HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: toriver@flipper.pvv.unit.no (Tor Iver Wilhelmsen)
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 19:04:14 GMT
Organization: ProgramVareVerkstedet - UNIT

In article <1992Apr8.132530.1676@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>Rubbish.
>
>	Lately I've been discouraged to give one-word answers, so I'll do a 
>	longer answer: 
>
>		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. 

Not to mention that all those statements to the effect that the nazis
killed people in concentration camps during WWII are lies, damn lies,
put out by the Sionist Movement and the Elders of Zion. Ever heard
about "conspiracy theories" and "historical revisionism"??

>
>		Btw. publishing such material in BBS (that you've) done is 
>		ILLEGAL, against the Finnish law of libel. So you can publish
>		your crap anywhere else but not here. 

He didn's publish it on a BBS, he posted it to the UseNet newsgroup
talk.religion.misc, which has a world-wide distribution. Finnish law
does not enter into the picture. And he can post anything he likes
here, and it was not crap but factual and to the point. You are the
one distributing crap around here...

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

Probably because you only read what your elders tell you to read;
shades of "Nighteen Eighty-four" starting to show...

>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
>

BTW: I am an atheist myself...



-- 
"I'm a Derek, and Dereks don't run!" - Derek in 'Bad Taste'
toriver@pvv.unit.no
Standard disclaimer should apply to this, I guess...
"Reality is a poor escapism for people who cannot handle roleplaying" - Me
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Arian heresy/controversy
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:36:13 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr2.165608.2090@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, tlc20700@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(Thomas L. Carney) writes:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Not anymore, especially when Arians were persecuted and killed long time
> >persecuted and exterminated by the 'Holy Church'. Actually, it would
> >happen even today - fortunately we have democratic and more liberal
> >governments in the Western society.
> 
> OK, Kent let's talk about it... this is obviously a one-sided view with a
> aplash of sensationalism with it.   A lot of orthodox Christians were exiled
> or murdered by Arians because they wouldn't leave the faith ... but you didn't
> want to mention that...  whether the church ordered this or not , no one can
> prove but radicals could act "in the church's name" falsely, taking upon 
> themselves...  look at Northern Ireland... 

Sorry, I forgot to mention that fanatical killing always happens on both
sides of religious wars. Religion does not hinder one to kill innocent
babies. Sorry for the omission.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Are XXX Christians?
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:41:42 GMT


The thread about homosexuality started, as it usually does, with some
bigot screaming that gay people can't be Christians.  Now, one of the
participants in that debate, John Muehlhausen, has moved on to
attacking Jay Windley, saying that Mormons can't be Christians.

The attack on gay people consisted of the bigots trying to prove that
gay sex is sinful.  But I'm confused.  What does that have to do with
whether gay people can be Christians?  Even if gay sex were sinful
(something I will certainly not concede, mind you), it wouldn't (no
matter how persistent) prevent one from being a Christian.  

Mr Muehlhausen's current anti-Morman tirade is attempting to prove
that Mormon beliefs are heretical.  Now, if the LDS Church teaches
heresy, what does that have to do with whether they are Christian?

What I'm really interested in is finding out why so much energy is
spent identifying class X and group Y as Christian or
not-really-Christian.  Since this is the supposed motive for both of
these recent threads, I'd like to find out its cause.

You see, I have no trouble saying that I think many Mormon beliefs are
heretical.  I'm quite confident of it.  I also understand that, from
the Mormon perspective, one who believes that Joseph Smith was a
prophet would probably be led to the LDS position on most of these
issues.  I don't know of any non-supernatural way for this crucial
difference between me and the LDS to be settled, so I just leave it
there.  The LDS Church sees me as heretical, I see them so, and we can
happily march on to discussions of other issues besides theology, and
we can even help the poor together.

