HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ssh@snow.boulder.ibm.com (Steve Hultquist (347-3994))
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:53:44 GMT
	<1jppekINNic5@hp-col.col.hp.com>
Reply-To: <ssh@vnet.ibm.com>
Organization: ISSC Boulder
X-Disclaimer: Poster's opinion is independent of employer's

>>>>> On 22 Jan 93 21:37:24 GMT, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) said:

> >Maybe you need to show how Christians create an atmosphere of 
> >anti-morality. 
> 
> Teaching bigotry creates an atmosphere of anti-morality.

ws> And as long as Christians teach that homosexuality is wrong, 
ws> they are teaching bigotry?  So to satisfy you, the churches have 
ws> to stop teaching that homosexuality is wrong...righto, Gene. 

Of course!  This is a major part of "gay rights", after all.
--
Steve Hultquist                          Open systems and networking specialist
Ski to live, live to ski                                           ISSC Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: KENH@YaleADS.CIS.Yale.Edu (Ken Hudson)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Yale University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:03:39 EST

>>In article <1jedvaINNfvj@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> symanzik@pigeon.egr.msu.edu (Edward Symanzik) writes:
>>>Naturally, since the Bible is God's word, my desire is to honor all of it.
 
This is typical.  Many persecutors of Gays and Lesbians consider themselves
true-to-the-Faith, fundamentalist christians (note MY use of the small
letter "c" to distinguish from true followers of Christ).
 
Do you keep the seventh day Sabbath (i.e. Saturday) or do you worship
on the day of the Sun, Sunday, the pagan day of worship incorporated
by the Roman Church early in the first two centuries AFTER Christ's
ministry and that of Paul and the Apostles?  Do you avoid the sins of
the Pharisees, whom Christ condemned outright.  And why?  Because they
"legalized" righteousness, judging and condemning on the basis of the
outward act, NOT on the heart, and exacting civil/criminal penalties
for religious "sins" (their determination, not God's).  Sound familiar?
Someone should write a book, doing intensive analysis on the collection
of "righteous" religious figures whom Christ condemned--Pharisees,
Sadducees, Publicans--comparing these to the modern day fundamentalists.
There is a more than striking resemblance:  the desire to carry
religious rules into the civil law code; public prayer stressed over
private prayer; hypocrisy (as in endangering women's lives over
abortion; claiming love for the life of the fetus, but doing nothing
for the thousands of fetuses born into poverty to assure them food, shelter,
safety).  I know of no theology that claims that Christ's ministry
was built around going forth into the world and persecuting "sinners."
All of them acknowledge that Christ's message was one of SELF examination
and SELF purification.  Isn't it interesting then that so many exhibit a
pathological need to attack others--MOSTLY OUTSIDE THEIR OWN PARTICULAR
DENOMINATION--with religious judgments that they should be applying to
themselves alone!!!!  Like the outrageously savage Islamic fundamentalists
rising to power in the Middle East, so seem the fundamentalist christian
elements here in the US.  And this is especially odd, since Christ said
true Christians would be persecuted for their faith whereas many of those who
claim title to His teachings are more often persecutORS....!
 
To one who reads Christ's words closely, it would not be surprising if
He gathers up a greater percentage of Gays and Lesbians as purified in
heart while rejecting outright the fundamentalists who spent more
time judging and persecuting others than tending to personal growth...
and this includes many who denounce Gays and Lesbians from the pulpit,
presenting a facade of righteousness, while their hearts are black with
spiritual sin...
 
 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14893 alt.politics.homosexuality:10104 talk.religion.misc:27304
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:31:25 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
> >>>"Everybody knows it" is not an acceptable answer.
> >>
> >>But it seems that "It is the right thing to do" is an acceptable one.
> >
> >And how do you know that "it is the right thing to do"?
> >
> >Ah, i see.  "Everybody knows it".
> 
> Er...what exactly are we talking about here?

