HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:26:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.054106.14603@menudo.uh.edu> kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>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.

Either you're new to post-Reformation Christianity or to talk.religion.misc
or both or you're being very, very wry.


>A sufficiently powerful entity may accomplish anything...

Yeah, good idea.  Where is She?


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: More on Mormon temple ceremonies
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:19:43 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

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

>Fine, thank you, but I'd rather decide that myself.  You wish me to totally
>ignore the anti-Mormon writers but to accept the Prom-Mormon ones.

Only in this case.  I wish you to consider the comparative authority
of each source.

>If the anti-Mormon writers really didn't know any facts, that'd be different.
>But even you admit they know something; you just claim that facts are omitted
>and that explanations are distorted.

Wait a minute.  Let's go back to the question, because you don't seem
to get the picture yet.

Our authors made a statement that "Mormonisms secrets come from Free
Masonry."  Now in order to make that statement with any authority, one
would have to know both the secrets of Mormonism AND the secrets of
Masonry.  We can surmise that, as temple workers, our authors know the
secrets of Mormonism.

But what of Masonry?  How can this be a valid comparison unless it can
be shown that our authors have some knowlege of the secrets of Masonry?

I admitted they know something, yes, ABOUT MORMONISM.  I have seen
absolutely zero evidence that they know anything about Masonry, just
as I have seen absolutely zero evidence that they know anything about
ancient Babylonian religions.  As I see it, they're just repeating
common charges.

But instead I have Mervin B. Hogan, author of "Historicity of the
Alleged Influence of Free Masonry on Mormonism," who has studied this
problem in depth.  As a Mormon and as a Mason he knows the secrets of
both, and I have presented his opinion.

Now I have seen the assertion frequently presented that Masonry was
the source for Mormonism.  But in every single case it was presented
by someone who knew little or nothing about either Mormonism or
Masonry.  As Sherlock Holmes said, "It is a capital error to reason
with no data" (or words to that effect).  Despite the honorability of
one's intentions, despite the most rigorous avoidance of bias, it is
still a capital error to make this kind of assertion without being
fully informed.

So by all means compare the two accounts, weigh them in your mind, and
make your decision.  But I would hope you would take the question
seriously enough to examine the authors in question and determine in
light of their specific knowledge which of them is in better
possession of the information necessary to decide.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE DARKSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:54:23 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr17.031116.14416@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>The statement was meant for those who would argue that Jesus is not God based
>on the Bible, but here goes anyway:

  I'm sorry, but in looking at where Jesus kept looking and to whom 
Jesus kept praying to, all I see is the Father. He even pointed to the 
Father in teaching us to who we should pray to and in who he said 
would forgive us of our sins.

  Arguing about the Divinity of Jesus I feel is missplaced. I feel that
one would be better off by following the teaching of Jesus and by spiritually
uniting with him to come to the Father. That is the issue that is 
most important for Christians. 

>-A Liar
>-A Lunatic
>-Lord

  I'm sorry, but these ARE NOT the only options to choose from. There
are others. The ones presented are none that I would choose from. 

  Why are they the only ones we see over and over. Is there something
with in certain circles that is offering this argument inorder to
prove a point?



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Whine Whine was (Re: Court rules JW )
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:04:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.201603.27095@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
> Is there a
> difference here between the intent of the central organization and the 
> practise of the local so-called believer? I would hope so.

I think there is.  You'll find dishonest people in all religions.  The question
is, which religions actually promote it among its followers.  While the
word "lie" may be a bit strong for the case at hand, the JW's Child
Custody book does encourage the JWs to give the court a misleading
impression about what the JWs are taught to believe, with the 
apparent goal being to make them look less "extreme", and thus
have a better chance of the JW parent winning custody of the child(ren)
in question.   

If the court realized that the JWs would teach the child to view the
non-JW parent's religion as "filthy", would the court be inclined to
let the JW parent have custody?  No; thus the JW HQ encourages the
child to say he is taught to respect others beliefs; etc, etc.

The JWs I've known personally are basically honest people.  Keep off
the subject of religion with them, and they're fine.  But once they
get onto that, its like a machine turning on, and they seem to say
whatever will "win" the discussion, or whatever will make the
Watchtower Society not look bad.  They are very protective of
the "organization", to the point that honesty seems to fly out
the window.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:06:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.173811.12321@wam.umd.edu> reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston) writes:
>Here's the problem with what you're saying:
>Each and every experience we have is completely private, in that it is
>perceived completely and totally within the brain of the experiencer.
>Your creature that can tickle someone's "experiencing God" brain area
>can tickle ANY area of the brain he wants to.  So, he can make a person
>see your name in a phone book; can make a person hear people say that they
>know you; etc.  There is no way to confirm ANYTHING if we accept EVEN A
>LITTLE of your argument.  Further, we are not required to extend your
>hypothesis one iota in order to explain away your examples.

Clarification, I suppose:

It is possible to say that I'm an illusion.  But you can't say that _only_ I
am an illusion; in order to say that I am an illusion while being consistent,
you also have to explain away lots of other things as being illusion or
deceit: my picture, my name in the phone book, articles ostensibly posted by
me, etc.

On the other hand, you _can_ say a private personal experience is an illusion
without requiring (for coherency) that you explain lots of other things as
illusions also.
--
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)
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rosary
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:51:14 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr17.125132.1784@vixvax.mgi.com> carpenter@vixvax.mgi.com writes:
>I am interested in the Rosary as a form of meditative prayer,
>but am put off somewhat by the strong Mary-orientation of some
>of the mysteries, particularly the fourth and fifth joyous mysteries.
>I believe, however, that a number of sets of alternate mysteries
>have been approved by various responsibile bodies.  I would appreciate
>information on this.  Thanks in advance.



  May I suggest that you read "The Way of a Pilgrim" for a very
good view on inner meditative prayer that focuses on the use of
the Jesus Prayer.




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


	David Hatcher
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:27:29 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <53936@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
>     In I Cor 1, Paul discusses the wisdom of God and of the world and what
> the world is looking for.  He says that God in His wisdom saw fit to
> bring about salvation through the foolishness of the cross (Christ 
> crucified.) The world in its wisdom, which is different from God's wisdom,
> was confounded, because of the simplicity of this "belief in the cross"
> approach to God.  Paul says the Jews seek a sign and the Greeks (non-Jews)
> seek wisdom, but we (Christians) preach Christ crucified, a stumbling 
> block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles (non-Jews.)

Note again the architect behind this doctrine - Paul.

Cheers,
Kent
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:18:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1992Apr16.151813.23152
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia

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

>There is a stunning difference between Buddhism as a popular religion
>in the Far East and Buddhism as it is viewed in the West,

I don't know that I'd say "stunning", but, yes, I'm told there is a
difference. I think this is due to the fact that buddhism has become
stale over there. There have been several zen teachers who have come
over (mostly) from Japan in the hope of rejuvenating zen by transplanting
it to a new culture.

>The Zen community is
>vanishingly small compared with the three much larger varieties of
>Buddhism in the world.

Which three are you thinking of?

>I've gotten first hand reports from people of
>what their Shinto Buddhist and Mahayana (sp?) Buddhist families
>thought about their being gay, and the arguments from religion were
>sadly familiar.

Shinto Buddhist? hybrid of shintoism and buddhism? By the way, Mahayana
(of which zen is a branch) is one of the two main schools of buddhism, and
is quite diverse. So, when you mention mahayana buddhists, you're talking
about a rather large and disparate group. Anyway, what exactly were these
arguments from religion? I'm having trouble imagining that they would be
very similar to those used by the Bible fundies, considering that buddhists
are generally atheists.

>I'm less familiar with the moral aspects of Taoism as
>practiced in China, but it's spiritual aspects are very different from
>what you might expect after reading the Tao Te Ching.

Taoism is getting a shot in the arm here, too, perhaps mostly through
the growing popularity of the practice of t'ai-chi ch'uan, and to a lesser
extent, ch'i-gung.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |         Laden e-mail runs
Academic Computing Center       | Bumbling, creaking through the net
University of Virginia          |         Sysadmins tremble.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Buson
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Ending of Mark (was: Myths Concerning Christianity #3)
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:35:25 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

One possibility I've wondered about is that the ending was left out in
order for that part to presented as an oral "eyewitness to the
resurrection" thing. If Mark was written primarily for the use of the
Christians of Rome, it might have been felt that the ending was
something which had to be done "in person", so to speak.

--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
From: pdj7631@zeus.tamu.edu (Illithid the Mind Flayer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:24:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr10.014956.20038@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes...
>>Here is where the judgement comes in.  It is _your_ belief that "The
>>[Christian] Bible is relevant to all".  Not all people believe that.  That
>>makes it a judgement.
> 
>That the Bible is relevant to all is from the Bible- not from me.
> 
>Chris

But can't you see that you have to first accept the truth of the Bible for
that statement to mean anything?  To someone such as myself who considers
it just one more religious text among many, its claim of correctness is
irrelevent.  They all claim that.  You believe that the Bible is relevant to
everyone because you believe in it already.  I don't.  In fact, I see it
as a harmful book, based on what it says and on the historical and present
consequences of belief.

______
\    /___   Illithid  (Paul D. Jones)    Texas A&M, especially the Corps
 \  /   /                                of Cadets, stands staunchly behind
  \/\  /    PDJ7631@zeus.tamu.edu        each and every one of my opinions.
     \/
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs Child Custody booklet, and why a judge might have felt it promoted "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:53:09 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

toriver@flipper.pvv.unit.no (Tor Iver Wilhelmsen) writes:
>Not to mention that all those statements to the effect that the nazis
>killed people in concentration camps during WWII are lies, damn lies,
>put out by the Sionist Movement and the Elders of Zion. Ever heard
>about "conspiracy theories" and "historical revisionism"??

	Yes, but the difference was that when neo-nazis wanted to give an 
	award to anyone, who could prove the camps existed, the sum was 
	judged to a Jewish man that had been in the camp, i.e there was 
	EVIDENCE. 

	WTBTS has a WTBTS-publications index, where all publications of the
	Society are listed. It's not in the list, so it doesn't exist. Another
	proof is the things he (Walter) quoted - they're strictly against our
	major principles. 

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

	Prove it. 

>Probably because you only read what your elders tell you to read;

	How do YOU know what I read ?

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:29:33 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr7.181416.17830@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu
(CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:

>This comment was only an opinion that I voiced. Notice I said opinion.

I don't see what difference this makes. Do you really think an opinion
is something you ought to have without some kind of a reason for it?

--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Bible
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:00:56 GMT
 <22820@goofy.Apple.COM> <54388@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.

In article <54388@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
says:
>
>In article <22820@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>
>>Could you explain why I have a great time just now, and no religious
>>needs?
>
>Could it be that your have made yourself to be your own god?

Could it be that he's sane?
I love that he "rationalizes" the statement by another belief, but the quote
is even more fun...

>
>"Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks
>to him - for God's qualities have been clearly seen in nature and so men
>are without excuse.  Although they claimed to be wise, they exchanged the

"clearly seen"? NOT! If they were, we wouldn't have a problem. We don't
"know" god, we only know of the belief. We haven't seen him to be clearly
around...

>glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man.  They
>exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created
>things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised" Rom 1:18-25.

Wrong again, as I don't worship anything. I don't worship idols, other
people, or myself. A complete lack of worship. The scripture doesn't even
apply to me. Try again.

>
>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |
>Atlanta, GA                --|--

Martin Schulte
From: 00bjmccauley@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Bible Poll Results
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:45:09 GMT

The results from my totally un-scientific Bible poll are as follows:

KJV	1
NASB	1
NJB	1
NRSV	2
JPS TANAKH	1
NAB	2
NIV	4
NONE	1

That is what I got.  If you have any questions, drop me a line at one
of the addresses listed below.

-- 
Brian J. McCauley				
Ball State University

Bitnet:		00bjmccauley@bsuvax1.bitnet
Internet:	00bjmccauley@bsu-ucs.bsu.edu
Unix:		brianm@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
From: davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: a little confused...
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:50:48 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: a little confused...
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: California State University, Fresno
Keywords: 

In article <adams.702740375@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
|
|>dove@elaine9.Stanford.EDU (Dav Somebody) writes:
|
|>>---
|>>I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
|>>fathers upon the children... Exod 20:5
|>>
|>>The son shall not bear the iniquities of the father... Ezek 18:20
|>>---
|
|>Along with the ones I deleted at the top, I have no answer for this
|>one on textual grounds.  Any takers?
|
|I can try this one, with help from the NIV editors.  Basically, starting
|with the prophecy of Jerimiah (31:29 et seq.), we see God promising to
|repeal the application of blood corruption.  Plus, the whole passage of

So, god can be wrong sometimes?  Pretty weak for an omnipotent, omniscient
being that we're supposed to look up to.

|Ezekiel needs to be read (18:1-32).  Ezekiel took the people to task for
|continuing to apply this proverb.
|

Maybe he should have taken god to task for ever making such a monstrous
law.

|Anybody got anything to add?
|
| -Steve
|--
--
                                                 davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
"JUST a statue!  Is the Statue of Liberty JUST a statue?  Is the Leaning Tower
of 'pizza' JUST a statue?"
                -- Homer to Bart in _Tell-Tale_Head_ (Homer pronounced it as
                    'pizza' not 'Pisa')
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Apr1.171629.27193@apollo.hp.com> <2292@isgtec.isgtec.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:47:18 GMT

In article <2292@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:

   Well, two out of three ain't bad.  Paul said that we should abstain from
   eating meat offered to idols if it caused another to stumble in their faith,
   even though there was nothing really wrong with it.

   On the other hand, the prohibitions against homosexuality are older and
   more widespread throughout the bible.  Right or wrong, this gives them
   more weight for many people than Paul's comments about women not leading
   in church.

Koff, koff, koff.  There are at most a half-dozen texts in the Bible
which could be read as opposed to homosexuality, and that by a very
relaxed criterion.  On the other hand, participating in the worship of
idols is lambasted hundreds and hundreds of times.  

--
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: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 1 of 2)
Date: 17 Apr 92 06:07:50 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr16.214231.15186@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>  I would regard statements from Purdue's resident wacko (John M) such as 
>  the above off the wall claims as X can't be christians because I say
>  X believes so and so, to be unrepresenative of X's beliefs no matter who
>  or what X may be.  It is apparent that John understand little about
>
>   1. Homosexuality
>   2. Mormonism
>   3. Christianity
>   4. God
>   5. Spiritual Living
>   and proably
>   6. Life.

This is judgemental of a person (me) rather than a belief system.  This is
what is spoken out against by "judge not lest ye be judged".  I point this
out only because it is a good example, and not because it was directed at me.

>
>John you wouldn't by any strech of the imagination be an EE major would you?
>

#include <stdio.h>
void main()
{
 while(1) {
  printf("CEE is for me!\n");
 }
}

John M.