I can stand out on Boston Common on Good Friday with the Quakers'
annual peace vigil, even while thinking that they are theologically
misguided about many things, and they can stand with me thinking the
same about me.  I don't think it's important to waste effort deciding
if they are Christians or not.  I can share my beliefs with them,
explaining what things I think are crucial about which they disagree,
and I've learned a lot from such fruitful discussions.  I've had such
discussions with LDS as well, and the same mutual learning has
resulted.  I'm content with talling people what I believe, and
listening to what they believe.  I'm quite confident that God will
sort it out in the end.

It seems to me that people who are busy trying to identify who the
"real Christians" are are really busy trying to predict who God will
judge, and how.  I just don't think that's a very fruitful way to
spend time.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | She has anointed my body beforehand for its burial.
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 | wil be told in remembrance of her.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:17:28 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Apr9.035059.23832@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) 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.

From a Christian perspective, one does not have to build a literal idol
to be an idolater.  The New Testament says that greed is idolatry.

Relating this to homosexuality is very consistent with the Bible.  In speaking
of homosexuality, Paul writes in Romans 1:25, "WHo changed the truth of
God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the 
Creator, who is blessed forever.  Amen."

many Christians would agree that suicide is a sin.  Homosexual acts harm
the participants,  (They recieve "in themselves that recompense of their
error which was meet.")  spiriutal and physically.  (They "dishonor
their bodies."  verse 24.)  

Worst of all, it is a sin against God.  Disobedience to God is sin.  All 
sin is sin against God.

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:35:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In article <1992Apr14.021759.24826@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>>
>>Most gay couples would be happy to marry each other.

>I don't know if this is statistically accurate.  But from a Biblical
>perspective there is no such thing as a same sex marriage.  Marriage that
>God ordained and Christ taught about involves a MAN cleaving to his WIFE.  
Nor is there a prohibition against it.  There are no verses that say that
it cannot be so.  The Bible is silent on the idea of same-sex marriage,
neither supporting nor condemning.

>Suppose there was a man who was "in love" with his sheep, but he did not
>want to fornicate with it.  Could he Biblically get married to a sheep?
>Can people marry rocks, fish, or trees?  You can perform a ceremony and
>call it a "marriage' but this is not what God ordained as marriage
Sheep do not have souls.  They are created and at the mercy of man.  Men
and women have souls and free will.  Sheep do not.  Rocks, etc are
inantimate objects which also do not have souls.

This is a false analogy.  Try again.

 -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: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:21:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Does anyone have a copy of the message Mr. Hedrick posted on this topic.  It
has passed away at this cite.  Could someone mail a copy to me?

Link Hudson.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:05:17 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <adams.702153918@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> >Wasn't this after Paul was thrown from a horse and hit his head?
>> 
>> Yes, Paul had fallen to the ground.  But right after this report, we read
>> in Acts 9:10-18 about God's command to Ananias.  Barnabus also testified to
>> Saul's encouter with God. (cf Acts 9:27)

>You know, if someone would fall off a horse today, and then tell people
>that Jesus spoke to him, he would certainly be shipped to the nearest
>hospital.

And if someone came and claimed to be Jesus Christ, we'd do the same thing.
If it was Him, and He did miracles, etc., He'd be killed again, for getting
in the way.

 -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: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 3 Apr 92 16:23:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1992Apr3.162328.10488
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia

In article <1992Apr3.100947.12426@cm.cf.ac.uk> andrew@cm.cf.ac.uk writes:

>But to answer the question, re-phrased 'would you accept homosexuality if
>it was not mentioned in the Bible?', my answer is that although it does
>not appeal to me personally, neither would I condemn it in those
>circumstances. But such circumstances do not hold: the Bible
>is clear in its view of homosexuality as something which is wrong,
>and as one who acknowledges the Bible as God's Word I accept what
>it says.

Apparently it's not so clear to everyone, but that's beside the point.
My intent is to prod those who _do_ condemn homosexuality into a little
introspection. Do they condemn it merely because the Bible (as they
interpret it) does, or does their disdain have its root in personal fear
and ignorance? There seems to be no doubt that the Bible contains more
than a few prohibitions that most believers today wave aside and ignore.
So why does homosexual love weigh so heavily on the minds of some, especially
considering that it has no victims?