Oh, I thought *everyone* knew...;-)  

Walter

Organization: Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:16:10 -0500 
From: James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: The flag in the back (was re:Rush's Military record

>Keywords: 
> 
>In article <1993Jan25.080945.18026@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, jus
>t drieux) writes:
>]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>]
>]] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>]] 
>]] ]so what is with the 'Flag Box' in the Background on his show?
>]] 
>]] ]Or is he just trying to SUCK UP to vets who know what it
>]] ]is suppose to mean?
>]] 
>]] Yo, Drieux.... I'm a vet. Why don't you tell ME what it is supposed
>]] to mean?
>]
>]Yo John ..... I'm a Vet. Why don't You Tell ME what RUSH is
>]trying to SUGGEST to everyone?
>]
>He is suggesting that he supports traditional American patriotic
>values. Now, are you going to answer MY question?
 
This is the latest bit of the current bashing war. Well not to take
sides, (even though I side with Mr Moore) the flag was just a gift given
to Rush by the military personnel in charge of the Missouri Monument at
Pearl Harbor. It flew above the wreck at the site, and such flags are
given out as honors to people whowm the personnal at the site respect. I
think they gave it to him for his Memmorial day tribute show. I assume
he keeps it in a prominent place because he is proud of recieving such a
prestigious gift. (an to think I don't even watch the show every night).
Well aloha.
James Stepanek
esp
Graduate Student 
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
University of Pittsburgh
Disclaimer : If Pitt knew I still used my CMU account they probably
wouldn't understand. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:27:28 GMT

In article <C1BGHp.Byu@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In article <1jpbfqINNbig@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
>writes:
>>Then I guess it is fortunate that the NT clears up the issue, by 
>>saying that Christians are not under the letter of the Mosaic 
>>Law, and that it re-states which things Christians should follow. 
>>What does "sexual immorality" mean to you?  
>Approximately the same for homosexual and heterosexual persons.
>How else could it be if "in Christ there is neither male nor
>female?"
It seems to me that this brings up an interesting question,
though, Michael. I've been thinking about this "sexual immorality"
thing and damned if I can come up with anything that is
consensual that I could justify as "immoral" so what are you
reading "sexual immorality" as including?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14698 talk.abortion:57168
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: About RU486 Re: Different Point
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:37:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
:rocker (cookc@aix.rpi.edu) wrote:
:: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
:: >Planting the idea that a fetus is an unviable tissue mass is simply propaganda
:: >aimed at easing peoples' consciences.  In France, they show a woman the
:: >actual remains of an abortion and some change their minds and many don't.
:: 
:: Are these remains age-specific?  You do, of course, realize that the
:: "remains" from a first-tri abortion fit in a teaspoon.
:
:The remains are from the previous woman's abortion.  The abortions are done
:with the RU487 pill, in clinics there.  The women see the remains of the
:abortion, which are indeed small because RU487 is only allowed in the
:first trimester, and considered dangerous into the 9th week and beyond.
:The women accept it and do it anyway.  What's the problem?

One of the main problems is other than the what the drug actually does
(induces abortion) is controlled testing of the drug. The US medical
community has been very very wary of testing drugs in pregnant women,
which is what you need to do to prove the efficacy of RU486. Usually
most human tests involve a placebo to study any psychological effects
(although here they are also supplemented by physical changes as well).
The FDA drug approval process essentially requires this data before
approval, and it usually takes about 5-10 years to approve a drug this
way. I doubt that RU486 would fall under "life-threatening treatments"
to be eligible for the "fast-track" approval process like ddI and AZT
for AIDS. (Maybe it does if you're pro-life.)

Social consequences notwithstanding, it's just really weird to approve
a drug to a pregnant woman to not get pregnant.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:52:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.195017.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:
>
>	Oh, I see.  Let's not follow the Christian guidelines becuase it might
>actually have some morality to it!!!  If you have sexual intercourse, it should
>be to conceive a child.  The fact that sex is used for pleasure is sin--it
>should never be used for self-gratification!
>
>	Oh, but I forgot--we don't follow Christian doctrine and morality. 
>Guess that shows that Christians ARE the better people because of their value
>of life--rather than selfish, gratification-seeking hypocrites!

Why are you spending your time posting to the Net that could be better used
making babies for your favorite deity?

Could it be because it's (gasp!) ... self-gratifying???

