HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Jul22.132239.593@cs.joensuu.fi>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 23:50:51 GMT

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>>More than "most likely."  There's no reasonable doubt that the harlot
>>is the city of Rome.  Revelation 17:3 says she was sitting on a beast
>>with "seven heads and ten horns."  17:9 says "the seven heads are
>>seven mountains."  Rome was famous for having been built on seven
>>hills, and any person at that time hearing of a city with seven hills
>>(or mountains) would immediately think of Rome.  The woman also has

>	So was Lutetia, too (Paris). 

This is the first time I've ever heard that Paris was built on seven
hills.  I've known for a long time that ancient Rome was.  The _New
Columbia Encyclopedia_, article on "Rome", not only states that it was
built on seven hills but names them (Palatine, Capitoline, Quirinal,
Viminal, Esquiline, Caelian, and Aventine, if anyone's interested).
The same encyclopedia, in its article on Paris, mentions no hill
except Montmartre.  Thus, even if Paris was built on seven hills, it
appears that Rome was much more famous for that feature.

In any event, Paris at the time Revelation was written was little more
than a village.  Rome was the greatest city in the world.  The images
of wealth and power in Revelation 17 could only have indicated Rome,
not Paris.

>	Mountains refer in Bible to powers, because important places like 
>	Jerusalem and Megiddo were on mountains. 

Mountains can symbolize many things, but when a passage specifically
says that a harlot represents a city, and that the seven heads of the
beast she is sitting on represent seven mountains, anyone living at
that time would naturally think of the one city in the world which was
not only wealthy and powerful, but was very well known for having
seven hills.


Keith
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Give me a break Mr. Adams
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:30:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Jul22.201708.363@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:

I meant to stay out of this, but this is becoming absurd.

>Give me a break will you?  Does everything I say have to be as perfect as
>what you say?  Is this an object lesson in theoretical speech?

This is not any theoretical exercise, but the Usenet. Mr. Adams has
been polite to you by ordinary standards, and very polite by net
standards.  I get the feeling you have no idea what it is to be
flamed, but if you stick around you are no doubt (considering your
views and the rude way in which you expressed them) going to learn.

>You knew exactly what I meant, and still chose to give me flak about it. 
>What's the purpose?

This sort of thing *is* the purpose of the net--an exchange of views.
We are not all on separate soapboxes deaf to all but our own shouting,
so naturally people will respond.  You post, someone responds.

>Of course I know about the verses that say love your enemy, and all
>that, but as of yet, noone here is my enemy.

This is the most absurd thing you have said yet.  I'm fairly sure
there are some people who read this group who hate your guts already,
and would be inclined to spit on you if they met you on the street.
If you did not realize this and it bothers you, I suggest you think
about it.  This is, incidentally, not a rhetorical exaggeration.  I
meant it quite literally.  If you teach love you will tend to get love
back, and if you teach hate you will tend to get hate back.  This
provides an additional reason for changing your mind about what
Christianity is and who Jesus is.  The religion of hate is not true,
will not lead to God, and is not what Jesus taught.  I suggest you
give it up.

>I made no direct attempts to anger anyone, nor did I intentionally write
>to offend.  Homosexuals or otherwise.  

I'm glad to hear it, but you should learn that telling people they
are worthless scum is usually taken as offensive, whatever you intended 
by it.  But this sort of thing is why the net can be a valuable tool
for learning, and I hope you will not take it too much to heart.


--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@cs.concordia.ca
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Zeleny's Cross-Posting
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:02:31 GMT
Organization: Cross Posting Police
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:

>>Mikhail Zeleny (zeleny@husc.harvard.edu) writes to an excessively
>>large number of newsgroups:

(Michael Zeleny) writes:

>Thank you for sharing your judgment of impropriety of my cross-posting,
>Calvin.  However, I'm sure you will agree with me that it is the author's
>prerogative to choose the venues for his writings.  Feel free to respond
>wherever you see fit, for I shall do just that.

I have to agree with Calvin: 400+ lines of blather that seemingly
has nothing to do with talk.religion.misc should probably go 
elsewhere. Not all of care to hear (what might be described as)
garulous dithering.

If Messrs Zeleny & Ostrum wish to continue here, I for one would
appreciate your doing it either with the newsgroup more in mind,
or else in private.


Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: The Harlot
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:18:34 GMT

tom@portland.mdc.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>The "great city," according to Revelation, is Jerusalem (cf. Jeremiah
>22:8).  Because of its gross sin and pagan worship, it is called spiritual
>Sodom and Egypt.  Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, not Rome.  The "harlot"
>represent unbelieving Judaism (cf Isaiah 1:21; Ezekiel 16).

>Symbolically, the "great city" of earthly Jerusalem, the spiritual harlot
>who fornicated with pagan Rome, is contrasted with the new Jerusalem which
>comes down from heaven (Rev. 3:12; 21:2ff).

	Sorry, no bonus.

	Again, what you say is not completely wrong. Jerusalem had become a 
	center of false worship, but it was only a _local_ center. In the 
	beginning of the Revelation the throne of Satan was placed to Pergamum,
	not to Jerusalem. Still, Babylon is referred to the origin and source 
	of all false worship as it historically is. Babylon wasn't very 
	magnificent that time, more a little town, so it meant SPIRITUAL 
	Babylon. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Twin Studies and Homosexuality (WAS Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:49:09 GMT

In article <92383@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>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.
Hmmmm....Doesn't the fact that they are all multiples of 11 strike you
as funny?

>>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.
Not at all. Being born into the same family at the same time, rather
than a year or more apart surely means that you have a more
similar environment.

>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.
No doubt.

> 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.
Hmmm...My library access is pretty lousy right now, as I
just moved, and I don't think that Dr. Kallman is likely to send
me a reprint at this point.

Can you briefly describe the study, and if it looks interesting, I'll
make an attempt to dig it up?
-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.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:24:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <3997@news.duke.edu> John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu writes:
>Jesus and the beloved disciple who laid his head on Jesus' breast were involved
>in at least a homoaffectional relationship. It wasn't like everyone laid their
>head on Jesus' breast.  Just one.  Lovers. 
                                    ^^^^^^
>Face it.  

This reminds me of a situation that took place with 
regard to one of the paintings at the UGA museum.  There is a painting of
two young women who are sitting very close.  One is whispering in anothers
ear.  It was painted in the 1800's.  REM did a video "Low" that featured this
painting.  (I learned all of this in art class.)  In the video, one girl
untied the other girls blouse.  A mother of a public school student saw
it and called  the local schools and got them to stop field trips
to the museum because of the alleged lesbian theme of the painting.

The painting was not even a lesbian painting.  In that period of time, you
could sit a lot closer to someone and be more affectionate with a person
of the same sex without being considered homosexual.  the girls looked
like sisters in the painting anyway.  (There is a painting the the UGA
museum that is filled with homoerotic and phallic imagary.  I think she
just protested the wrong painting.)  

My point is that our idea of personal space is not a cultural universal.
Bedoin men greet one another very closely face to face in a way that would
be uncomfortable for Americans, and I do not think that it would be 
unreasonable to assume that another Semitic culture thousands of years 
ago would not be somewhat different than ours.

I think the KJV use of the word "breast" has more to do with invoking 
ideas about sexuality when reading the passage.  "Chest" would
not have the same connotation in the verse.  

From what I have read, leaning on someones breast would be a reasonable
way to hear a secret in the Roman type seats of the day.

Link Hudson.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:32:31 EDT
From: <LXS117@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Catholic Distortion

How sad it is that so many people have lost sight of the initial
idea of religion, which was to teach people to love one another.
A major purveyor of distorted faith is of course, the Catholic
Church, which has become a vast sea of corruption.  Jesus,
who cast the money changers from the temple (Matthew 21:12)
would be repulsed by "his" church which now has a bank, infinite
assets, and who gives shelter to murderers such as Manuel Noriega.
With the vast wealth of the church, I am sure that many of the
starving children in the world (is this the life they deserve?)
could be fed and sheltered.
     As the money gathers dust in vaults and the pro-lifers-
largely Catholic-gather cash to blow up abortion clinics,thousands
of people die.  Many of them are the babies that Catholic children
are taught never enter the world unwanted and unloved.  The world
population  is swelling into deadly oblivion, and still the
holy men demand that human creation remain unchecked.  What about
all of God's other creatures that share the planet and die of
overcrowding and lack of food on this overstrained globe?
     Need I continue?  I can think of much more to say...
if someone thinks I am missing some hidden, mystical explanation
for this dismal scene, please tell me.
                               ***Lizabeth***
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:31:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.024228.15848@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.020720.4894@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>If homosexuality was a defect rather than beneficial evolution would
>>have removed it long ago. There is simply no way a trait that results
>>in 10% of the population not reproducing will survive unless it enhances
>>the survival chances of the population as a whole.
>Pure garbage.
>1) Many homosexuals DO reproduce, for various reasons.

Even if 50% do that still leaves 50% a survival rate of 1% less than
average will wipe out a gene in a fairly small number of generations.

>2) If sexual orientation is not genetically controlled, then it cannot
>be selected for or against.

Lets say for a minute homosexuality has no benefit for the species and
only results in loss, then evolution will make sure that everyone is
straight, even if orientation was not originally genetic.
(hint over 50% of people are straight, thus unless straightness is learned
 orientation is genetic)

>3) It is not, to my knowledge, known that sexual orientation is
>genetically controlled.

There is alot of evidence, but even if it is not genetically determined,
then evolution has determined that it is not a defect because we do not
have genes that prevent us from being homosexual. And you cannot attribute
homosexuality to human culture since it is seen in most mammals.

Now explain why over 50% of people are straight or mostly straight if 
sexuality is learned, when did you learn to be straight?
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: rlwinter@taco.ucdavis.edu (Richard Lee Winterstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:17:09 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering - University of California - Davis

In article <1992Jul29.233022.7722@macc.wisc.edu> stmarys@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ted Babcock) writes:
 
  [flagrant deletions]

>
>The condition of homosexuality--like that of alcoholism--is a defect 
>in the sense that it is an in-born propensity toward immoral behavior.  
>It makes one more susceptible to the temptations that lead to the 
>actions.  If sin is separation from God (and therefore a bad thing), 
>and a certain condition tends to lead one to sin, then I would call 
>it a defect--a physical defect to the extent that the condition is 
>physically based.  QED.
>
One quick question--if sin is indeed a separation from God (in which, generally
I would agree with you), how does one person know what causes another to be
in such a state?  For example, the Pharisees considered the gathering of
wheat on the Sabbath by the disciples to be a sin--yet neither Jesus nor the
disciples saw it as such--so....

>Ted the Troglodyte

Rick the Rotifer
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:53:20 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <22656@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:

>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
>in Message-ID: <1992Jul23.012300.14031@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> wrote:

>>How do you know that homosexuality is a sin? 

>(B) I believe that we (humans) are created in his image (figuratively
>    more than literally).  If sin is a departure from him, and homosexuality
>    departs from our design

This assumes that God is a heterosexual. I'm not familiar with any Scripture
which lets on to God's sexual orientation. Why would an omnipotent everlasting
being feel sexual urges?

What is the problem with accepting the diversity of creation? We see all
around us a multitude of living species. It is folly to expect that only
one sexuality exists, or that alternatives are poo-poo'ed by the Creator.

Brian.
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 07:14:53 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>I don't understand. HEre again, you imply that the fact that Xianity
>has not failed to provide peace in your heart is evidence that it is
>true. This is simply not the case.

  i do not claim to provide rational, empirical proof for the authenticity
of christianity.  it's been unsuccessfully tried for almost 2000 years.
i cannot expect to convince anyone of the truth of christianity based on
an appeal to rational, empirical knowledge.  if that is what it would take
for someone to believe in jesus, i expect they never will. personal conviction
and faith play a large part.

  many people in this world [eric you can decide for yourself how much you
fit this analysis] hold rational logical proof as the only means of anything
being relevant.  there are more things in heaven and earth than elementary
formal logic.  [set spiel=off]
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:25:03 GMT

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:
>>>you shouldn't change "he who sleeps with a man" or aresenokoite to
>>>"he who sleeps with a woman" to make it read the opposite of the original.
>>
>>That's not what has been claimed of the mistranslation. In the context
>>of the original Greek, "arsenokoite" can mean male prostitute.
>                                      ^^^
>These passages in the original Greek do not give much context to suppose
>that it is talking about prostitution.  

And it gives no context to suppose it is talking about homosexuality,
after all which one is mentioned as a sin in the Gospels?

>It is
>>a rather vague term which doesn't speak much of the prostitute's customers.
>
>Sexual immorality is sexual immorality whether or not money changes 
>hands.

Yes. 
But in the gospels moral sexual acts become immoral when money changes hands..

>>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.
>
>Depends on whose doctine you are stating.  Lust is sin, as Christ noted.
>Moral weaknesses often develop through sins.  Saying that Christ was
>oriented to homosexual sex is not much different from saying that he was
>theft-oriented or murder-oriented.  There is not support for any of it.
>It is like asking, "If Christ would have sinned, in what area would He have
>fallen?"  Many Christians believe that Christ could not have sinned.

Your starting with the assumption that homosexuality is wrong, and trying
to use the bible to justify your prior assumption. If your going to take
the bible as the truth then look at what it says, if your not going to
then let us argue using logic and secular ethics.

Personally I don't think there is any evidence either way to Jesus's
orientation, nor does it matter. 

>At the very least it can develop into a foolish and unedifying argument,
>even worse than the angel on the head of a pin argument.

Well I will agree with that :)
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 14:43:45 GMT

daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:

>On the other hand it IS *logically* valid to conclude that lack of evidence
>for the existence of a thing, is evidence against the existence of that thing. 

I am not familiar with any logic in which this is valid.  That is not
to say this is incorrect; I just am unaware of adherents to this
school of thought other than Mr. Butler.  Perhaps he would be willing
to point us to some scholarly works on the matter.
--
Gregg Skinner  g-skinner@uiuc.edu   I do not speak for any organization.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:17:18 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul28.215656.20946@macc.wisc.edu>
stmarys@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ted Babcock) writes:

>But, while a homosexual orientation by itself is not a sin (to the 
>extent that it is not under one's control), it _is_ considered a 
>physical defect

Churches have no valid reason to make that claim.
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The LDs and the Space Potato (was: Structure of Time)
Date: 31 Jul 92 09:05:18 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Jul31.094145.25716@maths.tcd.ie>, pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
[deleted]
> True. You have to admire Joseph Smith's cheek. I mean, it was his third?
> attempt to set up a religion?
>
 
	When (and where) were the first and second attempts?

Take care,

-Mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Subject: Re: Singular Salvation
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 10:47:16 GMT

Thanks to people who responded my original posting.
It seems that I should have been more specific what I meant by
>
>>>And the logical implication that follows ?
>

In article <12557@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) writes:

(And very clearly explains)

>
>The logical implication is that if all religions were to claim that all
>other religions were false, there could only be one likely truth and
>that would 
>be that all religions must be false.
>
> [elaborations deleted]
>
> [goes on to say that religions that accept the validity of other
>  religions are more likely to be correct.]
>

This is certainly one of the logical possibility.

But my point really is that deities and religions are creations of the
human beings, not the other way around. From that view point,
"salvation", or in more general term, happiness and freedom, 
has to be achieved by individuals by their own effort not by something
or someone else however powerful that outside force may seem.

Jeon

The opinions expressed here are my own responsibility, no one else's.


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.sf.written