HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Going Back in Time to Meet Jesus Christ -- What Would You See?
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:34:47 GMT

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>If you want to know what it was like, watch Monty Python's "Life of Brian".
>The original title was Life Of Jesus, but some people felt that would be
>too realistic. Always look on the bright side of life ...

Actually, there's a very good Sf short story about package holidays
to Jerusalem at the time of Jesus to witness his crucifiction. Can 
anyone remember the title?

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:43:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.220609.4521@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
>If jesus were to love and forgive homosexuals as a group, why not
>murderers and adulterers?  Why not fornicators, and rapists.  

The last time I checked, he did.  If you will recall, Jesus came to save the
world, not just those who have sex with the right kind of person.  We are
ALL sinners, in need of God's grace and forgiveness through faith in Jesus
Christ.  Homosexuals are no worse than the rest of us.

>A homosexual will not desire to be one
>of the elect, because sin rules his or her life.  

No more than any other sinner.

My zealous friend, I would refer you to Romans 2:1 and pray that you can 
get past your culture's judgementalism toward homosexuality.  Remember,
NO ONE is righteous and NO ONE seeks God (Romans 3:10-18).  That includes
you and me.  You should repeat about yourself what Paul said about himself:

    "What a wretched man I am!  Who will rescue me from this body of death?
     Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord."  [Romans 7:24, 25]

Try as you might, you are no better than your neighbor.  Neither am I.  Let's
start loving people, as we have been loved by our Father.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

     "Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
	                     -- Matthew 15:4

          "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on 
                       to the traditions of men."
                             -- Mark 7:8  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:58:09 GMT

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>But you certainly don't have enough information to conclude that he didn't
>possess a homosexual or bisexual orientation.


  would you prefer jesus to possess a homosexual or bisexual orientation?
if so, why?
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: SLOW DOWN !!
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:54:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.211237.28459@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
>In every article posted on this group concerning my original post that
>HOMOSEXUALS ANYWHERE ARE WRONG, there has been nothing but arguing and
>bickering.  We are acting like little children.  I am sorry now I even
>posted the thing.

Then why did you do it?

>I feel ashamed that I even wrote the silly post. 

Then why did you do it?

>It was only my opinion.  And also in my opinion out of the Bible.  Whether or
>not it is or not, is now becomming irrelevant.

Then do you still claim it is from the Bible?

>But, THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING TO BE DOING !!

Then why did you do it?

>Would God in any form look on all this bickering favorably?

Would God in any form look on your original post favorably?

>I regret sincerely the trouble I have caused by bringing this obviously 
>sensitive matter into the open here. 

Then, why did you do it? Who put you up to this task?

>1)  Do sins compound themselves?  i.e.  if you commit one sin, is it
>    easier to commit the next, and so on.

Why don't you tell us? Do you still claim your opinion comes from the Bible?

>2)  What is the blaringly obvious link of prayer to #1 above?  Should
>    we pray constantly for forgiveness?  For the mind of God?  

Why don't you tell us.

>3)  How often should we pray, and for what?  Which prayers "get through"
>    to God, and which ones fall by the wayside?

Please, tell us.

>I will accept ONLY scriptural referrences as valid answers.

Huh? What's that supposed to mean? 

>OR, PERSONAL TESTIMONY !!  NOT personal opinion. 

Ah, what's the difference, Steve?

>     " If I feel myself starting to get into an argument, or getting
>       angry for whatever reason, then I should just stop and get 
>       on my knees and pray."

So, why didn't you?