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:13:21 GMT

In article <C1H2u8.Cu9@ns1.nodak.edu>
green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
 
>                               Give me one example of a positive black person
>on TV, other than Tibbs on In The Heat Of The Night.
 
A "positive black person on TV?"  What exactly is a positive black person?
One that worships in a Southern Baptist church, has a picture of every
slain civil rights leader on his/her wall, wears the stylish African
symbols?  Or is it someone who talks and looks like Bryant Gumbel (sp?)?
 
 
>Most blacks on TV are
>portrayed as idiots, dumb, worthless, etc.  Look at In Living Color, or any
>of the other dumb Fox programming.
 
In Living Color is a comedy, not a serious drama that examines true-life
relationships between people.  At first, I was very uncomfortable seeing
blacks dressed up with extra stuffing in the rear of their trousers, but
hey, it's their joke.  It's funny.  It's just as ridiculous and hilarious
as the white people on the show when you they play really stupid white
people.
 
 
>Look at the major networks.  We used to
>have an intelligent investigator on Matlock, but he's now gone.  I usually
>watch intelligent programming, like Rush ;-), so I'm not up on all of it,
>maybe someone can give me some good role models for blacks on TV.
 
What about good role models for whites?  For every black role model that
you feel is bad, I could probably find you at least three that are white.
The problem is not a racial one.  The problem is the role model herself/
himself?  Who decides what a bad or good role model is?
Whatever the case may be, the networks are motivated by profit, and will
program the shows that bring in the bucks.  It is my opinion that the
airwaves are mostly wasted on garbage, and we are wasting a tremendous
educational opportunity by not providing or pushing TV programs that
do more than entertain.  Yes, I watch PBS, the Discovery Channel, and
Arts & Entertainment.
 
 
Rick Marquardt
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14633 alt.politics.clinton:20748 alt.politics.bush:16177 alt.politics.homosexuality:9932
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:52:23 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: eomer.hw.stratus.com

In article <C16L11.C5L@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1jki0hINNsu7@transfer.stratus.com> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>
>>This looks like a repeat of what you have already posted before.
>>I (and another poster) already answered your above premise by
>>explaining that there is a difference between moral, ceremonial,
>>and civil laws in the Old Testament.
>
>Okay, keep going.  Can you break down Levitical statutes -- even
>approximately -- into these three categories?  Which are moral, which
>are ceremonial, and which are civil?  To which of these categories
>does verse 18:22 fall

moral

>, and what other laws are grouped with it?

What!  Do you want a list?  Start with the 10 commandments.

>I would attempt to do the same, but this is the first time I have ever
>seen it suggested that the prohibitions of Leviticus do not all lie on
>the same level of severity, and wouldn't know where to begin.
>
>My problem, you see, is that I have never seen Levitical writings used
>as explicit reasons against *any* sort of behavior other than
>homosexuality.

You mean like witchcraft or adultery or murder or etc.  C'mon, of course
it has been.  Besides, the NT also condemns homosexual behavior.

> I'm curious to know which laws, according to the
>English translations of the Old Testament, are as severe as Lev 18:22,
>and whether evangelical Christians are as emphatic about enforcing
>those laws as the one regarding queerness.
>
You do not seem to understand the point.  It is not severity that
matters and it is not law enforcment that most Christians are attempting.
Sin is sin, plain and simple.  Severity is meaningless.  Sin separates
us from God, no matter how "big or small".  And it is God who will meet out
the punishment, not your fellow man.

>...other "stuff" deleted because I'm just plain tired of repeating
myself.  Someone who doesn't want to listen, won't.  No use arguing.

mc
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14779 alt.sex:42811 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13427 alt.politics.correct:6317 alt.politics.equality:136 alt.politics.homosexuality:10007 talk.abortion:57270 alt.politics.clinton:20886
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:41 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <C176zM.Kut@unix.portal.com>, drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson) writes...
| 
|Now the Supreme Court says that a hate crime law is wrong because, as I 
|understand it, while you can prosecute an action, you can't prosecute a  
|motivation for a crime. Murder is Murder, why the person did it is irrelavent
|in the eyes of the laws. We can't make some motivations worse than others
|because then some motivations become less worse. Then we would have to judge
|a crime by its motives while the body is just as dead.

	I'm not saying I disagree for the moment.  But it has occurred to 
me that the definition of murder depends on motive.  Murder is killing 
without a sanctioned motive.

	Thus, we do consider motive in defining crime.

	However, once we determine that the motive was not valid, then
the action of killing is called "murder".  Once it is murder, then if we
make further arbitrations as to the motive of the killing, we would be
prosecuting for a crime beyond murder.

	In principle, this would seem to give special rights to the victim
based on the motive.  Interestingly, these special rights would apply
to the victim regardless of his sexual orientation, since the murderer's
motive may be independent of the reality of sexual orientation.

	But, if the hate crime is defined by the status (orientation)
of the victim himself, and not the actual motives of the killer, then
a special right is being granted.

	I guess it all depends on whether we think granting this type of 
special right is warranted in hopes of curbing violence against a group,
in this case, Gayfolk.
        __
Gadson  \/
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
X-Still-Continued: Idaho
X-Job-Hunt-Header: Unemployed actuary will work for food
X-Politically-Correct-Statement: Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott
X-Random-Header: Ignore this line
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
X-Pcs-Continued: Colorado, think twice about Oregon, watch out for Ohio and
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:20:41 GMT

smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>If the person doing this were Jewish, she'd have a point.  But 
>Christians don't follow the Mosaic Law.   The fact that some 
>of the moral code Christians are told to follow also were in 
>the Mosaic Law doesn't mean Chrsitians are hypocritical for 
>following those, and not the rest of the Mosaic Law.  If a 
>Christian follows the *literal* word of the Bible, he will
>be following those parts which were reaffirmed in the NT, 

So we're only supposed to be following the NT?  Why I thought
that the Bible was supposed to be inerrant, and that there
are no conflicts within.

Yet it seems that there are conflicts in the *literal* word of the
Bible.  You yourself have illustrated that sections of the New Testament
conflict with those of the Old Testament.


--
Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	      | for themselves.  -- Abraham Lincoln
an692@anon.penet.fi	      | We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv  | it at home.  -- Edward R. Murrow
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:05:48 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1993Jan25.115934.5213@wkuvx1.bitnet> hargijk@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>How sterotypical can you be?
>
>Bill Cosby has the nerve to stereotype all Souther white males
>as hillbillies and "bubbas". Talk about hypocracy, If I (white,male)
>were to go on t.v. and stereotype all southern black as a bunch of
>welfare cheats, drug dealers, and lazy. THen I would be thrown in jail
>for violating his "constitutional rights". 
>

Well, you certainly wouldn't be thrown in jail, since we do have
something called free speech; you'd just be laughed off the stage.
But I digress...

>LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!!!

If Cosby really did say something like this, then the point I think
you're trying to make may be valid -- that there's a double
standard here.  But are you sure that you aren't quoting him out
of context, or that it wasn't said *in jest*?

Chris
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: To Better Understand....
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:20:03 GMT

In the list of Clinton's promises that Emil Chuck recently posted here,
I read the following...

---------
3.) AIDS
     J.  Increase funding to better understand the behaviors that put
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
         people at risk for HIV.
--------

Is it just me, or does this seem like a rather ridiculous statement?

I thought we knew about the behaviors that put people at risk.  After all,
HIV is primarily a behaviorally propogated organism, isn't it?

And, we pretty much know which behaviors are the most risky, don't we?

Please, no flames.  This is not meant as a judgement call, so liberals,
don't bother with "educating me" and conservatives, don't take this and
run with it :-) :-) (that's two smileys, in case you miss the first one).


Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Read this if you are Ted Krueger!
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:39:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA


 (Vern Morrison) writes:


	HEY! its van morrison... sing it too us baby... oops
	its vern... hey vern did you hear about...


off in another time warp,
pjm.
> 
> I just had an idea!  Let's all chip in to get Ted Krueger a dictionary. 
> Maybe we could hire someone to help him with the hard words, the ones
> that liberals use, words like "bona fide."  Afterward, when he gets fired
> or laid off, or even layed-off, he'll have lots of time to browse through 
> it and maybe learn a thing or two about writing coherent English prose.  He
> could keep this knowledge for life!
> -- 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh