HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:33:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr9.203348.11660
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <92099.215708QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling) writes:

My stuff about spiritual bonding deleted...

>Do you really believe this line of BS?  Please open your mind and get a
>clue! (I am truely sorry to start this in such a manner, but my off the
>cuff reaction was true anger)
>
>Ok, in your last few lines, you begin to place a rating on various sins,
>this is bad in itself.  I ask you directly - who are you to "rate" various
>sins, tossing out some which look harmless, but steadfastly holding on
>to others?  I submit that it is either all or nothing, or we look at
>the Bible as an evolving work (basic teaching ok, wording, etc change
>with time)

I am not rating sins, and I never said homosexuality was a worse _sin_ than
any other (in fact I said the opposite).  I _did_ say that homosexuality has
more negative consequences than many sins, the biggest of which is a focus on
being gay rather than on serving God.  If you admit that homosexuality is a
sin, but do not believe it is any more serious than eating certain meat,
_then_ your argument holds.  But can you honestly say that being gay won't
keep you from living the way God wants you to live?  Tell me something... Do
you get more upset when people slam your sexuality or when people slam
Christianity?  I hope it is the latter, and if not - your interests are in
the wrong place.  If so, I am confident that you will work it out the way God
wants you to in the end...  After all, I am not an authority on anything,
just presenting what the Bible says to me.

>>All of this assumes that the homosexual has no choice in the matter which I
>>am NOT convinced of by any stretch of the imagination. (If you respond to
>>this also respond to the above please out of courtesy.)  IF this is correct,
>>than these people are called to be as Paul was - single without the burden of
>>the world and able to focus on the Spirit.
>
>I had no choice - I am who I am, a male person in love with another
>male person.  It's quite simple.

I do not doubt that you love this person more than anyone could love
anything.  BUT (you knew that was coming :-) this type of love does not have
sex in its plan from everything that I have been convicted of while
researching this topic.

The last thing I want to do is condemn anyone....

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:09:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.112900.25967@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
>
>	The religions of the Great Babylon, The False Religion. 

Which means (if one reads Watchtower literature at all) ALL other religions
except for the JWs, right Andreas?  Which agrees with the excerpt from the
JWs "Revelation" book I quoted in my article:

"It is the satanic 'air' breathed by the world today, the spirit, or general
mental inclination, that characterizes his whole wicked system of things,
the satanic thinking that permeates every aspect of life outside Jehovah's
organization."   (p.234)

Andreas, why do you hesitate to spell it out?    You expect people to respect
your religion when you play cowardly little games like that?  Is the "truth"
so unpalatable that you can't be direct with it?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<22508@zephyr.ens.tek.com> <1992Apr8.194025.9703@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<22934@goofy.Apple.COM>
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:41:30 GMT

In article <22934@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

   I guess the most natural thing would be to not accept homosexuals and
   lesbians joining Christian churches.

(First, lesbians *are* homosexuals.  They aren't two disjoint
categories.)  

Now, given that the Churches claim to aim at the inclusion of all
humanity, and given that many of us gay people *are* Christians, and
given that we are *already* members of our respective Churches, since
our baptisms, what then?  

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | Blessed is the King
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   who comes in the name of the Lord!
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | Peace in heaven,
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 |   and glory in the highest heaven!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Looking for Sheep (was: Re: MORMONISM ??????)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 11:27:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.010956.1427@pages.com> bwebster@pages.com writes:
>Quite a detailed analysis, considering based on "a few minutes" and Jay's  
>comment. 

The question of missionaries not willing to be 'apologists', but just
'saying their set speech' is one I've heard a few times, so I figured
I'd run with the idea of why that practice might be employed by
some groups.