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:12526 alt.atheism:14161
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:35:14 GMT

In article <92288@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.171021.24832@cs.yale.edu>
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul29.153107.26021@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>>>In article <1992Jul29.024228.15848@cs.yale.edu>
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>>>3) It is not, to my knowledge, known that sexual orientation is
>>>>genetically controlled.
>
>>>There is alot of evidence,
>
>>Please present some.
>
>I, for one, have many times presented the results of a twin study conducted
>here at Boston University, by Dr. Richard Pilliard. He sampled gay adult
>males, both from individual births, and as members of monozygotic and
>fraternal male twins.
>
>He found that 55% of the identical twins of gay men were also gay.
>
>He found that 22% of the fraternal twins of gay men were also gay.
>
>He found that 11% of the non-twin siblings of gay men were also gay.
I notice that these are all multiples of 11.
There were more than 9 pairs of each weren't there?

>The amazing thing is that there are strong suggestions of the combined
>importance of genetic makeup and *prenatal* [hormonal] environment.
>Identical twins are 5 times more likely to have concordant sexualities
>than do non-twin siblings. Fraternal twins are twice as likely.
Nonseparated twin studies don't prove anything.
Monozygotic twins are apt to have very similar environments
and fraternal twins raised together are apt to have more similar
environments than siblings who are apt to have more similar
environments than two unrelated people.

This certainly doesn't indicate anything of relevance about
prenatal hormonal environment.

>Other twin studies have shown 50%-90% concordance among identical twins
>*raised apart*.
That's a pretty big spread.

You wanna post a couple of those studies?
Note that all the objections normally applied to the use of
separated monozygotic twins for proving IQ heritability apply
here.

-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: n5ppm264 (Charlie Board)
Subject: Re: The Bible and Abortion (was: The sin of shaving)
Organization: bnr
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:14:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.141825.57680@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu writes:
> 
> Regarding abortion and Numbers 5:12-31 --
> 
> n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
> [...]
> > Note that: 
> >    a) NOWHERE in this passage is their ANY HINT that God disapproves
> >       of abortion!
> > and
> >    b) NOWHERE ELSE in the Bible is their ANY direct reference to abortion!
> 
> Numbers 5:12-31 does not seem to me to be a *direct* reference to
> abortion, and it specifically applies only to cases of adultery. 
> That's a rather limited scope wouldn't you say?

I  don't think it's worth arguing since we seem to agree anyway, but
to me this directly concerns abortion since God is commanding that
one be performed. It also directly concerns adultery, but until the
right starts mucking with the constitution to abolish adultery I don't 
care.
> 
> Exodus 21:22-23 is not a direct reference to abortion either, but
> itmore explicit (concise?) that Numbers 5:22-23, and a bit more
> direct:
> 
> "If men stive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit
> depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be
> punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and
> he shall pay as the judges determine.
> 
> "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"
> (Exodus 21:22-23)

I was saving this one:). True, it is clearer, but it's only indirectly
related to abortion since there is no mention of (intentional) abortion
here. It's directly related to the question of whether God considers fetuses
to be living humans (the answer is a clear NO) which provides the indirect
link to the abortion issue.
> 
> That what the KJV says.  How does the NIV and NASB render it?
> 
> --
> Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
> 
>
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:06:36 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <sbuckley.712259889@sfu.ca>
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>would you prefer jesus to possess a homosexual or bisexual orientation?
>if so, why?

I have no preference as to his orientation. It may have been heterosexual.
He was a rebel in his time, but saying anything conclusive about his
thoughts is pure speculation.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Predestination To Mr. Butler
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:47:06 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


My apologies Mr. Butler for having sounded condescending and whatever else
to Mr. Adams.  I have had no complaints from him, so maybe it was your
perception.  I do not wish to sound that way to anyone, so thank you for
the rebuke.

I am not a Calvinist.  I beleive much of what he wrote, and consider
myslef therefore to be a reformed Calvinist.  My rails against
homosexuality have nothing to do with this current thread, but I have, do,
and always will say homosexuality is wrong.  Total depravity of man does
not cause sin or anything else.  Man was not originally totally depraved. 
Adam for example was good, until he disobeyed God and ate of the fruit.

God is not at fault for Adam's sin, because God made Adam able to choose
to obey or not to obey.  God did, however, see this before it happened,
and prepared a plan for it.  Nothing wrong with being prepared.

That plan is salvation through his son Jesus Christ.  The issue here is
not whether man is depraved, but rather, what happens to him to get him or
her out of that depravity.

I don't think anything I have said here or anywhere else would put me in
the categories you mentioned at the end of your post, but that is your
opinion.  I suppose I should be more careful.

God Bless,
Stve.Gross
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:08:40 GMT

Lawrence C. Foard writes:

>No I don't have faith in the X-tian sense, I'm not afraid to put
>evolution to the test, I don't believe in evolution because someone
>told me to , or because I think I will go to hell if I don't.

  i know this is going to sound like bickering but i figure i should
say it for clarification.  i don't believe in jesus because someone told
me to, tho in part i believe in him because i believe i will go to
hell if i don't.  please give me more credit for being a cognizant,
thinking person.  :)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:12672 rec.arts.books:13076 talk.philosophy.misc:1464
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:41:58 GMT

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>>>}>	Well, perhaps I'm unusual, but I put myself in the agnostic camp. I
>>>}>say that at the moment the evidence I see would weigh more towards the 
>>>}>conclusion that there is no "God", but any contrary evidence is welcome.
>>>}
>>>}  have you thought about what kind of evidence you would need to believe 
>>>}that god does exist?  if so, what do you require?

>>>Can you precisely define what "god" you are talking about?  It is rather
>>>difficult to provide evidence for and tests to validate an ambigious
>>>concept.

>1) One needn't define god to define agnosticism and atheism.

>2) Evidentiary and Validation tests have no bearing on agnosticism
>   or atheism in term of the definition of the particular term;
>   the can, however provide a large measure of why people believe
>   or disbelieve in a particular theology or perspective.

>3) Why is this beling posted to: rec.arts.books,rec.humor,
>   talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic? It would be nice
>   if people would learn to use their headers. . .

>4) Of course at this point neither of you is interested anymore
>   in the meanings of agnosticism and atheism; instead you are
>   using this as a pretext to get into a debate: one will demand
>   to know why the other doesn't see the obvious and glorious
>   GOD that the other deems a mere psychological construct
>   devised by pre-literate primitives. . .

>Dano

  dano makes valid points here, except for #4 where he is being way too
presumptuous to be claiming my future actions.  stay real dano.
speculation gets backs up.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The "Get a Clue" Discussion
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 30 Jul 1992 10:31:54 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <l7bma3INNgv@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>Jack Carroll writes:

>>    I share Mr. Gross's deep concern over the rise of tyranny and the
>>    suppression of free speech.  It is clear that the primary threat to
>>    the basic freedoms of this country comes from the Religious Right
>>    which is actively seeking to destroy the foundation of liberty in
>>    the United States.  It is only by opposing the arrogant presentation
>>    of sectarian beliefs and positions as "The Truth" and keeping discussion
>>    open to men of all religious beliefs and none that freedom will prevail.
             ^^^^^

>A position I admire also, Mr. Carroll. And while the patriotic music
>dies in the dawn's early light and you are still on the podium, I would
>merely ask that you incluce *all* people, not just men, in your
>eloquence.

I know this act is a goddamned spellbinder, son.  Every crowd's a
sucker for the ol' Pat Robertson spin, but check the house.  We're
playing this one to the fundagelicals.  Them words was carefully
chosen.  In fundagelical country women are a subset of men and only
pro-lifers, lesbos and fellow-traveling pervs think otherwise.

Now stand back when we do the Pledge of Allegiance after the drum
cuz these kleigs are hot and we don't want that handsome dacron
seersucker suit to do a meltdown on ya.

Jack Carroll
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:15:42 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul28.210057.15132@athena.cs.uga.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In article <92116@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>That's not what has been claimed of the mistranslation. In the context
>>of the original Greek, "arsenokoite" can mean male prostitute. [as
opposed to homosexual]

>These passages in the original Greek do not give much context to suppose
>that it is talking about prostitution.  It is listed with other sins, like
>adultery in Corinthians.  

Comtemporary secular texts almost always use "arsenokoite" to mean a male
temple prostitute. To say that Paul was not influenced by contemporary
literature and customs is ridiculous.

>>Christian doctrine now states that homosexuality as an orientation is not
>>sinful. If Christ were homosexually oriented, or bisexually, or heterosexually
>>oriented, he was not sinful by orientation alone.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Playing God (WAS Re: The C word)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:55:37 GMT
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <1992Jul19.013352.16985@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>So when did god tell you that its ok to eat meat containing blood? To
>eat cheeseburgers? To cut your beard?

There is no reference to cheeseburgers in the Bible.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Twin Studies and Homosexuality (WAS Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong)
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:43:00 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul29.233514.28746@cs.yale.edu>
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>There were more than 9 pairs of each weren't there?

I assume so. My knowledge of the study comes from attending a presentation
he gave.

>This certainly doesn't indicate anything of relevance about
>prenatal hormonal environment.

Sure...if fraternal twins were twice as likely to be concordant as
single-born sibs, prenatal factors are just as relevant as environmental
closeness factors.

BK:
>>Other twin studies have shown 50%-90% concordance among identical twins
>>*raised apart*.

>You wanna post a couple of those studies?

This comment was made by Dr. Pillard [note my earlier misspelling of his
surname]. I had heard this myself, but I didn't know any details, so
upon your suggestion I did a bit of research.

The rarity of identical twins (1 in 88 in the general population) and
the small fraction of gay males (anywhere from 1 in 4 to 1 in 100 in the
general population, depending on the study) has made accumulation of
statistically significant samples very difficult. Probably the best
to date is still Kallmann's 1952 study "Comparative Twin Study on the
Genetic Aspects of Male Homosexuality", Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 111, 283. Sample consisted of 85 monozygotic twin male homosexuals.
Major conclusion was that sexual behaviour was very similar, regardless of
whether they had been raised apart.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 07:47:32 GMT

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In article <4609@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:

>>People read it into the Sodom story, why wouldn't they read it into
>>the Beloved Disciple story?  What you see depends in part on what you
>>want to see.

>I don't remember if the angels are specifically described as men or 
>appearing as men in this story, but they do generally appear as men.  It
>is not unreasonanble to assume that they people did not consider them to
>be angels.

  genesis 19:5 [NIV]

  They [all the men of town [Sodom]] called to Lot, "Where are the men
who came to you tonight?  Bring them out to us so that we can have sex
with them."

  the angels were as men.
From: lesley@pleasanton.EBay.Sun.COM (Lesley Smith - Test Engineering)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Jesus Would Gag
Date: 27 Jul 1992 18:11:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: lesley@pleasanton.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: pleasanton.ebay.sun.com

	
>-Lesley:
> My conclusions is that God sent His only Son Jesus Christ..to make a
> covenent with His people by His blood to forgive us of our sins, to
> keep us from going to Hell..for those of us who chose to follow Christ.

You've said what you concluded, but not why. The question was "why".

	Becuase Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Lite....for now and enteranl happiness.

> As for Santa being inserted into the Word of God that is impossible...
> Santa (Chris) didn't heal the sick, make the blind see, or the lame to
> walk...there is no way..you could replace God.

Says here in my scripture that Santa, acting through his son, did all that
stuff, and it also says that the scripture itself is the Word of Santa and
therefore true.
	If your scripture says that I would like to see your book...and I would
	like you to tell me how you know it's the truth?

 How does my position differ from yours?
	Becuase the bible is the Word of God...which was inprised by the Holy Spirit..(which, by the
	way is part of the trinity) which makes it part of God. That is the turth.

 Do you have some evidence independent of scripture?
	Sure, mircales happen every day...do you thinks Santa Clause does mircales???
	And this mircales come by the power of prayer....thru people praying to God not
	Santa.

>	In Christ, Lesley

Cheers

Simon


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc