HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:21:11 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr2.203711.16412@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Apr2.190016.12970@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER
M GRAWBURG) writes:
> 
> >But the thing about left or right handedness had no basis. I mean there
> >was nothing that held any worth that said a left handed person is
> >sinister.
> 
> Oh? Well, _somebody_ must have thought there was something to it. Millions
> of somebodies. They had their traditions, which I'm sure they valued as
> much as you do yours.

Lefthandness is still considered to be a sign of an evil person in many
cultures. It took a long time to get rid of this superstition in our western
society. Same with using leeches to cure common colds. I'm sure it will take
a long time getting rid of homophobia as well.

Cheers,
Kent
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: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:48:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.153530.27504@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	I don't say it until I've proved it from the Bible. I don't say 
>	E = mc2 to the elementary school students, but I tell a bit about the
>	laws of the physics first and when I see they're ready to understand 
>	the formula, I give it to them. 

(in my best John Belushi)  Well, EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE MEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I didn't realize you guys were so mentally superior to the rest of us,
that you can equate yourself with a physics teacher, and us non-JWs
as elementary school children.  Must be tough to be so stinkin' mentally
superior!@!!  I guess this explains why you rarely feel the need to
support your assertions in this group, we're all to mentally inferior
to you to understand!!  Yeah, RIIIIIIIGHT!!!

Andreas, why don't you get off your STINKING self-righteous high horse.
If we're all so mentally deficient that you have to play games like
this, don't bother.    Are there any topics you can openly discuss
here, or are we all to stupid to understand any of it?

FLAME OFF....

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:31:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.211648.14514@menudo.uh.edu> kevin@taronga.taronga.com (That's me) writes:
[...]
>Except that you can't do that anymore.  What we know about the universe
>now says that the order in which things arose in the universe is different
>than the order described in Genesis.  Thus, you can't take Genesis
>literally without being in conflict with the facts.
>
>Now you're left with picking and choosing what you want to take literally
>in Genesis, which doesn't generally wash too well...

With all the discussions going on in the homosexuality thread about how
the original text doesn't necessarily translate the way people would
like it to, it occurs to me that the order of events might not be
specified in the Genesis account.  So I should amend my statement above
to say that if your interpretation of Genesis specifies the order of
events as being the order that they appear in the text, then you can't
take it literally without being in conflict with the facts.

Sigh...


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)

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
	<1992Apr13.174423.10268@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<1992Apr13.203923.4959@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>
	<1992Apr13.230317.25587@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:18:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.230317.25587@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

   It is interesting that almost no-one has responded to my "sexuality graph"
   with anything other than "thats BS".

   Why?  Most gay couples are masculine-feminine, and those that are not are
   (from my experience) not characterized by Christian values.  

What?!!!  Gay male couples are, not suprisingly to anyone who's
bothered to look, masculine-masculine.  One man, two men.  That makes
two men.  Lesbian couples, similarly, are feminine-feminine.  One
woman, two women.  Do you have trouble distinguishing gender?  Perhaps
a copy of Gray's Anatomy would help.

   Is it so absurd to suggest that feminine gay males are initially
   attracted to other males for their masculinity, and then direct
   their sexual interests in that direction as a result?  Is it so
   absurd to suggest that this same person might be attracted to a
   masculine woman (although more rare than masculine men), as far as
   personality is concerned?

Well, yes.  That is absurd.  Suggesting this indicates that you
haven't actually asked many gay people what they actually *feel*, and
you are instead projecting heterosexual presumptions on them. 

See, I'm gay.  That doesn't mean I'm "really" female and want a man,
or that I'm "really" male and want a feminine man.  It means, simply,
that I'm sexually attracted to men, as men, for being men, as I am a
man.  Get it through your skull that I'm don't *have* heterosexual
desires, directed at "masculine" or "feminine" women.

   Lets face it, the pleasure of the sex act is gained (for the male)
   from the orgasm accompanying ejaculation.  The recipient might as
   well be a hole in the wall as far as this is concerned.  Therefore
   anything "special" in the homosexual relationship _must_ be above
   physical sex, which I proffer one can also find in that rare breed
   of female...

Then why would you prefer sex with women?  If men really don't care
what their partner looks like, why is so much energy spent on the
subject by our society?

--
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!
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: SANDMAN: LUCIFER'S NAME
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:30:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.203827.14703@eskimo.celestial.com> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
>      It is mostly likely the contradictions between the origional
>version of Genesis and the one that is accepted today is why Israel has
>not released the Dead Sea Scrolls for translation.
Not fucking likely. It's a lot more likely that it's a simple academic
squabble over publishing priority.
-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: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith  (Was:Re: I've forged a cancel of a sendsys)
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:42:49 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>     As you should know by now, the Bible contains many contradictions
>and errors and as a consequence does not stand up to logic.  A couple
>of errors are the creation story and the virgin birth.  Christianity
>is a very false religion.

Please be so kind as to demonstrate why the Bible need be completely
consistent in order to be of value in moral issues, and why the
presence of such inconsistencies intrinsically damns the whole Bible
to complete infeasibility.

If the U.S. Constitution, for example, were entirely consistent and
unambiguous there would be no need for amendments, nor for the Supreme
Court.

Even logic and mathematics textbooks have inconsistencies and errors.
I'll send you the text for a class I'm currently taking if you doubt
me.

Logic is capable of "proving" things which are simply not true.  This
is possible due to false assumptions used as premises.  Man's knowlege
is fallible, as even a casual perusal of the history of science (or
history in general) will attest.  Thus, the assumptions he makes
cannot be guaranteed to be correct even if they outwardly appear to be
so. 

Logic requires premises which may or may not be proved.  Often they
are simply asserted, and later turn out to be incorrect.  Johannes
Kepler spent much of his life working on a nested body solution for
celestial mechanics.  His logic was very sound and his proofs
immaculate.  But his premises were incorrect and his results did not
coincide with reality.  Thus, merely invoking "logic" is not to lay a
question to rest.

Further, man's application of logic is similarly bounded by his
fallibility.  A widely circulated proof equates pi to 2, and only
those who understand arc length know why the proof fails.  This
demonstrates that man's ability to use logic successfully is
necessarily finite, and as such is prone to failure.

In short, logic is also a false religion.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: dlester@cs.man.ac.uk (David Lester)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: All about "getting wasted" (Was: Homosexuality and Christianity)
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:37:42 GMT
Reply-To: dlester@cs.man.ac.uk (David Lester)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester

In article <1992Apr9.225148.857@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
|>Sex five times a day?  No, because this also is not normal (I
|>realize normal will be different for different people) and is what I mean by
|>getting wasted [in fleshly desires].

Although one might follow-up by suggesting that one needs to have attempted
"Sex five times a day" before realising how hard it is, perhaps you would
allow me repost the following quotation -- from <3885@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> --
that perhaps illustrates the military view of the matter under discussion:

|> While it is true that Mr Hampe's suggested period is a little later,
|> and concerned the goings-on in the OR's Mess, I feel that the following
|> gem shows what we most appreciate in a General Officer.
|>
|> "The Iron Duke had a sound understanding of human nature: and he was
|>  being realistic, rather than cynical, when, during the Peninsular
|>  campaigns he set a limit of forty-eight hours for his officer's
|>  leaves in Lisbon, or behind the lines. This, he said, was as long as
|>  any reasonable man could wish to spend in bed with any woman."
|>
|> -- Lesley Blanch, "The Game of Hearts: Harriette Wilson and her Memoirs",
|>    Gryphon, 1957.

---
David Lester, Manchester University, UK.

ps I have some idea what "getting wasted" might mean by context. To me it has
   the same connotations as "getting wrecked"; you know, going down to Old
   Trafford to cheer on the Reds, 10 pints of lager, and a massive hangover.
   Any one care to explain an Americanism to me?
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:56:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <3544@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>Paul said it was due to idol-worship. Care to explain how that applies
>today?  Care to explain how a child who turns out gay was disobedient,
>whereas the one who turned out straight was obedient?

Because they changed the image of God into something corruptable, God
gave them over to "vile affections."  Whether or not people literally
worship an idol of stone, wood, etc, the passage still describes what
their lusts as vile, and their actions as indecent.  Idolatry is not
always so literal.  Paul wrote that wrote of impurity and greed which
is idolatry.  I think he may have mentioned sexual immorality in the
passage too, but I do not have my NT with me today to verify this.

>And would you care to read a little farther in Romans? "You therefore
>have no defense--you who sit in judgment, whoever you may be--for in
>judging your fellow--man you condemn yourself, since you, the judge,
>are equally guilty."  And just who is it you are judging? Romans
>again: "For all who are moved by the spirit of God are the sons of
>God." Why are you judging the sons of God? Do you think this pleases
>him? It does not.

Who am I judging?  Does the command to judge prevent us from discussing
sins?  Are you judging by accusing me of judging?  
I do not have the right to judge, but that does not mean I do not have the
right to discuss what is sin.  We certainly do not have the right to
condone sin.  If we do this, then we face judgement from God.

>Why should we treat heterosexual sex any differently than first degree
>arson? Because one is about love, and the other is about hate.

Heterosexual sex is not always about love.  Rape is not about love.  
Neither is "getting a piece" of somebody.  We are not to submit, or codone
submitting to lusts, be they lusts for sex, possessions, or murder.

Link Hudson.
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:22:04 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <kubcgsINNnpo@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>It is because of people like John that I don't even bother to consider
>what Christianity has to say any more. Much of my experience with
>Christianity has been of a group of people fighting hard for their right
>to intolerance. I for one am simply not interested in even hearing about
>it any more.

  I too am one of those who, because of big time bummer experiences with
people like John, went looking out side of the Christian tradition for
my spiritual connection with the Divine.

  Part of that "something" that was within those encounters was that
people like John seemed to me to be coming up short on direct experience
of the "spiritual" aspect of growing close to the Divine. They talked
about it a lot in the form and focus of "correct beliefs", but did not 
manifest the attitude of one who WAS experiencing a Unity with God.
 
 I now know that there are many great Christians who are not like John
and who really do teach the deeper spiritual aspects of that tradition.



        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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:31:13 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.113257.26239@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	Jesus explained that a false tree grows false fruits and a right tree
>>	grows right fruits. 

>That must mean that since so many JWs have fallen into immorality and been 
>disfellowshipped for it, the JWs are a false tree?  And that since Mother 
>Theresa is a product of a Catholic upbringing, the Catholic Church is a right tree? 

>Is it really that simple?  :-)  <- for the humor impaired...

	No, it isn't that simple. You said it yourself - the key-word is 
	"DISFELLOWSHIPPED", i.e they're ex-witnesses and ex-JW is no JW. 

	I appreciate Mother Theresa's work very much, but unfortunately they 
	are only a drop in the ocean - she can't solve the problems of this 
	world - not even if there were 1,000 of them. I said I appreciate her
	work, but you know the Kingdom of God is the real key to the problems of
	this world. 

	I would say (modernized) that a false program produces false output. 
	And it doesn't help if some Mother Theresa corrects some of the results,
	when the code remains false. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: No more temple discussion
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:16:14 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr14.133327.1305@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>    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.

He's bluffing... :-)

John M.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:12:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: spssig.adams.703368767
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>In article <adams.703343127@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>>Romans 1:27 condemns men who abandoned 'normal' relations with women and
>>were inflamed with lust for one another, and performed indecent acts on one
>>another (NIV).

>or "in"one another, or "among" one another.

>>Sounds like a clear condemnation of lust to me.  And fornication.  As for
>>'homosexuality', it may or may not condemn it.  It's not clear to me.

>The verse is self-explanatory.
>How do you define homosexuality?  

As a mental state...just as heterosexuals prefer female/male relationships,
homosexuals prefer male/male or female/female relationships.  There need be
no sex act to be homosexual.  A celibate heterosexual is still
heterosexual.

As such, and being that homosexuality is no more controllable than
heterosexuality, a homosexual having relations with a woman would actually
be un-natural, given their default choice of partner.

There certainly is a complaint against lust and fornication.  And against
indecent acts.  But what would be indecent for a heterosexual male is
certainly most natural and normal for a homosexual one.

 -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: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:00:16 GMT
	<1992Apr14.155311.21560@athena.cs.uga.edu> <adams.703272915@spssig>
	<1992Apr14.200714.3379@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

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

>Do you believe that beastiality is sinful[?]

No.  I think it's a bit weird, and certainly not for me, and I think
it's probably not a good idea in general.  But, since I do not accept
the concept of "sin", it's not sinful.
--
we have watched what they will do to the bible, which they allege to hold as
sacred, should we wonder what they will do with mere secular documents like
the constitution.
	-- drieux (drieux@wetware.com)
Newsgroups: mod.philosophy,mod.religion,mod.religion.christian,talk.religion.misc
From: jmb5b@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (John M. Bozeman)
Subject: New Age/Christian Survey -Help!
Keywords: creation big-bang evolution origin
Organization: University of Virginia
Ireallyam: jmb5b
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1992 04:28:02 GMT

I am about to give a guest lecture to a sociology class at the
University of Virginia.  The Topic:  "Christianity and the New Age
Look at Each Other."  When writing about such subjects, I like to
talk to the people who actually practice the faith.  So I would
like to ask anyone who would care to answer...

1.  What makes a person a Christian?

2.  What makes a person a follower of the New Age?

3.  What do you think of evangelical-fundamentalist-charismatic--
pentecostal Christians?

4.  What do you think of mainline Protestant Christianity (i.e.,
Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.)

5.  What do you think of Catholics?

6.  What do you think of channeling?  meditation?  pyramids?  Tarot
cards?  astrology?  crystals?  UFO's?

7.  Who or what is God?  Who is/was Jesus?  Who or what is the Holy
Spirit?  Do you think the literal Resurrection of Jesus literally
took place?  What do you think is the meaning of the resurrection?

8.  Do you think Jesus will come again?  What do you think of the
Bible?

9.  Why do you consider yourself a follower of the New Age and/or
Christianity?  What do you think is (are) the central tenets of
your beliefs?  How did you come to hold these beliefs?  Are you a
member of any formal religious group(s)?  Which ones?

10. What is your age?  sex?  Occupation?  [Optional, for
statistical use only:  are you single-married-divorced-widowed-
living with someone-under a vow of celibacy?  hetero-homo-bisexual? 
What race do you describe yourself as?]

11. [More optional questions:  What happens to us when we die? 
What makes an individual good or bad?  Do you think that there is
an absolute standard of right and wrong?  What do you think are the
central problems of American and World society?  How does your
faith address these problems, if at all?  Do you think that your
faith is the only way to salvation or self-fulfillment?  Is it the
best way?

------------------

Thank you for your time.  I may wish to quote from this material in
class and/or (maybe) in a later scholarly work; quotation will be
anonymous if requested.  As I mentioned above, sensitive material
is for statistical use only.  
              
               John Bozeman (jmb5b@virginia.edu)
                            (jmb5b@virginia.edu.bitnet)