>The use of the emotionally-ladened term "sheep" is nice, too, though a  
>lot of Christians might have to pause and remember the Savior's comments about  
>His sheep knowing His voice. :-) 

I took the term "sheep" from the JW's; that's the term they use to
denote non-JWs who would accept their message when they hear it.
Didn't mean to be playing on emotion...I'd imagine other groups
use the "sheep" term, _because_  Jesus used it.  Its a good
word to use if you want to encourage people to accept your preaching,
as it implies you're really accepting Jesus' words, and not the
preacher's interpretation of them.  It also implies that if you
don't accept them, you're a "goat", rather than someone who
just is able to think for himself.  A great way of screening
members from people who might think for themselves too much,
just call 'em "goats"...

>Seriously, you do misunderstand the point (and the approach) completely. The  
>task of LDS missionaries is to present their message, 

Ah, I see...if you re-read the top of my post, (before I got rambling)
you'll note I mentioned my only experience with Mormon missionaries
was a brief chat with 2 while doing my laundry one day...:-)  My
post was most definitly *not* meant to imply Mormon missionaries
thought/work that way.  I was meant to examine why some (other) groups
might, without targeting any one particular group in the process.
(why some groups would want their missionaries to just give a set
[or series of set] speeches, and not try to act as apologists)

>then invite the people  
>being taught to decide (through their own study, prayer, and experience)  
>whether or not what was presented is true. 

Sounds good, although it might be difficult for someone to accept
what was presented, without an apologist to explain the differences
from his current faith, unless the person doesn't have any base
in his current faith.  Personally, I wonder about someone who
accepts a new faith from a missionary so quickly, without such
apologetics work; what are they really basing their conversion on?

>responsibility for conversion lies with the hearer--a far better approach, I'd  
>say, than one where passion, rhetoric, and fear lead one to an avowed  
>conversion which seldom lasts. ..bruce..

That's true.  Of course, an apologist need not resort to those things.
Patience, logic, and understanding of where the other person is coming
from (and what issues he needs to deal with) are the tools of a good
apologist.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing (etc. etc.)
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:14:13 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <53896@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> In article <1992Apr7.195156.23577@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>>
>>But what about the Top One Reason Not To?
> 
> There is a way that seems right unto man,
>     but the end there of is death. (Proverbs)

Yep - and it sure looks like you found it, comrade. My congratulations. 

> 
> Sincerely,
> Richard Pitts

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"Every thought is also a prison; every heaven is also a prison." Emerson
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:32:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.230017.2335@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>Actually, I have thought about it quite a bit,

Really?  Do tell!

>lost much sleep,

Why?

>dropped letter grades,

I am truly sorry if my being gay has contributed to your C- becoming a D.

>etc, _and_ been associated with gay individuals.

Wow.

>You're right
>- I can't prove this to you because your toolbox of proofs does not include
>conviction, feelings, and the like.

The difference between you, John, and gay people, is that they know
themselves and presume to act on that knowledge.  They don't give a
flying fuck about you, frankly.  You, who barely have a handle on your
own reality, have convinced yourself that you know what's best for
them, and you don't hesitate to let them know that.  Don't be surprised
if your conclusions are a little suspect.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Awareness of the Holy Spirit (Andreas - Siperian Sirri Siberian Stint)
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:32:07 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr16.084051.11079@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Of course we believe in the holy ghost. Every baptized witness is      
>	baptized to the name of holy ghost. 


  I wonder if you could look past the "belief" in the Holy Spirit 
aspect and share with us for a moment the "inner" experience of the 
Holy Spirit that *you* personally know and experience. I'm also
interested in what the JW teach about both the opening up to the
awareness of the Spirit of God, and how that is manifested within
a person.

  Please understand that I am not out hunting bear. As a fellow 
lover of the Divine, I'm interested in seeing how the more spiritual
aspects of spiritual awarenesses of God are manifested within
the JW tradition. 




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

	David Hatcher
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tnap1@isuevax.iastate.edu (ABDUR RAHMAN)
Subject: Re: The After-life
Reply-To: tnap1@isuevax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:06:21 GMT

In article <53801@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.141548.16022@news.iastate.edu> tnap1@isuevax.iastate.edu writes:
>>	Answer... The answer is the Heaven is the reward God will give to the
>>people who believe in Him and Worship Him alone without adding other Gods with
>>Him. He will reward them for there faith and good deeds. Hell is the punishment
>>that God gives to those who refused to believe in Him and to worship Him as He
>>has commanded them to. Some people have invented lies against God and have
>>included them in thier religion thus there is a lot of cofusion and
>>misunderstanding. God is Not our Father, we are Not his Children. God Is our
>>Lord and we are his Servants.
>
>    I believe you will find in Psalm 100, that we are his children the
>sheep of his pasture, in the NIV, which I don't have one with me, nor do I have
>a good concordance handy.
>
>    Jesus accepted the titles of Lord and Master and The Christ, the Son
>of the Living God (Matt. 16:15-17).  In John 13:13, Jesus said that
>he is rightly called Teacher and Lord, for that is what he is.
>
>    In John chapter 1, Jesus is given the attributes of being the Word
>(v1), being with God (v1), being God (v1), being with God in the 
>beginning (v2), being reponsible for the creation of all things (v3),
>being in the world (v10), made flesh (v14), and dwelt among us (v14).
>John says they have seen his glory, of the One and Only, who came 
>from the Father (v14).
>
>>	The Truth that hasn't been changed is with Islam only,
>>	Abdur Rahman
>
>The Bible attributes the titles of Lord and God to Jesus, who Islam 
>claims was a prophet like many others, correct?
 Correct Muslims believe that Jesus Christ the son of Mary was a prophet of
God.
>How does Islam reconcile a prophet being attributed as such and more
>so being given the title Son of God?
>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts
In the Qur`an it plainly states that the Jesus never taught anyone to believe
that he was a "Son of God" or that he was God or that he was part of a Trinity.
All these things were invented about him after he had be raised to Heaven. So
it is in our view, the Christians straying from what Prophet Jesus taught them.

Abdur Rahman
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: The Ending of Mark (was: Myths Concerning Christianity #3)
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<l+qjmq#.sheaffer@netcom.com> <1992Apr7.194553.28629@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:36:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.194553.28629@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

   In article <l+qjmq#.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) 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.

Nope, sorry.  The *ideas* are the same as Luke's, more or less, which
is what Mr Sheaffer is getting at, but the words are not the same.
Also, Mark's Greek is really pretty bad; his style is almost like
someone writing in a Semitic language but using Greek words.  Both
endings to Mark are not like that at all, but neither are they like
Luke's Greek.

	-mib

--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | This is a virulent meme.  Whether or not you place
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | this into your signature file is irrelevant.  You
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | have already participated in its further trans-
			  | mission, and will doubtless continue to do so.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Looking for Sheep (was: Re: MORMONISM ??????)
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:26:37 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Apr13.124155.8758@apollo.hp.com>, smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

> It also keeps the missionary from critically analyzing his own
> beliefs; when you are busy "dispensing the truth to others", you
> aren't going to be critically analyzing if what you're dispensing
> (and what you believe) is sensible, or good/bad.  The more
> importance the group places on the missionary work (in other
> words, if your recruting a person into the group means the
> person's salvation; no salvation outside the group) the less
> likely the missionary is to be able to critically analyze his
> beliefs. 

And wouldn't it be neat if it really worked that was in Real Life (tm). 

Some of the most serious questioning I have done regarding
Mormonism was done during my mission.  If I was going to be
tellinjg others that this is what I believed and that it was
true, I had to know for myself, without a reasonable doubt that
it was true.  I found that knowledge *before* I began teaching
and preaching Mormonism as a missionary.  Critical analysis
played a part, but the Holy Spirit played a much more significant
part in my search.  I mean, if God lets you know something is so,
why keep looking for proofs or justifications?

> The missionary work in effect comes to serve 2 purposes; bring in
> a steady flow of new "sheep", and internalize the doctrine to the
> missionary.  If he's teaching it to others, (and 'saving' them in
> the process) in his mind he will come to believe it more and more.
> If he had doubts about things, this will help bury/cure them.
> There will be dissonance between his doubts, and his actions;
> namely, his missionary work.  If the motivation for believing
> can be made stronger than the motivation for not believing,
> he will end up solving the dissonace by believing, or just not
> thinking about the things he wasn't sure about.  Control
> his actions, and the mind will follow, in other words; the
> action being teaching the doctrines to others.   If he believes
> that by recruiting others he is saving them, then his actions
> are controlled, he will recruit; and his mind will have to
> follow by suppressing the doubts.  
> 
> The more the missionary is successful in recruiting people, the
> more convinced he will be that his doubts were wrong; the new
> converts seemed to believe the teachings in question;  so by
> weight of numbers, they must be right.   If he ran into too
> many people who were not convinced, and who could explain why,
> that might cause his doubts to resurface, and make him question
> if he should be teaching others these things he's not so sure
> of himself; thus weakening furthur the process that supressed
> the doubts in the first place.  

Funny then, that those missionaries that go to western Europe
and are lucky to baptize 2 or 3 persons in two years don't leave
the Church in droves.

-- 
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:36:46 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Apr10.010525.11764@wam.umd.edu> reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston) writes:
>[...Pitts' comparisons of Christianity and Islam: apparently, he thinks that
>    Jesus' claim to be the equal of God to present a paradox, or something...]

My point was that Islam claimed Jesus to be a prophet and not the Son of God.
My comments were directed at the claims that the previous post made w.r.t Islam.

The New Testament, the books written about Jesus of Nazerath, present Jesus
as the Son of God, God, being here before the world was created, in fact,
creating the world, and being made flesh and dwelling among us. (John 1)

I questioned how Islam could say Jesus was just a prophet, but yet be 
attributed the titles, "God, Son of God, Lord, Christ - Son of the Living God."

>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.

>There is no contradiction between the Muslim assertion that Jesus was a prophet
>and his claim to be God.

It is hard for me to tell - Is this your view or is it the Muslim view (that
there is no contradition?)   I never claimed a contradiction, but was pointing
out a problem with Islam.  

What does blasphemy mean to you or to the Muslims?  

Again, How do is the just another prophet approach reconciled with Jesus
being called Son of the Living God and God?  Jesus was not just another prophet.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:00:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23298
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr13.151704.26809@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> 	False religion can only produce works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21 :
> 	"fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of        
> 	spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, 
> 	divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like 
> 	these." and the true religion produces fruitages of the spirit  
> 	(Galatians 5: 22,23 : Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, 
> 	goodness, faith, mildness, self-control."). 

So if you follow the true religion, why are you then so angry and sad?

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Why Mormon temple ceremonies are secret
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<MIB.92Apr10103210@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr10.115605.12435@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 02:49:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.115605.12435@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

   mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
   >
   >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.  

   Recall the discussion we had about six months ago about this.  The
   first charge levelled by Christianity against the gnostics was not
   that they had secret knowledge at all, but that they had the WRONG
   secret knowledge.

Can you provide a patrisic reference for this claim?  I've read a fair
bit of the charges levelled against the gnostics, and I've never seen
any statement or allusion to secret Christian knowledge possesed by
the orthodox.

   So yes, it does sound like gnosticism, but that ignores the
   supportable statement that there was a true Christian gnosis which was
   lost.

If this is so, then I must ask precisely the same question asked of
the original gnostics: Why was this oh-so-crucial knowledge not passed
on through Christ's apostles, and their successors, the bishops of the
Church?

	-mib
--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | This is a virulent meme.  Whether or not you place
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | this into your signature file is irrelevant.  You
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | have already participated in its further trans-
			  | mission, and will doubtless continue to do so.