HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Question for Tom (was: OCR vs Homosexuality/Judging Homosexuals)
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:31:46 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Apparently Tom did not see my question last week, so I will repeat it.

I found Tom Albrecht seemingly supporting the OCR initiative to legally
equate homosexuals with pedophiles, necrophiles and etc:

> 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?  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?  
> 
> Why don't we see more advocates of bestiality and pedophilia in this
> newsgroup?
>
>>  The potential of Fundamentalism, of any stripe, really scares the 
>> shit out of me. :-(
>
> Including humanist fundamentalists ...

I repeat that I would like clarification Tom.  Does this mean that you support
passage of the OCR initiative? And do you really equate homosexuality and
pedophilia?  If you were not serious in your in your apparent support for
the OCR initiative, I can only assume that you were just gratuitously mocking 
Dave Hatcher's position.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Nothing dies so hard, or rallies so often, as intolerance.
				Henry Ward Beecher
				American Clergyman
				as recorded by George Seldes
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:09:10 GMT
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <MIB.92Apr15094608@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>   How can one be so certain?
>
>Perhaps I should say: There is no reason to think Hebrews was written
>by Paul, and there are many reasons to think it was not.  It shows a
>developed priesthood theology which is utterly absent in the rest of
>the Pauline corpus.  It uses a very different Greek from Paul, much
>closer to the high literary style of Luke.  

Thank you.  The composition and tone of that statement makes much more
sense.  

Although I'm not convinced by the literary style argument (modern authors
often use different writing styles at different times in their careers, and
for different purposes), and there is some evidence from the Church Fathers
to suggest Paul was the author, it's wasn't my point to argue for Pauline
authorship of Hebrews.  I was simply trying to point out that you had made
a rather strong statement in the absense of any definitive evidence. 
Something others of us often get chasitzed for in certain situations,
rather harshly at times.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:18:24 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>>> 	"Neither am I telling YOU by what authority I do these things."
>>> 
>>> 			- Mark 11:33

>>	Andreas, you are equating yourself with Christ here - are you
>>as great as He?  Do you have the same authority as He?  I find your attitude
>>very condescending, besides the fact that you've quoted this passage
>>completely out of context.

>	Certainly I'm not. No, I don't. 

>No, it was not out of context. Pharisees weren't eager to know the Truth
>but to find a reason to accuse Jesus in front of the people. 

I want to know the truth.  I am constantly seeking it out.  You make
blanket statements and expect people to believe in them.  You call all
other religions false.  You are the 'blind guide' Jesus warned about.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: MORMONISM ??????
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill West - Naperville, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:03:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.191949.18958@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>The Mormon and Masonic ceremonies are similar in some respects.  This can be a
>an objectively determinable fact.  But to say that the similarity is
>superficial or not is far less easy to determine objectively.  For a Mormon to
>come to the conclusion that the similarities are more than superficial would
>mean that his entire life was wasted on a religion that wasn't really the
>divine revelation he believes it to be.  Could it be that such a person may
>have a rather large motivation to see as superficial a similarity that a
>non-Mormon would see otherwise?
>--
>This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an

I grant that You do have a good point. My only response is this. The only
reference that I have to the Masonic rituals is a copy of _Duncan's Rituals_
which I bought and studied almost a decade ago when I was interested
in this problem. My reaction was, "gee where's the beef?" (sorry about that
:-) The similarities were so superficial that frankly I was a bit disappointed
and sarcastically wondered why Mormons never never got to bury the widow's son.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
 Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnewsc!iwtgo!wcsa
  Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Guarenteed Salvation (Re:Homosexuality and Christianity)
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:53:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <adams.703343852@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>The Bible _guarantees_ salvation for Christians.
>
>[Matthew 7, NIV]
>
>   "(21)Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom
>    of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
>    Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in
>    your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
>    Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you.  Away from me you
>    evildoers!"
>
>See anything wrong with your 'guarantee' now?  Looks to me like some
>Christians will be condemned....

It dependson how you define Christian.  If it applies to all who call 
Jesus "Lord, Lord" including those who do not obey, then there is no
guarentee.  If it refers only to the elect, who believe and obey, and whom God
chose from the foundation of the world, then there is a guarentee.

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

This is not implicit in the verse.  it simply says that those who call Jesus
Lord and do not do the Father's will will be sent away.
Jesus (or John, depending on where you decide to put the quotes, but I think
with the later verb tenses, as least in English, it seems to be a quote)
that he that does not believe on the Son is condemned.
Jesus also said that He was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no
man could come to the Father, except by Him.  This second verse is found
in Matthew, which contains the Scripture you quoted.

Link Hudson.
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Dispensations (was: Why Mormon temple ceremonies are secret)
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:40:46 GMT
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute

In article <1992Apr13.125718.9026@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter  
Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Apr11.185223.13793@hellgate.utah.edu>  
jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> >I argue from a point of view that essential tenets
> >of Christianity were lost relatively early in the history of the
> >Church. 
> 
> The obvious question to a Catholic would be, why did God allow such
> a thing to happen?   What was the point in Jesus founding a church
> only to have it disappear within a generation?
> 
Good questions, and ones which touch upon a fundamental difference in worldview  
between the LDS Church and most other Christian churches. Mainstream  
Christianity sees the gospel which Christ preached as being new and unique,  
something which was never before on the earth--hence the rumbling and tremors  
about pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls and other Jewish apocrypha/pseudopigrypha  
which present Christian teachings and terminology. LDS theology claims that  
there have been a series of gospel dispensations; at the start of each, God  
reveals the gospel to a chosen prophet (Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses,  
etc.), and that prophet attempts to establish a Zion society, a righteous  
people who will live that gospel to the extent that they can truly be called  
God's people. But apostasy ends up occuring--we do, after all, have free  
will--and some period of time goes on before the gospel is restored again. 

Christ's dispensation was, literally, the pivotal one--all the previous ones  
had anticipated His advent, His life and His atonement. But--again, according  
to LDS thought--Christ came knowing that the church He would organize would  
soon be lost to apostasy. There are many passages from the New Testament which  
Latter-day Saints interpret as predicting a general apostasy, not just from the  
early Church, but *of* the Church itself, with a restoration of the gospel to  
occur (yet another dispensation) prior to and in preparation for the second  
coming of Christ. For scholarly references to comments by the early Christians  
Fathers and other historical items, see "The Passing of the Church: 40  
Variations on an Unpopular Theme" by the ubiquitous Hugh Nibley (published some  
years back in one of the biblical journals; I'll dig up the reference).  
..bruce..

Bruce F. Webster
Director, BRI
bwebster@pages.com
#import <pages/disclaimer.h>
From: reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:52:17 GMT


57910
Richard Pitts writes:
 
> Richard Huddleston writes:
 
> >In the Muslim view, Christians perverted the message and meaning of Jesus'
> >visit here, by ascribing a son/father relationship between the two.  This,
> >the Muslim believes, is blasphemy.
 
> That is my point.  They believe it is blasphemy, but the works written about
> Jesus confirm what the Muslims believe to be blasphemy.
 
I guess what you guys believe, then, is a function of the belief system you
grew up under.  Human beings that like to argue about these types of things,
I assert, should really take more responsibility for determining WHY they
believe the things they do.  Aside from spinning like a dervish around the
non-reason, "because it's TRUE!!!" that is.
 
> It is hard for me to tell - Is this your view or is it the Muslim view (that
> there is no contradition?)
 
I don't speak for Islam.  Neither do you speak for Christianity, but I sense
that it might be quite some time before you realize it.
 
...have a nice day.
 
Richard Huddleston

-- 
Perot for President.

Boycott Microsoft.
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:02:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr8.200221.29072
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <22576@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1992Mar30.133722.2953@infonode.ingr.com>,
>stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens) writes:
>> We are independent to choose, but ultimately our happiness must reside in
>> our Creator.  "Happiness" and "independence from God" cannot exist together
>> in his universe.  Satan and his host independently chose separation from
>> God and, consequently, eternal torment, just as you and I can freely do.

Good point.

>The interesting note is that there are many individuals - including me - that
>have personal happiness and joy, and are not tied to any particular religion.

Do you think much about death?  :-)  Do you think the soul survives death?
Is a non-commital stance the safest?  It seems to me that the thing to do is
find the most credible religion and jump it from behind and wrestle it until
you are sure it is the best bet (maybe encountering truth somewhere in the
fight) and then hope you were right.  This is my main problem with atheism.
I think I have done just that and have found what I believe (or rather KNOW)
to be the truth: salvation by grace through God's son Jesus.

>Either we are freaks, or then the emperor has no clothes. Even if I'm a friek
>by other definitions, I'm a happy freak. Freedom is not to tie yourself to
>ancient nomadic norms.

Freedom is the ability to joyfully do what you know is right, which I feel
that I have in Jesus.

John M.
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The New Convenant (was Re: Am I a Christian?)
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:17:13 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

> In article <22583@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>
>>In other words (deleting the twisted meanings in the sentences below) he
>>does not throw out the law of the Old Testament as a useless doctrine. I.e. this
>>is what we have talked about all the time, Paul is the person who created
>>the concept of the new Covenant, not Jesus. It would also imply that
>>*real* Christians should follow the laws of the Old Testament. And 
>>'real' Christians don't do this.

From: ed_l1@verifone.com
>The Ten Commandments were part of my Christian (Catholic) upbringing,
>when I became a non-denomenational protestant I never heard them
>mentioned, yet the gospels say that the ten commandments were "aright,"
>and most Protestants go for literal interpretation of the New Testament,
>but more important was Christ's "New Commandment," "that ye love one
>another."  Please, where was THAT written? Ma, Mk, Lk, Jn?

To Ed:
That was written in John.  However, I need to point out an
out-of-context error in your citing.  "that ye love one
another" is not new.  "as I (Jesus) have loved you." is
what makes the commandment new.  (Jn 13:34 I believe)  Also, this
commandment is specifically for His disciples.
                                                          
To Kent:
I don't think Paul made up the "New Covenant stuff."  Jeremiah
talks about the same "New Covenant stuff" over 600 years before
Paul was born.  As was pointed out in Matthew 22, the greatest commandment
is "Love your God with all your heart with all your mind and with all of
your soul."  I'm citing it wrong I'll admit, but the gist is very much
there.  The point is, "Real Christians" do this very much.
> 
Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: JWs Child Custody booklet, and why a judge might have felt it promoted "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill West - Naperville, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:03:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.132530.1676@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

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

FYI, yesterday, April 7th, I called the Watchtower Society (1-718-625-3600)
and spoke with someone from their legal department. I told them that I wanted
a copy of their booklet: Preparing for Child Custody Cases.

I was asked where I lived, whether or not I was an Elder (I am assuming that
is the title of a local congregation head or an officer of some sort), and
finally if I was a JW.

I told them that I was not a JW, but explained the situation: I participate
on a National Electronic Newsgroup where someone had criticized JWs on the
basis of this pamphlet. My motivation was to get a copy of the pamphlet and
turn it over to a friend, who is a lawyer, for an independant legal opinion
and perhaps settle the legalistic aspects of the discussion.

The gentleman I spoke with was very kind (a little hestitant), but he explained
that this booklet was not usually given to non-JWs, but if I wanted to write a
letter explaining more fully my motivation, then they might consider sending
me a copy.

Apparently this booklet does exist and is given to JWs under certain
circumstances, namely to prepare for Child Custody Cases. Whether or not it
suggests anything that is improper has still not been determined and I would
still like to get a copy in order to get an independant legal opinion.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
 Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnewsc!iwtgo!wcsa
  Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: More on Mormon temple ceremonies
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:27:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.175453.11361@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>>>only like a substantiation of the charge.  Specifically:  From which
>>>Babylonian religions do the authors claim the ceremony derived? and,
>>>In what ways are the ceremonies similar?
>>
>>I haven't the faintest idea, actually.
>
>This question was directed more toward John Muelhausen, who made the
>assertion.  I have never heard this charge before, and it can be
>fairly easily dismissed as it was presented.  Before I can say
>"rubbish," though, I need to have more information on the specifics of
>the assertion.
>
I too would like to hear more on this, as I have never heard anything
like this before.  Everything I have read indicates the temple cerimonies
came from Masonry, however I have never researched where Masonry got their
secret rituals.  I see no reason that Masonry could not have gotten
much of their rituals from some older pagan rituals (and did a search
and replace on some pagan idol substituting Jesus).

>
>I think you missed my point.  My point was that here we have a man who
>is both a Mormon and a Mason.  He alone in this discussion is in
>possession of the facts which allow even a remotely authoritative
>opinion to be rendered.  True, he may be biased.  So might I, so might
>our authors, so might everyone else in the world.
>
I have a co-worker who is on-site presently who is a mormon and
a mason.  I spoke to him at length about this.  His bishop tried to
discourage him from becoming a Mason (quite strongly as I understand).
He did indicate that the masonic rituals and the mormon temple rituals
were similar.  Naturally, he would probably be aware of the current rituals
in the temple and not the older rituals that were much, much closer
to the masonic rituals.  It was a pleasure talking to him, as he was
very open in the discussion, although naturally a bit guarded about
details.



-- 
| Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com        |
| Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then |
| Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.               |
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Mormon temple ceremonies are secret
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:32:10 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <1992Apr9.220601.3220@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

   The last point is important.  In return for our pledge of adherence to
   these high moral standards, God gives us information which, in the
   words of Brigham Young, "enable [us] to pass by the angels which stand
   as sentinels" in the various kingdoms on our way to the highest of the
   degrees of glory where God dwells.  It is this information which is
   guarded by the obligations of silence.  It is considered a violation
   of such obligations to discuss this information in any degree of
   detail outside of the temple.

When I first heard of the secret temple ceremonies of the LDS church,
I thought, ``Gee, that sounds like the gnostics.''  Now I'm sure.  

--
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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:18:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.003144.2006@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind) writes:
>Jack Carroll, in an article recounting his own life story and his several
>attempts at suicide, wrote this:
>> These are religions of intolerance and power, and they are obsessed with
>> punishment, bloodshed and death.  Anyone who claims to be a Christian or a
>> Jew and cannot or will not demonstrate that he has repudiated the power-
>> lusting part of his heritage is an assassin poised to rip your throat open
>> as a sacrifice to his blood-drinking god.
>And Ken Arromdee has posted several articles claiming that Mr Carroll is a
>`Jew-hater'.
>Firstly, the conclusion does not follow.  Mr Carroll specifically exempts
>Jews/Christians from his description if they are not in favor of mistreating
>homosexuals.  If he was a Jew-hater, he'd hate _all_ Jews, instead of those
>who exhibit particular attitudes or behaviour.

He claims that Judaism is a religion of intolerance and power.  Not a version
of Judaism, not a subset of Judaism, but Judaism.

>he dislikes homophobes, and he believes (rightly or wrongly) that Judaism &
>Christianity are often correlated with homophobia.

As a later article revealed, the homophobia part is only a minor factor in his
condemnation of Judaism and the Old Testament.

>Secondly, while I find a literal reading of this pretty gross, it's pretty
>clearly metaphorical (it's been some time since Christians killed anybody for
>heresy, and even longer since the Jews invaded Caanan).  As a metaphor, the
>quoted section works well to illustrate Mr Carroll's perspective.

It hasn't been terribly long, however, since people called Jews bloodthirsty
and then persecuted them for it.  (In fact, it's still happening in some parts
of the world today.)

>And finally, what I find interesting about Mr Arromdee's reply is that he
>claims Mr Carroll is a `Jew-hater' -- but everything said about Jews was also
>said about Christians, and Mr Arromdee apparently doesn't mind that one bit.
>So far as I can make out, Mr Arromdee thinks that saying unpleasant things
>about Christians doesn't make one a Christian-hater, but saying unpleasant
>things about Jews makes one a Jew-hater.

Actually, yes, he is a Christian-hater too--but the Jew-hater part is far more
dangerous.  I don't recall the last time someone called Christians blood-
thirsty in order to incite violence against Christians--but for Jews it's too
familiar.  Furthermore, Mr. Carroll quoted a personal experience which
involved Christians; if he was driven near suicide in the name of Christianity,
his violent anger towards Christians is at least understandable.
--
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