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |         Laden e-mail runs
Academic Computing Center       | Bumbling, creaking through the net
University of Virginia          |         Sysadmins tremble.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Buson
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:03:49 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr8.001434.25229@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <3288@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.073434.9253@en.ecn.purdue.edu>

>>>Our first and foremost goal is to see others come to know Christ
>>>(Great Commission).
>>
>>Wrong. Our first and formost goal is to love God and our neighbor.
>
>Granted.  Does this not directly imply reaching them for Christ? 


        No! 



        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
                                        Thomas Merton


	David Hatcher
From: bd344@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael N Bastedo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:43:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr11.164341.4789
Reply-To: bd344@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael N Bastedo)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) says:

>>The question is, do you ever sin anymore?  I've accepted Jesus, but
>>I still sin; now, I believe they are forgiven.  Are you saying that
>>if you accept Jesus, you will no longer sin?
>
>The main difference b/w homosexuality as a sin and me sinning is that 
>I repent of my sins in an attempt to stop doing them.
>
>Homosexuals are not repentful of their sin.
>They are forgiven for their sins, but unless they repent...
>
>
>Chris
>

(my name its Linda, posting from Mike's account...forgive the inaccurate sig.)

I have to point out here that I think there's something a lot of people
on this board forget.  Most gay people do not CARE what you think.  I go
to Oberlin, and I have a lot of gay/lesbian/bisexual friends, and they are
not tortured souls, losing sleep over what you are thinking.  The vast 
majority of them are happy, well-adjusted, wonderful people living their
lives just like any other college students.  The only person I've ever known
who was gay who was miserable about being gay was miserable because his church
and his parents were unaccepting and kept telling him he was going to go to
hell for something he didn't have control over.  

I think religion can be a beautiful thing when it offers people guidance that
comes out of love, but I think it can be awfully destructive when people use
it as a weapon against each other.

I guess my main point is that you may have your opinions, and you may express
them, but don't kid yourselves into thinking that the gay and lesbian 
communities are waiting with baited breath to hear whether you are going to
forgive them.  

Oberlin, by the way, is in the middle of drafting a policy to grant off-campus
status to homosexual couples in committed relationships, just as it is granted
to married heterosexual students.  Just a comment.

                                               --Linda
-- 
Michael N. Bastedo                       ! "If we do not succeed, we run the   
Internet: bd344@cleveland.freenet.edu    !  risk of failure"
          smb2866@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu  !                   -Dan Quayle 
Bitnet:   smb2866@oberlin                !
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:28:08 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr3.082542.5206@serval.net.wsu.edu>,
wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:
> 2. (Mt 27:46)
>      And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli,
>    Eli, lame sabachthani?  that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou
>    forsaken me?

??? An omnipotent God crying out load that nobody could help him? Is this
a logical reason concerning deity?

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:54:25 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>In article <adams.703020573@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>
>>>In article <MIB.92Apr10101158@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>>
>>>>This is what you will hear from me.  The only two absolutes are these:
>>>>
>>>>``You shall love the Lord your God with all your heard and with all
>>>>your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and
>>>>your neighbor as yourself.''
>>
>>>For me loving God means listening to the rest of his Word.
>>
>>Which I and others have done.  We're just not hearing the same things.
>>I *know* that I'm not 100% right.  Will you admit the same?
>>
>Yes I admit that I am not always right.
>On this issue I am also not convinced that gay Christians are right either.

Ah, but I'm not a gay Christian.  If you admit that you are not always
right, isn't it just possible that you are wrong on the issue of gay
Christians?

 -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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Ending of Mark (was: Myths Concerning Christianity #3)
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:38:38 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr7.194553.28629@athena.cs.uga.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> >  My guess is that the Longer Ending was written by
> >  the author of Luke. Note also that there is a "handling snakes safely"
> >  passage in the Longer Ending, as well as in chapter 20-something
> >  of Acts (Paul does it), suggesting (but not proving) a common author.
 
> Or perhaps, just maybe, this is a fulfillment of prophecy!  Is there 
> textual evidence to support this theory?  Does the later part of Mark
> reflect the eloquent style of Luke in Greek?  In English translation it
> has the "and's" and an "afterward" like the rest of Mark.

It is the first time I've heard that contradictions and problems with
Gospel texts are due to a miracle. I guess it's one plausible explanation,
even if I think it's really a naive one. So there was a miracle,
and the Gospel texts were mangled...

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Radical departure
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:26:33 GMT

In article <23280@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> Religion and science can coexist nicely.  They do not need to be at odds
>> with each other.
>..not even in the case of homosexuality, where the scientific clues 
>point at the fact that homosexuality is hardwired into the brain
>*before* the birth...

If that's your definition of "science", I think you'd have trouble
distinguishing it from religion!  The safest statement to make about
the "cause" of same-sex orientation is that science really doesn't
yet have a whole lot to say.  There is certainly nothing in the
literature which would lead someone to make a statement as strong
as you have here.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Just thought I'd ask...
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:36:18 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>What is love?


Love is patient, love is kind.  It does not envy, it does not boast, it
is not proud.  It is not ruse, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily 
angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil, 
but rejoices in the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always
hopes, always perseveres.  Love never fails...

   I Corinthians 13:4-8, NIV
-- 
 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: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:37:45 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>As Paul said in Ephesians, "...it was He who gave some to be apostles,
>some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors
>and teachers".    (4:12)

>The way the Watchtower Society encourages all kids to forsake college in
>favor of poineering  (full time door-to-door preaching) is different.
>With them, it isn't a matter of "if your heart tells you that you
>are called for this, do it".   In my wife's old congregation, 
>kids who chose college over pioneering were considered "spiritually
>weak" and looked down on as such; they were looked at as putting
>their own wants and desires (a career) over what God wanted them to
>do (go door-to-door fulltime, and just accept whatever menial job
>they could find).  The insinuation was, that when God (any day now)
>destroyed all the non-JWs in the world, he might not save those
>who  put their own interests first and went to college instead
>of pioneering.

	Nonsense. For instance people in my congo are in fact envious when I
	am so well educated that I can publish to many nations by BBS and 
	IRC and I must tell them that it's not so easy compared to door-door,
	when you don't meet certain Walter Smith in door-door -work, but by
	computer you meet him always. 

	You're always repeating that destruction of non-JWs like you would 
	think you would impress someone with it. We can't judge people, who will
	die, who will survive. 

	Only a few kids pioneer, were they in the school or not. It's a personal
	decision, as you pointed. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:16:43 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

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

>In article <1992Apr13.153530.27504@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	I don't say it until I've proved it from the Bible. I don't say 
>>	E = mc2 to the elementary school students, but I tell a bit about the
>>	laws of the physics first and when I see they're ready to understand 
>>	the formula, I give it to them. 

>(in my best John Belushi)  Well, EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE MEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!
>I didn't realize you guys were so mentally superior to the rest of us,
>that you can equate yourself with a physics teacher, and us non-JWs
>as elementary school children.  Must be tough to be so stinkin' mentally
>superior!@!!  I guess this explains why you rarely feel the need to
>support your assertions in this group, we're all to mentally inferior
>to you to understand!!  Yeah, RIIIIIIIGHT!!!

	That was not my INTENTION. I wanted to point that many people know
	hardly anything about the Bible and we must start from the begin-
	ning. Hebr. 5:12-14

>Andreas, why don't you get off your STINKING self-righteous high horse.
>If we're all so mentally deficient that you have to play games like
>this, don't bother.    Are there any topics you can openly discuss
>here, or are we all to stupid to understand any of it?

	You said that, I didn't.
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint