HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:05:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.160054.13136@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
> I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand I have met balenced members of
> the WTBS and they are not anything like Andreas. However he reneforces
> the sterotype that the world has of JW's. 

Every once in a while, I'll print off one of Andreas' posts, and show them
to the JW here at work.  This guy is a "ministerial servant", in a position
of respect in the congregation, and what I would consider a "moderate" JW.
He plays sports (you *dont'* want to get caught isolated in a 1-1 situation
against him in basketball...) bodybuilds, has a good job, and is a
respected member of the team at work.  In other words, he is not a
fanatic.

What is of note is his reaction to Andreas' articles.   He says Andreas
is a bit overly zealous, but the content of what he says is true.
(except in obvious cases like "the booklet doesn't exist")  Things
like 'all other religions are false and of Satan',  etc, he says
are all true, the only problem is the bluntness with which Andreas
says it.   So, in recent articles, when Andreas was hesitant to
come out and list the "false" religions that teach children to
lie, steal, etc; and used that "physics teacher vs child" analogy,
he was practicing what the JW I work with had thought he should.

Of course, that doesn't change Andreas' view, or the view taught by
the JWs as a whole.  Eventually, Andreas must have gotten tired of
holding his tongue, and gave a partial list of "false" religions;
a list that every JW I've talked to would agree with 100%; they
just wouldn't have the balls to post it publically like Andreas
did.  In that respect, I have to give Andreas a little credit, at
least he'd say in public what they are taught in private.

Its also noteworthy that none of the other JWs here have disagreed
with what Andreas said; the only correction I've seen is Mark
Sornson saying the booklet "Child Custody Cases" really is put
out by the WTBTS.   So it would seem that the JWs as a whole
agree with Andreas' condemnation of all other religions besides
the JWs.   And that has been my experience with JWs; they dont'
like to be so blunt about it, but once you get past the veneer,
they do blanketly condemn all other groups, and say that you
must leave whatever group you are in and join them, or else
you will be destroyed as an enemy of God.   JWs who _don't_
hold such a view are a minority, who are in disagreement with
the official position of the group.

The only reason I can see for the JWs not wanting to be so
blunt is that it would make them look 'radical', which would
cut into their ability to gain converts.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:10:31 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr16.023144.26463@bmerh2.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr14.180802.9353@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>>To residents of s.c.j:  It seems there is a Jew-hater in talk.religion.misc.
>>
>
>I find Ken's behaviour extremely disappointing.  



     I agree.





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

	David Hatcher
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)
Subject: Better for us both. 
Keywords: angry young man
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:08:03 GMT

I think it's probably better for us both if I head back to the alt.hierarchy
where big vocabularies and destructive tendencies aren't frowned upon.
Wayne VanWeerthuizen wrote me to tell me how to engage in reasoned persuasion,
so I think I'll try it, against my better judgement.
The responses against my article quoted Scripture, as though this constitutes
the essence of Mr. VanWeerthuizen's interpretation of reasoned persuasion; it
seems fair that in open discussion arenas, such as this one, Christians be
held to the same standards as generation-x types like me. And Mr.
VanWeerthuizen claims that in order to change (someone's) opinion, you must
have that person look impartially at their own views and discard them. This
would appear to be impossible with many of the aforementioned bible-thumpers,
whose views are clearly embedded in a book with as much validity as a Ministry
song (no more, no less).

thankslaterbirdman



-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
   My employer, ACNS at NWU, tells me I must have a disclaimer in my .sig, so
  here it is: If these were the opinions of ACNS, I wouldn't have to post this.
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:32:44 GMT
	<1992Apr16.173042.27556@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:

>The 6th century is hardly the time of the Bible.  But even in the
>time of the apostles there were those who taught false doctrines.
>Paul, for example, showed his disgust with homosexuality in Romans.

So what reason do I have to believe something other than that the 6th
century Christians were in fact correct in endorsing homosexual
relationships, and that Paul was in fact teaching false doctrine when
he purported condemned homosexuality (assuming he did, which is
dubious at best)?
--
I don't think that "society" _knows_ if a person is a virgin or not.  It's not
like they have a neon sign flashing on their forehead or something.
		-- Jennifer Brindle (jbrindle@mdd.comm.mit.com), talk.abortion
From: corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, and Christianity.
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:18:35 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana


     I am not a parent or really looking to be one at this time, but
I feel that I would not kick them out of the house. That would not make me
a very good christian now would it.(I mean this very seriously). I 
think an assumption that many people make is that all who say they are 
christian are. As a christian learning that either my son or daughter
was homosexual would not anger me but cause me grief. After all I think
what often happens is that homosexuals think that christians are out
to condem them. This is very untrue, what is probably true is that the
one who is doing the condeming is either not a christian or a christian
struggling. I suppose what you are asking though, is what would be my
course of action. I would do the only thing that one can do when a loved
one(or anyone else) who has not made Jesus lord fo thier life. that would
be to PRAY!  
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:6259 rec.arts.comics:12129
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.comics
Subject: Isaiah 14 and Lucifer
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:42:39 GMT
	<1992Apr2.215050.8288@tss.com>
	<1992Apr5.214100.7832@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<1992Apr6.125231.1227@wkuvx1.bitnet>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA


Isaiah 14 is often quoted in support of the rebellion of the angels
concept.  More precisely, the quotation is Isaiah 14:12-15.  Here it
is, NRSV:

  How you are fallen from heaven,
    O Day Star, son of Dawn!
  How you are cut down to the ground,
    you who laid the nations low!
  You said in your heart,
    ``I will ascend to heaven;
  I will raise my throne
    above the stars of God;
  I will sit on the mount of assembly
    on the heights of Zaphon;
  I will ascend to the tops of the clouds,
    I will make myself like the Most High.''
  But you are brought down to Sheol,
    to the depths of the Pit.

But the problem is, there is no reason to suppose this to be the
Enemy.  For, in introducing the poem, which lasts from verse 4b to
verse 21, the prophet says:

  When the LORD has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the
  hard service which you were made to serve, you will take up this
  taunt against the king of Babylon:  (14:3-4a)

Lest you think this is a metaphorical Babylon, like the one in the
Revelation of John, I should point out that Isaiah is prophesying at
the time the original Babylon was taking Israel captive.  

Just after the often quoted portion of Isaiah 14, as well, comes a
pretty obvious identification of the target of the poem:

  Those who see you will stare at you,
    and ponder over you:
  ``Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
    who shook kingdoms,
  who made the world like a desert
    and overthrew its cities,
    who would not let his prisoners go home?''
  All the kings of the nations lie in glory,
    each in his own tomb,
  but you are cast out, away from your grave,
    like loathsome carrion,
  clothed with the dead, those pierced by the sword,
    who go down to the stones of the Pit,
    like a corpse trampled underfoot.
  You will not be joined with them in burial,
    because you have destroyed your land,
    you have killed your people.

It seems pretty clear that the author is speaking about an earthly
king of some sort.

--
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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Keywords: sexuality, attraction, beliefs, Scripture, `Lick!'
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:24:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.035025.27299@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>Disclaimer: Brandy the WonderDog is cleaning the dishes.  But that's okay,
>            because the dishes aren't enjoying it.

This is probobly the single, funniest thing I've read in this newsgroup
in years!  I was laughing so hard, it took 5 minutes to walk it off!!! :-)

Pardon the waste of bandwidth on this post, but it was just too good
not to comment on...=8^O

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Radical departure
Keywords: angry young man
Date: 12 Apr 92 10:03:18 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <adams.703026458@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>>He didn't mention science explicitly, although I for one think that religion
>>and science will always conflict.  Anyway, one of the areas in which I
>>don't think you can be thinking clearly is with regards to your homosexuality.
>>I am somewhat baffled by the homosexual Christians who throw up smoke
>>screens to try to hide the rather obvious fact that the Bible, your holy
>>book, is quite clearly anti-homosexual.  I would imagine that Christian
>>homosexuals must go through some quite agonizing rationalizations in
>>order to convince themselves that God really does love them too.  This
>>only compounds the problems resulting from being a member of a homophobic
>>society.  The solution to me is obvious: junk the damn religion.
>
>Oops.  I am happily married, with two children, and one on the way.  I have
>never had, nor do I wish to have, a homosexual relationship.  You've made
>a terribly false asumption here.

I am terribly sorry.  I think I have you confused with another Steve.
Must not have been thinking clearly.

>So, now, why am I not thinking clearly?
>Because I can find room in my heart to accept others as they are,

No, not at all.  This is actually a sign of clear thinking.

>and try to open the kingdom of heaven to all sinners?

But this starts to get quite fuzzy.

>Try again.

Alright.  Same question.  Do you, as a tolerant Christian, not
wonder at times why God let that anti-homosexual stuff get into
the Bible?  Even if it weren't there, I'm sure the bigots would
find some other justification for their xenophobia, but wouldn't
the fight be much easier if God had taken a little more care
in composing the Bible?

Once again, my apologies for the case of mistaken identity.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7263 soc.culture.jewish:8093
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:48:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr15.234803.27897
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr14.202152.10061@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>]   These are religions of intolerance and power, and they are obsessed
>]   with punishment, bloodshed and death.  Anyone who claims to be
>]   a Christian or a Jew and cannot or will not demonstrate that he
>]   has repudiated the power-lusting part of his heritage is an
>]   assassin poised to rip your throat open as a sacrifice to his
>]   blood-drinking god.
>
>If this isn't Jew hatred, tell me, what _is_ Jew hatred?

It looks to me like all-around religion hatred. It certainly includes
Judaism in the category, but I tend to think of the term "Jew-hatred"
as referring to someone who has some specific problem with Jews alone,
rather than with a category that Judaism happens to fall into.

Note: no flames from s.c.j. please. I am not claiming that this makes
it any less offensive, I'm just raising a semantic question.

>Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
>     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs vs. Christians
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:06:01 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>        Please Andreas, please answer the ORIGINAL question.  You made a
>statement that JW experts reading medical journals are more qualified than most
>doctors in the area of blood transfusions.  Several people (myself included)
>have asked for you to qualify this statement, and have yet to see any results.
>If you have no plans to qualify your original assertion please tell us so, but
>might I suggest that you do not post statements as facts if you do not or
>cannnot validate them.

	I don't know what you want to know. If you ask if the people studying 
	those 4,000 medical periodicals are professional doctors, then I'm 
	glad to tell that there are them. 

	The magic number is that 4,000 periodicals they study. 

				Andreas

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: vkitzing@mpimfhd.UUCP (Eberhard von Kitzing - MPImF - Heidelberg - FRG)
Subject: Proofs for the existence of God #1
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:34:22 GMT


   

   Before we start with one of the logical proofs of the existence of 
   God, as provided by the Baha'i-writings, first a bit should be said 
   about the view of God in these sources. This may help to show 
   what one can expect from such proofs and what not.
   
   Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i-Faith explains:
       "Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart 
      from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. 
      The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is 
      Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. 
      This is the true meaning of Divine unity. He Who is the 
      Eternal Truth is the one Power Who exerciseth undisputed 
      sovereignty over the world of being, Whose image is 
      reflected in the mirror of the entire creation. All existence 
      is dependent upon Him, and from His is derived the source 
      of the sustenance of all things. This is what is meant by 
      Divine unity; this is its fundamental principle." (Baha'u'llah, 
      Gleanings, p. 166)

   This text contains two important elements of the view of God: 
   (1) God as the Creator is superior to His creation and (2) the 
   creation is the mirror of God. 

   add (1): this means that God cannot be really understood by His 
   creatures. 
   add (2): the signs we see in His creation are from God. Thus, 
   the Baha'i-Writings exclude the existence of a absolute evil force.

   Now if we accept (1) and (2) what can come out of a proof for 
   the existence of God? The son of Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha, gave 
   the following explanation during a talk with a European Lady:
        "Know that the Reality of Divinity or the substance of 
      the Essence of Onenes is pure sanctity and absolute 
      holiness -- that is to say, it is sanctified and exempt from 
      all praise. ... Verily, that which surrsounds is greater than 
      the surrounded, and the surrounded cannot contain that by 
      which it is surrounded, nor comprehend its reality. However 
      far mind may progress, though it may reach to the final 
      degree of comprehension, the limit of understanding, it 
      beholds the divine signs and attributes in the world of 
      creation and not in the world of God. ..." (`Abdu'l-Baha, 
      Some Answered Questions, p 146).

   If we speak about God, we speak about His signs in this world. 
   
   This gives a short introduction how the Baha'i-Writings present 
   their view of God. The proofs will be related to this view. Next 
   mail will start with the first proof.

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

Eberhard von Kitzing
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Medizische Forschung
Jahnstr. 29, D6900 Heidelberg, FRG

FAX : +49-6221-486 459  (work)
Tel.: +49-6221-486 467  (work)
Tel.: +49-6221-385 129  (home)

email: vkitzing@mpimfhd.EU.net 

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 10:13:35 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Judging God (was Re: Line and Verse PLEASE)
 <adams.703192541@spssig> <1992Apr13.211638.2952@menudo.uh.edu>

The problem here is that christians tend to only think someone is judging
god when they judge unfavorably. Calling him good is a judgement, and is
the same act as calling him evil. They are both judgements. They cannot
avoid judging god, but they try to hide from it.

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:51:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.082542.5206@serval.net.wsu.edu>  
wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen) writes:
> 
>       TOP 10 BIBLICAL REASONS FOR BELIEVING IN THE DIETY OF CHRIST
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------

<much pious crap deleted>

But what about the Top One Reason Not To?

I prayed for awhile, with honest faith.  Then I stopped. The only difference so  
far is that I get to bed about three minutes earlier, and I have more self  
confidence, self control, and a much clearer idea of what life is about.  It's  
nice to be able to think about that myself, instead of passing it on to some  
deity I've never even talked with.

thankslaterbirdman

birdman@nwu.edu, throwing away whiny idealism to confront stark reality.  
Wheee!!!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Radical departure
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:46:47 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <adams.702931279@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> 
>> birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>> 
>> >How about a new newsgroup for those of us (cheers, Kent!!!) who are thinking 

>> >clearly? It could be called "talk.life." 
>> So any of us who truly believe in God are not thinking clearly?  I don't
>> understand how you can claim this to be the universal case.  I for one like
>> science, and respect scientists.  Science doesn't get in the way of God any
>> more than God gets in the way of science.  I like the physical sciences and
>> accept most of the theories promulgated.  
>> 
>> Religion and science can coexist nicely.  They do not need to be at odds
>> with each other.

>..not even in the case of homosexuality, where the scientific clues 
>point at the fact that homosexuality is hardwired into the brain
>*before* the birth...

Gee Kent, on this side we're on the same page....scary, isn't it? :-)  See
all of my posts on homosexuality...

 -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
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: OCR vs Homosexuality (was: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!)
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:55:38 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

I find Tom Albrecht seemingly supporting the OCR referendum to legally equate
homosexuals with pedophiles, necrophiles and etc:

> In article <22592@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David 
> Hatcher) writes:
>>  The way this would be done is that by law, the homosexual will be 
>> marked the same as a person who is having sex with animals, ...
> 
> What's wrong with having sex with animals?  Isn't that prohibition only
> found in the book of Leviticus, the same book which so many in this group
> like to mock?  And, I don't seem to recall any commandment in the Bible not
> to have sex with little children?  
> 
> Why don't we see more advocates of bestiality and pedophilia in this
> newsgroup?

I admit that I would like clarification Tom.  Does this mean that you support
passage of the OCR referendum? And do you really equate homosexuality and
pedophilia?

I admit that I find the OCR proposal disgusting and frightening example of
bigots trying to legislate their bigotry, and will work against the
referendum's passage.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Nothing dies so hard, or rallies so often, as intolerance.
				Henry Ward Beecher
				American Clergyman
				as recorded by George Seldes
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:23:53 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr3.100947.12426@cm.cf.ac.uk>, andrew@cm.cf.ac.uk writes:
> But to answer the question, re-phrased 'would you accept homosexuality if
> it was not mentioned in the Bible?', my answer is that although it does
> not appeal to me personally, neither would I condemn it in those
> circumstances. But such circumstances do not hold: the Bible
> is clear in its view of homosexuality as something which is wrong,
> and as one who acknowledges the Bible as God's Word I accept what
> it says.
 
> Andrew.
> (Lefthanded!)

You are very fortunate living in a society where left-handed people
are tolerated, you are also lucky that your religion is not condemning
you. Think about this compared with the homosexuals.

Cheers,
Kent
also a leftie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc