HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:41:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Apr13.203923.4959@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
> and I found in that role that far
>worse sins flourished in my silence and avoidance of offense to those
>whose doubts I was attempting to accomodate.

Perhaps we agree on one thing: that all sins are not equal.

Link Hudson.
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:02:01 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr8.215020.11495@meaddata.com> jeb3@meaddata.com
(Jennifer Bing) writes:

> I think it is safe to say that Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost act and speak in
> agreement. God said "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it
> is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 Read also Romans 1:27.

Well, I think it is pretty insulting to the Holy Spirit to saddle Him
with the authorship of Leviticus. And anyway, as is so often pointed out
with so little effect, you shouldn't use Leviticus as an argument unless
you are pretty strict about keeping its commandments yourself. When is
the last time you worried about the fact that all fat belongs to the Lord
and you must not eat any? Even strictly observant Jews don't do all
the things I read in Leviticus.

Let's read a few of the red-hot ideas you want to attribute to the Holy
Spirit:

"One who suffers from a malignant skin-disease shall wear his clothes torn,
leave his hair disshevelled, conceal his upper lip, and cry, 'Unclean,
unclean.'"

Leviticus worries a lot about skin disease, but it does also get into
the area of sexual conduct. For instance, "You shall not approach a
woman to have intercourse during her period of menstruation"; "You
shall not have intercourse with a woman and her daughter"; I don't
hear that much about these, for some reason. This is too bad, because
some of these things carry the same penalty as gay sex, namely, death:
"If a man takes both a woman and her mother, that is lewdness. Both he
and they shall be burnt". The menstruation thing is not so bad: "They
both shall be cut off from their people".

>Why do you say I judge you, when the word of God judges you. I don't speak
>my words.

I wasn't making this personal; I was concerned that you seemed to be
violating the commandments of Jesus--the very commandments you claim
to be supporting.  I am wondering about the words you speak, because
in fact you do speak them. Or are you saying with Jesus, I am not
myself the source of these words I speak to you?  Are you inspired by
the Holy Spirit here?

>Jesus said, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my father
>will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with
>him." He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which
>ye hear is not mine, but the Father which sent me". ST. John 14:23-24.

Well, OK. Don't tell *me*--do it! Why is this so hard to understand?
--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date:  8 Apr 92 15:56:05 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>>In article <1992Apr7.152254.8046@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>	Indeed I have thought. We don't teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>	loot and terrorize like many others do.
>>>>OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>loot, and terrorize?
>>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 

>>Name them.

>	Go to prison and ask what is their religion. 

Huh?  Just because someone claims a certain religion doesn't imply that the
religion sanctions their actions.  I bet there is at least one JW in
prison.

 -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: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM')
Keywords: zeal, znake, zloth, zailfish, zalamander, zcorpion, `Zoof!'
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 00:19:06 GMT

>Now I ask you, what is so terrible about the Mormon temple ceremony?
>Why is it so dangerous that it needs to be exposed, contrary to the
>wishes of its participants?

You tell us... :-)  Being secretive about things like this is HUGE cause for
distrust.

>Making people feel like dirt is a very poor way of helpig them,
>especially if there's another way.  As I said before, if Mormonism is
>so inherently evil, and if the Mormon temple ceremony is so inherently
>immoral, why can't our authors simply display a more pleasing
>alternative?

Because people aren't going to change unless they are shown the problems with
what they already accept.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:13:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr8.221335.750
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Apr8.195454.27979@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>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.
Graphic? What? Stick their finger up another man's nose, stick their
tongue up another man's toes, what?

Sorry, it's not clear to me.
-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: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Radical departure
Keywords: angry young man
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:07:38 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>In article <adams.702931279@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>>
>>>How about a new newsgroup for those of us (cheers, Kent!!!) who are
>>>thinking clearly? It could be called "talk.life." 
>>
>>So any of us who truly believe in God are not thinking clearly?  I don't
>>understand how you can claim this to be the universal case.  I for one like
>>science, and respect scientists.  Science doesn't get in the way of God any
>>more than God gets in the way of science.  I like the physical sciences and
>>accept most of the theories promulgated.  

>He didn't mention science explicitly, although I for one think that religion
>and science will always conflict.  Anyway, one of the areas in which I
>don't think you can be thinking clearly is with regards to your homosexuality.
>I am somewhat baffled by the homosexual Christians who throw up smoke
>screens to try to hide the rather obvious fact that the Bible, your holy
>book, is quite clearly anti-homosexual.  I would imagine that Christian
>homosexuals must go through some quite agonizing rationalizations in
>order to convince themselves that God really does love them too.  This
>only compounds the problems resulting from being a member of a homophobic
>society.  The solution to me is obvious: junk the damn religion.

Oops.  I am happily married, with two children, and one on the way.  I have
never had, nor do I wish to have, a homosexual relationship.  You've made
a terribly false asumption here.  So, now, why am I not thinking clearly?
Because I can find room in my heart to accept others as they are, and try 
to open the kingdom of heaven to all sinners?

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: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:34:41 GMT
	<1992Apr14.052931.5892@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <adams.703260182@spssig>
	<1992Apr14.182015.10172@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

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

>If the same people who were defending homosexuality also said that
>sex with more than one partner was OK, then the chances of convincing
>them of anything at all about morality would be slim to none.

What is immoral about sex (heterosexual or homosexual) involving more
than one partner?  I have seen no conclusive evidence that promiscuity
is inherently immoral; merely that it requires a greater deal of care
and caution in choosing partners.
--
You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics.  But not
much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority
ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient
book written by ignorant nomads as a guide.  -- Doug Graham (dgraham@bnr.ca)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 20:58:12 GMT

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.

I think that is why we are having this discussion... :-)


John M.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:38:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

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?
>Eric

Frankly, I do not think that most of those who do not believe in
Christianity will take this as authoratative as a Christian would.
If the Holy Spirit convicts someone when the hear the Truth, and they 
believe, then they should repent of all their sins, including sexual 
sins dealing with marriage or homosexuality.  If someone tries to follows the
moral laws of God without God's gracious gift, it may do him some good in
this life, but he still will need to repent and believe.

Link Hudson.
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Keywords: sexuality, attraction, beliefs, Scripture, `Lick!'
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:04:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Apr9.230448.19122
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Apr9.210119.15199@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>This is so simple I can't beleive the
>responses I've been getting (actually I can because it is easy to justify
>things in your own mind - I did it with heavy metal music for years)

Why does this not surprise me?

>Just think about it for a while and I am sure you will come to the conclusion
>that homosexuality is of man, not of God, and that it is not going to benefit
>the life of _any_ Christian.

I'm afraid I don't come to that conclusion.  Listen, people aren't
axioms, and one's relationship with God isn't a theorem.  If there's
anything worse than talking to an engineer, it's talking to a "born-again"
engineer--everything becomes an engineering problem!  All you have to
do is follow the formulas!  Sorry, pal.

>In any case, this situation is at the top of my prayer list, so watch out!

I won't hold my breath.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: No more temple discussion
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:33:26 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

This concludes my contribution to the discussion on LDS temple
ceremonies.  I do not propose to continue for the following reasons:

1.  It is a topic most sacred to Mormons.  They do not discuss it
    casually in public.  I feel it is inappropriate to continue
    discussing it in this or any other newsgroup.

2.  My contribution on this subject has already exceeded what I
    consider to be my share of the bandwidth.

3.  Readers have communicated to me desires that the thread be
    dropped.

4.  John Muelhausen has adequately demonstrated his unwillingness
    to consider the merit of my arguments in previous posts.  He
    seems more devoted to propagating his own interpretation of
    Mormonism than in hearing how practicing Mormons believe.  His
    name is in my kill file, and I will be responding to no more
    of his posts.

5.  I have in the past few days spent more time reading and posting
    news than work, school, and sleep combined.

Sincere apologies to Michael Bushnell, to whom I promised a study of
hidden knowledge lost to early Christianity.  I don't foresee
completing it soon, since real and pressing duties demand my time
elsewhere.  If you email me, I will send you what I have, plus
pointers to possibly helpful references.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Quality of life
Date:  7 Apr 92 17:12:16 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson) writes:

>In article <adams.702651754@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson) writes:
>>
>>>If you enjoy your life, why ruin it by always thinking "What if...."
>>But that's just it.  My life isn't ruined.  Why do you all think that
>>following God ruins peoples' lives?  I enjoy my life MORE because of my
>>religion.
>I never implied that "God" ruins your life.  What I intended is that if you
>have to question every action you take, in terms of "God's" views, what fun
>is life?
I don't question every action I take.  I do what I believe to be in line
with God's desires.  Mostly, that I love Him, love my neighbors, love my
enemies and do unto others as I would have them do unto me.  Actually, what
I do is try to do this.  I don't always succeed.  Does this mean that I
don't enjoy my life?  I certainly do.  I skydive, I have a loving family, I
play chess, I read books, I go to church, I study the Bible.  I don't see
how you could say I'm not having fun.

Certainly, I don't intentionally try to violate God's laws.  But if I
follow the basic principles laid out above, I don't have to check every
decision with the Bible.

Don't you consider how your actions might affect others before you do
them?  How is this different than my consideration of God's opinion?

>>>If there is a God, I'm sure he would want us to enjoy everything he has
>>>given us to the fullest, and not worry about Him.
>>
>>The available evidence suggests otherwise.  Granted, many people don't
>>accept the evidence of the Bible, but, hey, that's their choice.
>>
>Here we go with the "evidence in the Bible" thread again.  I didn'nt want
>to get into this, but it always seems to rear it's ugly head.
>Before that, could you explain yourself?

Sure.  I've read the scriptures.  They changed my life.  Plain and simple.
I learned from them a different, better way of living.  I am much more
tolerant of others, my friends and family notice that I care more and
condemn less, I treat others as I want them to treat me.

I accept the Bible as basic evidence of God's intention.  If you ask me for
absolute, tangible proof of the existence of God, I can't give it to you.
I simply believe that God exists.  Countering that, can you prove that He
doesn't?  Neither of us can present absolute evidence or proof.

 -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: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr10.062939.8905@spdcc.com>
	<1992Apr10.165122.14722@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:05:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.165122.14722@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

   New prediction: Gay people are made that way by God and have just
   as much right to a fulfilling sexual relationship as any straight
   person, because the Bible has been misread in this area.

   Let me remind you that this is the same line of thought that almost
   _all_ Christian based cults take: "The Bible is correct as far as
   it has been correctly translated..."  Of course they mean "We will
   listen to what the Bible has to say as long as it does not conflict
   with our own interests..."  Let me just say that this is a _very_
   dangerous way to live your Christian life; where does it end?
   There are absolutes, they have been set down by God, and he
   protects his word (if he didn't what's the use of giving ti in the
   first place?)

Except, this is not necessarily so.  The fact that you have misread
part of the Bible does not mean that I have, nor does it mean that I
am basing my readings on what I want to find.  The fact that a reading
is yours does not somehow make it less suspect than if it were mine.


--
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
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: THE DARKSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:22:30 GMT


In article #10139 John Muehlhausen states:

	[Jesus] "must have been one of three things:

	-a liar
	a lunatic
	Lord

	You missed one, John.
	Isn't it possible that Jesus was just a good man who looked
around the world and saw bad things, and started making suggestions that
were so logical, so profound, that his followers decided that he
MUST be the son of god, and twisted the history to represent
that decision?
	There are many presidents in other historical sources
to support such a theory.

Mr. Muehlhausen goes on to say:

	"I cannot resolve these things, nor can anyone "prove"
christianity beyond a shadow of a doubt since it is based on
non-repeatable phenomena."

	The issue is not proving christianity, christianity
exists.  The issue is proving that christianity is in fact
true.
	You use the term "non-repeating phenomena"  By definition,
that means that it does not exist now.  If it ever did.  Everything
which exists is provable. 

	"You have to leave the scientific proof method behind,
because it is simply not applicable to historical events."

	True enough.  But we're not asking for proof of a historical
event.  What we seek proof of is the existence of god.  Sofar,
none has been presented in this forum.

Kelley L. Miller
ae642@yfn.ysu.edu
-- 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 22:43:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.114903.488@yvax.byu.edu> mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.070920.14338@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> Concept of Jesus
>> ----------------
>> 
>> I am still confused as to who Jesus is in the Mormon faith.  A couple of
>> things are certain though: Jehovah (same person as Jesus?) was with God
>> during the creation, and he is definitely not the same person as God.
>> He is not responsible for our salvation.
>
>	Not true.  LDS doctrine is VERY clear that salvation comes through and
>ONLY through Christ.  The Book of Mormon is very clear on this subject.

My whole point was that this is NOT reflected in the Temple ceremonies!!!
In them is salvation by the grace of God?  NO!
Is Jesus God?  NO!
What else do you need besides Jesus?  According to the Temple ceremonies
quite a bit...  In fact he is not even an issue!  You could be a very good
Mormon as far as Endowment is concerned and still not believe Jesus is
your savior.  Have you been through these ceremonies?

>> The Christian Jesus is God as man and died to pay the penalty of death
>> for us.  "For the wages of sin is death"  He did this because it is
>> impossible for us to be sin-free.
>> 
>	And that's the "Mormon" Jesus.  That's the simple, plain and clear
>truth of the matter.

Not according to Mr. Sacket (ie Mr. "9 consecutive Temple recommends").
Then you do not need to go through the Endowment to get to "highest heaven"?
Do you not need Joseph Smith's .sig to get into heaven?
The Christian Jesus and the Mormon Jesus are clearly not the same at all.


John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dali@milton.u.washington.edu (David A. Lee)
Subject: Re: Even more Mormonism!!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 07:52:14 GMT

A good book that is not full of anger towards the Mormon people
or beliefs, but merely provides biblical explanations to the 
most common questions that Mormons ask.

It's called:     _Answering_MORMONS'_Questions_   

                           by Bill McKeever 
Bethany House Publishers 
1991


David L.
     
-- 
"There are hundreds of tiny balls in every machine, and hundreds of machines
in every pachinko parlour, and a pachinko parlour on every block in every
town in Japan; so there are billions of little balls falling forever, like a
chromium-plated hailstorm that never melts."  - from "Clive James in Japan" 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc