drieux
>

Martin Schulte
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:30:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <12636@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>    celebrating same-sex marriages was well established from the sixth through 
>    the thirteenth centuries."
>
>is indeed interesting counterpoint, and shows that there were early Christians
>who disagreed with Mr. Hudson. 

The 6th century is hardly the time of the Bible.  But even in the time of
the apostles there were those who taught false doctrines.  Paul, for 
example, showed his disgust with homosexuality in Romans.

Link Hudson.
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Summary: I really hate these discussions.
Keywords: sexuality, attraction, beliefs, Scripture, `Lick!'
Organization: Glassboro State College
Disclaimer: Brandy the WonderDog is cleaning the dishes.  But that's okay,
            because the dishes aren't enjoying it.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:50:25 GMT


John Muehlhausen writes an article with a long list of the kinds of human
sexual expression which he thinks are bad.  He says they are `indulgent in
nature and fleshly in origin' -- most people think ordinary sex is pretty
indulgent, so I think he might need to re-think his justification.


Anyway, what really struck me was a long treatise on why God designed normal
hetersexual sex, and how Satan seeks to pervert it, and how homosexuals (or
perverted heterosexuals) can't get the spiritual bond-strengthening that
proper heterosexuals get.

What I want to know is this: what part of the Bible says this?  Where does it
say that the bond-strengthening aspects of sex only work with heterosexuals?
So far as I can tell, your essay was mostly out of your own head.

Also, you seem to be claiming that spiritual things are _controlled_ by the
material world.  That is, sex is like epoxy: you have to mix resin with
hardener for epoxy to form a bond -- just resin or just epoxy and you get
nothing.  Similarly, you seem to be saying that one has to mix an XY with an
XX for sex to form a spiritual bond.  You seem to be saying that the spiritual
aspects of sex depend on the physical shape (or chemistry) of the body parts
involved.  If that's the case, could we take those chemicals out of the people
and bestow spiritual bonds on homosexuals?

Do you really mean to claim that spiritual bonding is dependent on the details
of chemistry and shape of the humans bonding?


kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu      Darren F. Provine      ...njin!gboro!kilroy
"Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem."
                                                         -- John Galsworthy
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:33:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Mar26.173634.15642@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
| >
| Call it a "coupling" or "joining," but please don't insult the
| traditionalists like myself by calling the union of two sodomites a
| marriage.
| 
| -- 
| Tom Albrecht
| 
| Don't worry Tom, I wasn't. I thiink gay whatever is filthy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| 
| Chris

You two are pathetic.  You remind me of nothing so much as a couple of
good old boys hanging out at the local gas station, serene in the belief
that, no matter how worthless your lives are, you're still better than
the "niggers".

    Fritz

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7305 soc.culture.jewish:8104
From: unixwiz@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu (Silk)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 16 Apr 92 06:38:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc


Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism

In <1992Apr15.043030.5195@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind) writes:


>Ken Arromdee, continuing to fan the flames over Jack Carroll's comments,
>writes:

>Your specific claim was that Mr Carroll was a Jew-hater.  But the text you
>cited only indicates contempt for Judaism, and it includes a _specific_
>qualifier to eliminate many Jewish people from his criticism.  The rest of
>your argument is a pointless fallacy.

Mr. Carroll doesn't hate Jews and Christians who rip out the guts of their
religion...<I don't have the full quote, but that was what I remember>

If that isn't hating Judaism, and hating many Jewish people, and also
Christianity and many Christians, I don't know what is...

>I suspect you'll try again (since you've never, ever, backed down after you
>have started a thread) to prove that Mr Carroll is a Jew-hater.  If so, try to
>stick to the point of discussion, and avoid the textbook fallacies.

Mr. Carroll does hate Jews...He hates the religion of Judaism, and many
Jews consider that their ethnicity, not just their religion...I refuse to
let someone get away with denigrating my religion, and then saying that he
doesn't hate me...just what I hold dearest....

I'm sure if we moved this over to soc.culture.christian, many people there
would call Mr. Carroll a Christian hater...

>Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu

y'rachmeal laeb simcha
unixwiz@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:06:12 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <18101@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
writes:
> >Also, a lot of people could live a happy life with no need
> >of a omnipresent father figure, late Isaak Asimov was a good example
> >of a great secular humanist that didn't have any need for a God.
 
> Humanists, heh?
> Well, the late Albert Einstein was a good example of a great
> secular physicist/mathemetician/etc... that did have a need for a God.
> Without a Supreme Being in existence, he would not have had anywhere
> near as much satisfaction as he did with his accomplishments.
> I recall that Isaak Asimov wrote stories.  I think Einstein
> did a tad more.
 
> What is your secular authority on the existence of a God with respect
> to Albert Einstein's?
 
> I could quote Einstein, but it is well known and should be available
> for looking up.

I would suggest you should do some reading about Einstein, he believed
Nature itself was God, and it's a far cry from the Christian nomad-based
war-God.

Anyway, I spoke about secular humanists, and not about theists, that's
another issue. Many founders of the United States were non-Christian
theists, BTW.

> I could quote Isaac Newton as well, but you might dismiss him because
> he was Christian.

He was a 'lunatic' Christian, I don't think Christians today believe
in alchemy, do they?

Once and for all, there are intelligent religious people, and there
are non-religious intelligent people - there's no correlation between
intelligence, creativity and religion.

Cheers,
Kent
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Arians, Donatists, Gnostics, O My!
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:20:22 GMT
	<MIB.92Apr6101219@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr6.154328.24549@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <1992Apr6.154328.24549@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

   >Have you *read* the writings in question?  

   Not as many as I should have.

My apologies for the tone.  Tonight I'll pore through Pelikan's
history and pick out the relevant bits.  

	-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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:46:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr9.224621.20864
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Apr9.193250.13268@portland.mdc.unisys.com> tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>In article <22592@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>  The way this would be done is that by law, the homosexual will be 
>>marked the same as a person who is having sex with animals, ...
>
>What's wrong with having sex with animals?
Nothing as far as I can tell. What is wrong with it?

>Isn't that prohibition only
>found in the book of Leviticus, the same book which so many in this group
>like to mock?  And, I don't seem to recall any commandment in the Bible not
>to have sex with little children?  
No, there doesn't seem to be one. I think it has something to
do with our notions of competence to consent.

>Why don't we see more advocates of bestiality and pedophilia in this
>newsgroup?
Probably because there are very few total. I believe I have seen
NAMBLA advocates on alt.sex. [Disclaimer: I believe that NAMBLA
is not against sex between men and boys. If this is incorrect,
I apologize in advance.]

In any case, I am in favor of lowering the age of consent, if
not of eliminating it completely.
-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?
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 1 of 2)
Summary: John M. can detect Christians and is an Inerrantist
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:27:32 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> Mormons do not say Jesus is who Jesus said he was in the Bible: God.  

Wrong.  You are incorrect in your assessment of Mormon belief.

> They say 
> this is because the Bible is wrong - I say it is because they are not 
> Christian (following Christ).  

Okay, then give us a solid definition for what it means to be Christian,
that is, to follow Christ.  Please consider what groups you include and 
exclude by your definition.

> Someone who profesess to follow Christ but does not have  made this 
> statement in error, so I think they need to re-evaluate what it means 
> to be Christian.  

Are you saying that you have the ability to tell when someone is not
REALLY a Christian, that you can tell when they are in error about having
made such a statement?

In other words:  I am a Christian.  Are you going to tell me that you
are able to demonstrate that I am NOT a Christian?

> As with all arguments, this comes back to the
> fallibilty/infallibilty of the Bible.  This issue will not be resolved here,
> but my personal study has led to this conclusion.

Okay, where's Jim Merritt and his merry band of Inerrantist-busters
when we need them?  I'm too tired of this nonsense to go over all
the obvious contradictions in the literalist's Bible.

> John M.

--
                    Mike Sellers       mike@isgtec.com
                        User Interface Team Leader
                    ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
            "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:01:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23449
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <adams.703197674@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> Why?  Because Leviticus does not apply to Gentiles.  We're not covered by
> that Law.  And as for Paul, my understanding of the texts is that the Greek
> is unclear, and cannot be translated directly to 'homosexuality.'  Perhaps
> one of the NT Scholars who does NT Greek can be of assistance here.

So if you are only covered by the worlds of Jesus (and Paul), who do 
you then deal with this cite:

Mark 16:17-18:  
"And these signs shall attend those who believe: in my name they shall 
cast out devils; they shall speak in new tongues; they shall take up 
serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them..." 

I don't even espect a rational answer, most if not all Christians I do
know of can't do this. What I'm aiming at is all the possible interpretations
of laws, covenants and statements. The Bible is full of metaphors and 
subtle statements, and this is one of the reason we don't have a uniform
Christian church today. It should also reflect something about how the
church has problems with homosexuality and many other new issues which 
pop up in our complex modern society. There are no direct and clear answers.

Cheers,
Kent