HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalism
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:48:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <50@devl3.UUCP> root@devl3.UUCP (Super user) writes:
>>> That isn't science - it is dishonesty.
>>
>>Prove it or apologise. I'm serious. I've been accused
>>of dishonesty; the onus is on you to back up
>>that accusation up with evidence.
>
>No one can **prove** or disprove evolution any more than one can **prove**
>or disprove creation.  There is no empirical **proof** of either, and no one
>has ever talked to the individuals who were there to observe, therefore
>a scientist(?) that claims to believe in the proofs of evolution is dishonest.
>People see certain phenomena and draw certain conclusions but that does not
>amount to **proof**.  I think it is you who owe an apology.
>
	Two things here: first of all, you've quoted the first two posters
out of context.  The first poster was claiming that scientists were part of
some giant conspiracy to destroy Christianity by preaching the "religion" of
"evolutionism".  That's what the second poster was demanding proof for.
Second, acceptance of evolutionary theory has nothing to do with belief and
everything to do with examination of existing empirical data and the ways in
which they do or don't fit theoretical constructs.  This is what separates
science from religion.  Evolutionary theory is a scientific construct, derived
from empirical data and modified considerably over the last century as data
have been gathered and analyzed.  Creationism is a belief system derived from
certain interpretations of Biblical passages.  It has remained unchanged for
decades.

>IMO it is no more a leap of faith to believe in creation by a single, omnipotent
>deity than to believe in evolution through primordial stew.  You believe what
>you want.  Just don't try to mislead us into the notion that your belief system
>is more logical or probable than ours.
>
	Again, you mis-state the argument.  Competing belief systems have
nothing to do with it, unless you see it as a conflict between the notion
that empirical evidence ought to be disregarded as the work of Satan when it
appears to conflict with someone's Holy Book vs. the basic reliance on said
evidence as the guide to the truth.  In which case the same argument could be
used to defend Gallileo's persecution several centuries ago.

>->  Steven Foster					<-
>->  LAND MAIL: PO Box 2107; Collegedale, TN  37315	<-
>->  VOICE: 1-404-238-7111, ext 2695			<-
>->  UUNET: root@devl3.mckee.COM				<-

Chuck
(please note Followup-To: line...the t.o folks will be happy to explain
scientific methodology in more detail, if need be)

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: a little confused...
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:06:24 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <adams.702740375@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>
>>dove@elaine9.Stanford.EDU (Dav Somebody) writes:
>
>>>---
>>>I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
>>>fathers upon the children... Exod 20:5
>>>
>>>The son shall not bear the iniquities of the father... Ezek 18:20
>>>---
>
>>Along with the ones I deleted at the top, I have no answer for this
>>one on textual grounds.  Any takers?
>
>I can try this one, with help from the NIV editors.  Basically, starting
>with the prophecy of Jerimiah (31:29 et seq.), we see God promising to
>repeal the application of blood corruption.  Plus, the whole passage of
>Ezekiel needs to be read (18:1-32).  Ezekiel took the people to task for
>continuing to apply this proverb.
>
>Anybody got anything to add?

I do. This analysis may work in your religion, but it doesn't help
with mine. The Law says that nothing in the Law -- for practical
purposes, law is considered anything in the Torah that looks vaguely
like an order -- may be overridden by anything else, even if the
something else comes directly from G-d. This is part of why Jews
have problems with Jesus' new covenant in the first place -- even
if he *is* G-d, we're forbidden to listen to him if he's trying to
wipe some of the old commandments or get us to break them. So saying
that Exodus is repealed by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, pleasant though it
might be, doesn't stick: Torah can't be repealed by prophets. I
don't have a good alternative explanation, though.

> -Steve
	
	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:47:33 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Mar31.102359.6713@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> 
> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Custody of an 8-yr-old boy was taken from his Jehovah's Witness mother 
> >and awarded to his non-Witness father in a Sept 5, 1991, Johnson County,
> >Kansas court ruling.
> 	Rubbish.
> 
> 
> 	Conclusion: The judge was paid. And honestly I think that you, Walter
> 	Smith, are paid too in spreading false rumours about witnesses. And, 
> 	spreading false information in a public network is a crime here. You'll
> 	be jailed, Walter, if you continue like this. 

Yet another great example of the paranoid logic Antti is infamous of. I'm
sure this world is governed by secret societies trying to kill JWs and
pay money in order to make judgements against them. Please, use alt.conspiracy
for such nonsense.

Kent
..who is not payed by any religious group...
PS: By the way, why is communist Finland joining EC?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:06:18 GMT
Summary: you are bloody ignorant, Mr. Muelhausen
	 and unwilling to admit it


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".

YOUR sexuality graph?  Who died and appointed you Kinsey?

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

You have completely taken leave of any reality recognizable to ordinary
human beings.  I suppose that you still offer a valuable example when
well-meaning but sheltered individuals suggest that we do NOT face a huge
threat of bigotry.

Where DID you get this crap, anyway?  A while back you showed SOME sign
of willingness to listen -- was that a rhetorical ploy, or what?
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:59:15 GMT


Leon Gross writes about Jack Carroll:

> The person is defaming present day Jews, not those of the past.  He is
> asking them to disassociate themselves to things that they have almost no
> relationship to in the first place.

Fine.  So why not just say this?  Why not just say that you're insulted,
instead of calling him names and making thinly-veiled comparisons to the
Nazis?  Is that kind of hysterical garbage supposed to help anything?  Is it
supposed to be a defense?  Is it supposed to show why you think Mr Carroll is
wrong about Jewish attitudes about gay people?

Saying he's a Jew-hater won't do anything to change his mind or refute his
claims.  Given his past record on the net, and the rhetorical nature of the
passage, saying he's a Jew-hater doesn't even make much sense.  If you think
he's so horribly wrong, why aren't you presenting evidence which contradicts
him?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: More on Mormon temple ceremonies
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:54:53 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>>only like a substantiation of the charge.  Specifically:  From which
>>Babylonian religions do the authors claim the ceremony derived? and,
>>In what ways are the ceremonies similar?
>
>I haven't the faintest idea, actually.

This question was directed more toward John Muelhausen, who made the
assertion.  I have never heard this charge before, and it can be
fairly easily dismissed as it was presented.  Before I can say
"rubbish," though, I need to have more information on the specifics of
the assertion.

So John:  What Babylonian religions?  How so?  Also, you made a
statement to the effect that "Joseph Smith was a shady character most
of his life," and I asked you to explain why you thought that.  If you
have an aswer to any of these questions, I'd sure like to hear it.

>I'm just disputing that this unreliability may
>be deduced merely from their willingness to speak about details of the
>ceremonies.

No, it is easy now to see how this charge turns on the subjectiveness
of one's view of the ceremony.  But in my response to Charles Hedrick
I followed up on a point which I raised before.  Briefly, in the
summary John posted there was a misleading discription of part of the
ceremony.  I think this was deliberate, and I explained why.  I think
this establishes intent to deceive, and as such renders the authors
unreliable. 

>The purpose of the "what if"s is not to prove, but to disprove.

But it doesn't do either.  "What ifs" just get us thinking about
evidence in a way that might lead to a conclusion.  By themselves they
don't mean anything at all.

>You claim
>that since Mormons don't see significant similarity, there isn't any.  I give
>an alternate explanation: they could be biased.

I think you missed my point.  My point was that here we have a man who
is both a Mormon and a Mason.  He alone in this discussion is in
possession of the facts which allow even a remotely authoritative
opinion to be rendered.  True, he may be biased.  So might I, so might
our authors, so might everyone else in the world.

But if I am given a choice between an opinion which is informed but
possibly biased and one which is UNinformed but possibly biased, I'll
take the informed one.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:06:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <GOEHRING.92Apr14153119@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>dams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>Sex simply for sex sake, outside of marriage, is fornication.  As
>>such, it is to be avoided.
>
>Why?  What besides the holy text of the Christians justifies this
>restriction on behavior?  Who is harmed by sex for sex's sake, inside
>or outside of marriage?

Abortion, STD's, AIDS, and emotional scarring come to mind.

John M.
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:56:05 GMT
	<1992Apr3.100947.12426@cm.cf.ac.uk>
	<1992Apr3.162328.10488@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <1992Apr3.162328.10488@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

   Apparently it's not so clear to everyone, but that's beside the
   point.  My intent is to prod those who _do_ condemn homosexuality
   into a little introspection. Do they condemn it merely because the
   Bible (as they interpret it) does, or does their disdain have its
   root in personal fear and ignorance? There seems to be no doubt
   that the Bible contains more than a few prohibitions that most
   believers today wave aside and ignore.  So why does homosexual love
   weigh so heavily on the minds of some, especially considering that
   it has no victims?

I've been thinking about this question a lot recently, and I've come
up with a provisional answer.  Those who enjoy judging others, as, for
example, the Pharisees did as recorded in the Gospels, don't want
their enjoyment to end.  

If you are judging a thief, however, or some such "victim-ful sinner",
you are always subject to the possibility that the victim will forgive
the sinner, and then you can't judge anymore.  But, if you call
someone a sinner who has no victims, then you are free from this
problem, and can blissfully judge them with impunity.


--
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.
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:59:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1992Apr6.205936.21619
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia

In article <2303@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:

>> Why not? Most people seem to be born with handedness, tending to favor the
>> left or the right. Don't you think that sexual orientation might possibly
>> be similarly innate? 

>Neither are innate.  Cerebral lateralization is not complete for several
>years after birth, [...]

Whatever. The point is, some way or another some people find themselves
attracted to members of the same sex (or lefthanded), beyond any intents or
efforts of their own. For all intents and purposes, God (in a general
sense of the word) made them that way. How much of it is genetics and how
much is environment? The answer is irrelevant, in my opinion. The fact is,
Here I am, and I'm somehow lefthanded.

>>Is there a rational basis to your skepticism? Since
>> I doubt you're very knowledgeable in developmental human psychology,
>> I don't see how you can have a reasoned opinion on the matter. Yours is
>> an emotional opinion. 

>And yours isn't?

My opinion isn't the issue. My intent was to get Mr. Grawburg to examine
the source of his belief that God doesn't make homosexuals. Personally,
I don't care how gays/lesbians come to be as they are.

>admitting that homosexuality is perhaps NOT innate brings you
>to the point of having to accept that gay people are perhaps not so much
>part of the natural order of things as they'd like to believe.

If homosexuality is not innate, then by the same token perhaps neither
is heterosexuality. But it doesn't matter. I have no reason to doubt
the naturalness of homosexuality any more than that of my own handedness,
however that came to be. They are incontrovertibly gay, they are of nature,
therefore their condition is of the natural order as far as I'm concerned.

>Once again I feel compelled to point out that not all people who think
>homosex is wrong in God's eyes are homophobes;

I don't see how you can have contempt for homosex(uality) and not have
same for sexually active, unrepentant homosexuals.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |         Laden e-mail runs
Academic Computing Center       | Bumbling, creaking through the net
University of Virginia          |         Sysadmins tremble.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Buson
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:29:25 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <22506@zephyr.ens.tek.com>, davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David
Hatcher) writes:
> 
> In article <22576@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >The interesting note is that there are many individuals - including me - that
> >have personal happiness and joy, and are not tied to any particular religion.

>   An equally interesting note is that there are many individuals 
> -including me- that have personal happiness and joy, and who are 
> tied to a particular religion.

Yes, it *clearly* shows that everyone is able to create personal happiness,
you don't automatically need organized religions or mentors telling you about 
the meaning of life.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Cath. Christianity 101 -- of Francsicans, F117s and stuff...
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:12:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.235955.11533@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>Please note, Dennis, that I have not been indignant.  If you guys
>can take out a plane with magick, then that is, under the proper circumstances,
>a really useful skill.
>
>My only concern is that you all understand magickal ethics -- that you are
>responsible for what you ask for.  If what you ask for kills someone, then
>you, not your deity, are responsible.  Don't perform magickal acts and
>then get coy when they work.

I am somewhat amused by this response.  If Dennis prayed for his God to kill
someone, and his God killed someone, _and_ his God is as Dennis describes him,
then Dennis's God really is responsible and not Dennis.

What you appear to believe in is a natural force which can be controlled to be
used for good or for bad.  It is possible to call on these forces in such a
way as to do harm.  What Dennis believes in is an intelligent deity who does
only good.  This God cannot be called upon to do harm; he'd just ignore the
request.  If Dennis's God answers, it logically follows that what he did was
good, not evil, and only Dennis's God is responsible for justifying its
goodness.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:42:26 GMT

In article <23251@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <MIB.92Apr8111651@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
>(Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>> Further, Jesus didn't follow the Sabbath laws himself, and, further,
>> the Torah was never intended for any but the Jews.  Whether Jesus
>> abrogated the Law for Jews is all but a null issue today; it never
>> applied to Gentiles in any fashion, before Jesus or after.
>
>So why did then Jesus follow the Sabbath rules and attend temple
>ceremonies - just for fun?

Um... because Jesus was born a Jew, and so responsible for Torah?

>Cheers,
>Kent

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: JOHN M. RAMPAGE OVER
Date: 14 Apr 92 06:00:47 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

One more note to the many Christians on here who have not hesitated
to show me the error of my ways and tell me what a moron I am:

If I were to become a full time poster I would certainly go
out and look up all the research that has been done on homosexuality,
pour through oodles of books and periodicals, interview gay men
before generalizing, think each and every argument out logically and
clearly, and post mucho new and exciting threads.... But alas, I am
only a "study break" poster who does a brain core-dump onto this
group every so often in order to learn more about myself, which I
have.  I think if you step back and look at all that has been posted,
you will find that no-one was speaking with authority other than
their opinion, which is what newsgroups are for.  Lighten up!


John M.
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 10:51:54 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Just thought I'd ask...

In article <1992Apr11.021329.4962@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca says:
>
>What is love?

Buy a dictionary...
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:34:49 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <2292@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:

>My belief is that it is wrong because it leads people away from what
>can lead us to the greatest happiness, and thus away from what can lead
>us to an understanding of the divine.

Even if you are right, as you obviously are not, why do we have a moral
duty to do what makes us happiest? I think rock music leads people away
from the greater happiness and understanding of the divine they could 
find instead by listening to classical music. Does this mean I should
condemn and disparage those who would rather listen to Twisted Sister
than Beethoven?

>Nevertheless, for any given state of happiness for an unmarried
>person, they could be happier still if they were in the right
>marriage.

If true, this would be an argument in favor of homosexual marriages. I
think I've pointed this out before--and you have a way of not
answering objections, but of simply repeating your easily refutable
errors.

>Both the OT and the NT teach of the importance of pairing off, man and
>woman.

False. Jesus mentions marriage as an *option*, with the suggestion
that single life is better for some people. Paul recommended against
marriage. I suggest you actually *read* the NT before talking about
what it says.

>Nowhere do we see anything even remotely positive about marriage-like
>same-sex pairings, and indeed it is condemned several times.

Completely false once again. The whole idea is not even mentioned in
the Bible anywhere.


--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca