HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:42:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.054106.14603@menudo.uh.edu> kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.034635.9400@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr10.023852.28190@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>[much deleted]
>>> On that same note would God allow the Bible to become warped?
>>
>>And how, exactly, is God to "prevent" idiots from warping ANYTHING that
>>is written by his inspired agents?  That's a serious question, actually.
>
>Since this is a serious question, I'll attempt to answer.  But there are
>a couple of things I need to know first.
>
>1.  Does God have any limitations in terms of how he can interact with the
>    real world?  For example, is God bound by what we perceive as the laws
>    that govern the universe?  If so, what are these limitations?
>
>2.  Exactly what do you (or John) mean by "warping"?  Does this refer to
>    the words as written, or to their interpretation?  Or perhaps both?
>
>Pending answers to these questions, allow me to tentatively answer yours.
>God can prevent anyone from warping anything that is written by his
>inspired agents by inspiring anyone who reads the words of his agents in
>*exactly the same way* as he originally inspired his agents.  That is,
>through the appropriate mind controls, he may insure that every person's
>interpretation of the words of his inspired agents is the same, and matches
>the original intended meaning of the words.  You may think of this as
>occurring in the form of an instructive voice as the person is reading,
>or something more subtle and harder to detect.  The form doesn't matter
>much, as long as the end result is the same: a consistent (from person to
>person) interpretation of the Bible, regardless of the language the Bible
>being read was written in and regardless of the experiences of the person
>reading it.
>
>A sufficiently powerful entity may accomplish anything...

God doesn't want puppets... If everyone came to the same conclusion because
God was forcing them to then where is free will? 

I think the Bible has been preserved by God down to the "jot and tittle"
because he promises that not one (jot or tittle) shall pass away 'till all 
be fulfilled.  Does this mean word for word?  Perhaps not, but at least
concept for concept, without changing any meaning.  As far as peoples
interpretations - it is easy to make just about any source say just about
whatever you want...

John M.


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: MORALITY IN GENERAL...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 10:53:03 GMT

In article <MIB.92Apr15100626@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>Basically, it comes down to this: if I take steps to avoid pregnancy,
>STD's, and emotional scarring, and none of them in fact result, does
>that make sexual promiscuity OK?  If not, then you have not yet
>answered the question about why it is harmful.

God has a plan for each of our lives.  We are happiest if we live within that
plan, because it is in fulfillment of our very existence.  On the larger
scale, God _has_ made what is inherently "right" and "wrong" evident in all
creation and has placed it on each man's heart.  So why do we need the Bible?
As people rationalize and justify activities which they at first know are not
in God's plan for their life (i.e. sin), they become hardened to what is
right and wrong and can no longer distinguish between the "grey" and the
good.  This turns into a viscious cycle, and pretty soon everything is grey
and there are no absolutes.  This group is good evidence of this phenomena.
By inspiring various individuals to pen his _really real_ plan for mankind,
God has (among many other important aspects) given us a rock on which to
build our faith, so that we can _know_ what He desires without the individual
"hardening of the heart" controlling our lives and working against the "new
man" which we, as Christians, should be constantly striving for.  Perhaps the
word "should" is representative of the reason why many Christians are turning
away from their "rock".  Let me assure you that the benefits of "the rock"
_far_ outweigh the "freedom" supposedly to be had otherwise.  For as we all
know deep down inside, but maybe have forgotten (by choice?), freedom in
_not_ the ability to do what you want - rather the ability to _joyfully_ do
what you _know_ is right...  If at this point you are saying to yourself
that your own notions are the final authority, just ask yourself about the 
times when you have felt less than joyful _regardless_ of the situation.  If
these times exist (I know they do for me), I think you will find them firmly
rooted in self-reliance and the inherent trust humans have in their fallible
selves.   Lets face it - we _need_ the Bible!  I cannot express how
dissapointed I am to see so many of God's own turning away from the most
precious gift He has given us next to Jesus Himself...

John M.
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: TRADITION IS NOT THE BASIS FOR CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:42:47 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr17.035233.18783@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>When taken in context the Bible does not contradict itself.

  I think that a more accurate way of putting this is: 
 "From John's perspective, the Bible does not contradict itself."

>The Christian God "makes sense".
  From John' perspective, the Christian God "makes sense".

>Jesus claimed to be God and his life was a testimony to this fact.
  From John's perspective, those who believe that Jesus claimed
to be God and his life was a testimony to this fact

>Nature points to the Christian God.
  From John's perspective, nature points to the Christian God.

>Christianity has had more influence than any other religion.
  From John's perspective, Christianity has had more influence than 
any other religion. 

>Historical probability points to Christian truths.
  From John's perspective, historical probability points to 
Christian truths.

>Scientific evidence points to Christian truths.
  From John's perspective, scientific evidence points to 
Christian truths.


>I know it is true, and I daresay you know it as well!
  From John's perspective, I know it is true, and I daresay you know 
it as well!






	Love is the life force breathed
	into the Heart/Mind flower center
	of harmonious human relationships.
			Al Huang

	David Hatcher
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 13:25:59 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:

>In article <adams.703270029@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>	The Lutheran Church, the E. Orthodox Church, the RCC, Jews, Muslims,
>>>	Hindus, Buddhists, the Anglican Church, Calvinists etc. etc. 
>>
>>OH BULLSH*T!  Please explain to me, a member of the Evangelical Lutheran
>>Church of America, exactly where my religion teaches lying, stealing, etc.
>>And where it is 'allowed.'  Come on, Antti, let's see it.

	The Evangelical Lutherans are the worst rooks on earth - they forced
	to join to their dark rites when I was a child and later they've 
	stolen money from me. It's entirely a dark religion, Satan's favourite.
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:44:23 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <adams.703020573@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>>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?
>
> -Steve

This reminds me of another important point, the issue of faith in
regard to conscience.  If there is any doubt in the Christians mind as to
whether doing something is sinful, for example homosex (there should not be
any.  Both New and Old Testaments are explicit that it is.)  then the
person should not do it.  

Paul wrote quite a bit on  this subject, I Cor. 8, 10 and Romans 14. 
Apparently, some in the church at Rome considered it a sin to eat meat.
Probably, there was a chance that any particular piece of meat could have
been offered to an idol.  Paul wrote of how that it was a sin for one who 
had a weak conscience to eat the meat.  This kind  of person would consider
eating meat a sin.  The other type of person is one who does not consider it
a sin to eat meat sold in the marketplace.  This person would not be sinning
against his own conscience.
Paul also wrote of how those with strong consciences were to take their 
weaker brothers' consciences into account and not eat meat.  Reading the
chapter will explain it a lot better than I have here.

I will quote two verses from chapter 14,
"22 Hast thou faith?  have it to thyself before God.  Happy is he that 
condemeth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."
"23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of
faith, for whatsoever is not of a faith is sin."

This makes sense to me.  Anyone who takes a chance of sinning against God
is sinning by his irreverent actions.  If homosex were a "grey area" 
(which it is not.  It is clearly sin,) then anyone who practiced 
homosex without considering his action to be "100% right" would be sinning.

Link Hudson.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:14:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr14.203837.4972@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <kumdqkINNfg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>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.  

>>Now for a simple question: why should this apply to people who do
>>not follow your religion?

>Frankly, I do not think that most of those who do not believe in
>Christianity will take this as authoratative as a Christian would.

Thank you. I wish more Christians were as pragmatic as you.
>
>Link Hudson.

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:39:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: jyusenky.1992Apr14.213936.10324
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <MIB.92Apr14160646@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>Much though Ken Arromdee might not like to admit it, the Orthodox
>Jewish community has been right up there with the right-wing Catholics
>and the fundamentalists fighting every gay-rights issue that comes
>into the popular press.  And, just like the more outspoken Catholics
>and the more outspoken fundamentalists, some even call for gay people
>to be killed.

True (except the killing part, which I still haven't seen).  But I saw no
qualifier such as "Orthodox" in the article to which I was responding; and
people who describe Judaism as a "religion of intolerance and power, obsessed
with bloodshed and death" are not generally the type who pay attention to fine
distinctions.
--
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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:48:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.180352.8110@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.115213.26412@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr14.052931.5892@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>>OK, OK... I give up.  I know that homosex (to borrow the term) is
>>>wrong, and everyone who does it knows its not wrong,
>
>>Hasn't it occurred to you that someone must be wrong here?
>>And it strikes me that you have to show that homosexuality IS wrong.
>>If you can't support it, perhaps you should admit of the possibility
>>that your gut feeling is wrong and that homosexuality is ok.
>
>Yes someone must be wrong.  I do not believe I am that person.  Lets leave
>it at that.
WHY do you not believe that you are that person? You have yet to come
up with ANY coherent argument why homosexuality is not ok that
doesn't rely upon your interpretation of the Bible--which is
hardly commonly shared.

>>Great. Now that you're done insulting gays[I'm told by at least
>>one gay man that gay applies to both gay men and lesbians,
>>so don't flame me if it doesn't just gently chastise me,
>>well...maybe you COULD discipline me just a bit....] you're
>>going to insult another bunch of people who probably haven't
>>done anything to you. Wonderful.
>
>What astounds me is the relative attitude displayed by many Christians on
>this newsgroup.  Lets face it, there are absolutes and they are worth
>proclaiming, one of which is the salvation plan of the Bible.  If you cannot
>accept anything as fact then I wonder how sure you are of your salvation.
I'm not a Christian, so I am not at all sure of my salvation. What
of it?
-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: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Someone needs help in believing!
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:08:26 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

Brian, 

   You might want to post this to soc.religion.christian - I believe
you might get some pretty good help there, too.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith  (Was:Re: I've forged a cancel of a sendsys)
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:14:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr8.201422.1176
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <srqjlpn.rohwerwd@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>     As you should know by now, the Bible contains many contradictions
>and errors and as a consequence does not stand up to logic.  A couple
>of errors are the creation story and the virgin birth.  Christianity
>is a very false religion.

Please expound... I see no logical failure in either of these or in anything
else in the Bible.  The only failure in logic I see is that it does not
adhere to anti-supernaturalism, which is not a valid basis for any argument
(rather an often abused presupposition).

John M.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:53:18 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <srqjlpn.rohwerwd@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
writes:
>     As you should know by now, the Bible contains many contradictions
>and errors and as a consequence does not stand up to logic.  
>
>     Ok, I will list two.
>     Number 1:  The two creation stories in Genesis.

How do these two passages contradict one another.  The passage that says
that God created the animals out of the ground in chapter two could also
be translated "God had created."  It is in some versions.  Hebrew verbs 
can tend to be unspecific, and need to be understood in context, from 
what I have read.  I know this can be true of Arabic, another related 
language.

>
>     Number 2: Changeability of God.
>          1)  In at least 12 verses, the Bible states that God is
>              unchangeable: Num 23:19, 1 Sa 25:29, Job 36:5, Ps 33:11,
>                            Ps 89:34, Ps 102:27, Ps 110:4, Mal 3:6
>                            Tit 1:2, Heb 6:17-18, Heb 13:8, Jas 1:17.
>          2)  In two books, God gave Moses the "Eye for Eye, Tooth for
>              Tooth" law: Lev 24:17-20, Dt 19:21.
>          3)  In Mt 5:38-40:  Jesus says, "..."
>       As one can see, God changes between 2 and 3 which causes a
>       contradiction of 1. 

How does giving a new command change God?  A new command was given.  God
was showing His mercy, and He Christians were also required to show mercy.
How is this illogical?  

>     Sure there is a major difference between the creation story and
>science.  In Genesis 1, the creation story states that God created
>vegetation one day before God created the Sun.  From the biology classes
>that I took, vegetation can not live without the Sun.  Therefore, 
>vegetation could not have been created before the Sun.  The universe
>was not created in six days as stated in Genesis 1.

Plants cannot live without light.  God said "let there be light" when
He was creating.  
Anyway, I have heard that the word used for make here where it says that
God made the sun and moon to govern the day and night. They could have been
created earlier, and caused to govern the day and night later on.  

Dr. Hugh Ross, the same one who stated the above, also said that 
"heavens and the earth" is a Hebrew idiom for the universe.  The idea
that the universe and earth were formed before life grew up on earth
is consistent with science.

>     The virgin birth is a false miracle.

Can you prove this?

Link Hudson.
From: vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 12 Apr 92 02:18:55 GMT
Organization: Hampshire College

[Deleted.]

> 
> So God intended for some males to stick their !@#$!@ up another males
> #$@#$234.... To what end?  I think it is _very_ clear that this was not
> intended behavior.  As always I refer only to the sex act.  Sorry to be
> graphic about it.                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Shouldn't this read, `Sorry to be !@#@*&# about it'?
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Even more Mormonism!!!!!!!!
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:27:05 GMT
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual



>WHAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO,
>Just a second, I need to catch my breath!!!!!!!!!
>When I first posted asking questions on Mormonism, I was not
>prepared for the amount of anger I  was about to stir up!!!!!
>I was not even thinking about who kept what secrets from whom
>and who wrote what about this person or that......
>Very few people actually answered my post straight forward in 
>language I could understand.  My thanks to those who did and
>those who emailed me.  You, I could understand!!!!!!!
>Now, my questions were simple......well, what I thought was simple.
>I know, for a fact, that Mormonism is NOT based on lies and deciet!!
>Nor is it some white-facist we-will-rule-everbody mentality.  Up here
>there are quite a few black mormons and I'm quite sure they don't walk
>around spouting Amis & Andy lines.  They don't go around saying all the
>religions other then mormonism is wrong.....  No, it seems to me, up here
>anyway, that those are the Bible Baptists....  OK?
>Now, there are at least two people (whom I won't mention) that can actually
>give me straightforward answers.  Could someone else PLEASE answer me
>pen and honestly, about Mormonism, their practices, and baptisms.
oThank you!

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I was 
converted about 8 years ago. I found much truth, peace and joy since my 
family and me joined the LDS church. I came to know Jesus Christ as my personal 
Savior. Our conversion had an effect in our life which I can describe only as 
positive in all respect. 

I experienced increased amount of peace and joy in my life since I joined the
LDS church.  My relationship with my wife and children which was not good before 
is now much improved. We have more love for each other than we ever had before.

I want you to know that anything which can cause such a commotion as the "Mormon"
faith can only be true or false. I would like to tell you that there is 
only one way we can come to know the truth, that is on our knees asking God the 
Father to reveal it to us through the still small voice of his Spirit. I have a 
testimony that He will answer to all those who pray with sincere heart, having 
faith in Jesus Christ. 

May the Lord God bless you and lead you into all truth.

With brotherly love,

		Frank
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:31:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.194025.9703@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>I have recently read a book writtten by David Wilkerson called The Vision.
>If I remeber correctly, it was written in or before 1973.  Wilkerson
>told of how homosexuals would be given places of authority in churches,
>and be recognized by religious establishments.  This would be done under the
>guise of love and understanding.  He wrote that a day would come when in
>nearly every major city, there would be a church that catered to homosexuals
>and lesbians.  Sunday school literature would describe homosexuality as
>a valid means of sexual expression.  He also wrote that it would not
>be long (from when he wrote it) that homosexuals would begin to flaut 
>their perversion on national tv talk shows.  
>Instead of offering to help homosexuals, churches would tell them to accept
>their weaknesses as "gifts from God."

Yeah, isn't it great?!  This guy must be a real prophet!
By the way, what's it mean to "flaut" something?

>Nearly every one of these things has happened or started to happen.  I heard
>of a homosexual church opening up in Washington D.C. not long ago.

What's a "homosexual church"?  There are chapters of the Metropolitan
Community Church (MCC), a denomination in the mainline Protestant tradition,
in many major cities of the US.  The MCC, with its special ministry to
lesbian and gay people, has been around for at least 10 years; 20 is
more like it.  And then there are Churches like the Unitarians and
the United Chruch of Christ (UCC) which accept lesbian and gay people
no differently than their fellows who are not.

It really is a refreshing change from all that bibliolatrous
intolerance, isn't it?  Thanks for bringing it up, Paul.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer