HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bring On the Cases....
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:57:45 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Oct14.141304.18904@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|
|] > rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|] > >Depends on the situation - I can see why one would not want a homosexual
|] > >representing one's company.
|
|Please Do feel Free to Clarify this point at any time Richard.

I don't think a homosexual should be representing a group that 
sees homosexuality as wrong (e.g., boy scouts) - a group that 
teaches ethics to youth.
 
|] Our company actually has a rule that it is illegal to discriminate
|] based on sexual preferences. Actually this rule is now law in California.
|] It's another great step towards equality amongst humans. I don't see
|] *any* cases where homosexuals should not represent a company, with the
|] exception of prejudice (which is not allowed anyway by the new laws,
|] haha!).
|
|sorta sums up the american way rather neatly 
|there kent....

See above.

|Maybe in Richard's world there is some
|other way of doing things?

Maybe in Richard's world there are moral absolutes.  That is that
there are things that are wrong, regardless of some supposed
improvement in society's progressive and improved understanding.

|ciao
|drieux

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:13:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.181203.25393@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.160654.18122@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>Keep the story of the adulterous woman (John 8:2-11) in mind.  Jesus
>>(implicitly) acknowledges that the legal judgement arrived at by the Pharisees
>>was correct in verse 7 but goes on to challenge them with the famous, "He
>>who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
>>[John 8:7 (NASB)]  You may arrive at the correct legal judgement that someone
>>is guilty of homosexuality.  But we are all sinners, EQUALLY fallen in God's
>>eyes and therefore are not qualified to pass judgement.  
>
>This reasoning suggests that no Christian is qualified to judge a murderer as
>wrong, either.

No, this reasoning suggests that no Christian is qualified to EXECUTE a
murderer.  Jesus not only allowed the Pharisees to judge the adulterous woman
as wrong, he agreed with the conclusion.  But they were all unqualified because
of their own sin to carry out the Biblical judgement.  The same goes for
capital punishment; we can judge a murderer wrong and send him/her to jail but
we are unqualified to execute him/her.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Judgement and jury duty
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 19:40:05 GMT

In response to a text which concluded,

>> But we are all sinners, EQUALLY fallen in God's
>>eyes and therefore are not qualified to pass judgement.  

Ken Arromdee wrote,

>This reasoning suggests that no Christian is qualified to judge a murderer as
>wrong, either.

I agree.  This is the reason some Christians refuse jury duty.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:41:59 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.philosophy.misc

In article <Bw4pz3.Jon@inews.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> Ken, this post is kind of interesting because it seems that you are not
> aware of the French Bio-Intensive technique of gardening. You seem to have
> convinced yourself that weeding is the only way to garden. Perhaps you
> should ask about this weedless technique on rec.gardens or get a book on
> it and give it a try. I find it interesting what people can convice themselves
> is true and not true, don't you? Perhaps you have been trying to cast out
> your own devils and have found that it is better to turn the energy around?
> Better to work with yourself then against? LOVE not HATE?

Gardening and weeding, this newsgroups starts to get really exiting!
Just to add my own .02 worth, I was borned and raised in a family
where our family's budget depended on as little weeds as possible. 
Boy we used pesticide... I guess religion needs a little bit poison
now and then :-).

Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:20:46 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-071092190158@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|In article <70323@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|Pitts) wrote:
|> Peter wrote to and said that he was not bring to them clever tales, but
|> he himself had been an eyewitness of Jesus' majesty - he saw him on the
|> holy mountain - this is the same event that Matthew and Luke report
|> about Jesus being on the mountain with Peter, James, and John, where
|> Moses and Elijah came and talked with Jesus.
|
|I have to double check how much Peter actually influenced the Gospels.
|As it's today those were written by unknown people.

Check out Acts and see what Peter had to say about the events of Jesus'
life - see who killed him and how Jesus arose from the dead. (Acts 2)

|> Luke states he carefully researched his work.  John was the beloved disciple.
|> Peter was the outspoken companion of Jesus.  Paul was called by the Lord
|> and a separate event confirmed Paul's calling through Ananias (Acts 9.)
|> Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture.
|
|Paul had a vision. I do know of people (like my father's cousin) that
|had a vision of Jesus. That's nothing unusual. As for the beloved
|disciple, is there a uniform consensus that John was the beloved
|disciple?

What about the simultaneous vision that Ananias had?  Did your father's
cousin have an independent verification?   Paul's calling did.

|> |The 'devil's advocate' statement is that the Gospel writers didn't 
|> |witness the events. Neither did Paul, the man behind modern Christianity.
|> 
|> See above.  It is no secret that the actual men were often not the writers
|> of the actual letters, but they had scribes.  Paul even signed his own
|> name one time so that the receipents would know it came from him.
|
|So you state that the writers were actually scribes. That's an interesting
|story I haven't heard before. Why didn't the actual writers then boldly
|state it's their words? Fear of lying?

Jerimiah used a scribe (Jer 36).  Paul states very often in his letters
that he signed or wrote the greeting himself - it was the trademark of his
letters.  It is not unheard of for a person to have another to write.


Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: dnvand02@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Religion in a nutshell.
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:19:03 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

Ok, it's time to wrap this religion debate up.

Fact 1: If God exists, he is omnipotent.

Fact 2: God refuses to prove his existance because proof denies faith,
        and without faith he is nothing. (If you don't believe me, read
        Douglas Adams.)

Fact 3: If God refuses to prove his own existance, he would also make
        it impossible for a human to prove his existance, as this would
        have the same effect (removing faith).

Therefore, either God doesn't exist or it is impossible to prove that he
does. The only reason for believing that I have any respect for is 'because I
have faith.'

Thanks,
Jon.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Control what you can control. Let everything else take a flying
fuck at you, and if you must go down, go down with your guns
blazing.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Fact 2: God refuses to prove his existance because proof denies faith. If you    

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17928 alt.atheism:18674
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.secular-humanism
Subject: Re: All you need is SLACK! was Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:31:10 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <fTF7DDo@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>The Book of the SubGenius or How to prosper in the coming weird times.
>The Source: Jehovah-1 (aka Wotan, Yahweh, RA, etc)
>The Teacher: J.R. "BOB" DOBBS
>The Goal: SLACK
>The Obstacle: The conspiracy and it dupes, the normals
>The Way: The casting out of false prophets
>The Weapon: Time Control
Good BoB. I was right. This man really must believe it. This man has
no slack. Paul is the first SubG poser I've ever seen.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Keywords: LDS, Mormon, Joseph Smith
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:27:50 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Bw1r8t.F6A@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
> 
> 	I thank you for your references, and will request them 
> through inter-library loan.

Better than that. They offer a copy of Joseph's diary, unaltered,
untouched, just as it is. They type copy what Joseph wrote, and you
can read along in the original. I can read Joseph's hand-writing quite
well(once you learn his style). I used a magnifying glass(looking glass)
:-) to aid in that reading though.
Take Care,

barry--
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:02:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <WIGGINS.92Oct12020909@hurricane.cs.odu.edu>,
wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) wrote:
>      I personally have found the Bible to be supported in many sources.  It
> hasn't been proven wrong to me.  It's principles work, and it is accurate
> historically.  No one has proven to me without a doubt that any portion is
> incorrect or ahistorical or contradictory or without significance.  Ah, but
> it hasn't proven itself by supporting evidence, one may say.  This statement
> is actually faulty in itself.  The actual happenings were the "extraordinary
> evidence" most require and the Bible is the supporting evidence of those
> real facts.  In addition, history does support this.  But, once again, it
> all depends on whom you believe.  In the near future, I'll try to post some
> references along this line of thought (some books, magazines articles, etc.),
> when I get the time.

Your line of thought will justify most other religious texts as well,
the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and so on... I really hope we could have 
a way to once-and-for all justify why a religion is valid, based on 
objective sources. As long as the only way to validate a religion is based
on a holy text, it implies that I could start a religion tomorrow, write
my own holy book. And if someone complains about the validity, I would
just redirect him/her to my own holy scripture. Actually, this is the
case with Scientology as well. There's nothing new under the sun.

Regards,
Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:29:40 GMT

In article <Bw2wIH.C8r@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>In my opinion, Christ can be likened to a Master
>>>Gardner. Christ did not go around pulling weeds. He operated by means
>>>of a planter of flowers. He went amoung the sinners and planted flowers
>>>by helped them.
>>If Jesus is a master gardener of this kind, he's an incompetent one.  To
>>properly run a garden, of _course_ you have to pull weeds.
>French Intensive Gardening, the way of no weed pulling required. See 
>rec.gardens for details.

I decided to read the weeks of rec.gardens articles that we have here.

I didn't find any references to weeds (either pulling _or_ leaving alone).
However, I did find references to forcing bulbs, killing pests, burning
diseased plants, and such, which have bad implications if God is like a
gardener.  There was also a reference to Japanese maples that don't breed true;
if you want to grow them from seeds, you plant a bunch of them and then pull
out the ones you don't like.  (Of course, they're not really _weeds_, but you
are supposed to pull them.)

>There is nothing you can do that can't be done...

This sounds rather tautological.

>>I believe that given the context, this means I have just demonstrated that,
>>_from your own premises_, churches must be attacked.
>No, you have demonstrated that you do not know of the way of non-violence.

I wasn't talking about nonviolence, I was talking about gardening.  (Or
rather, I was talking about metaphors.)  If you're going to say God is like a
gardener, you better know something about gardening; if you don't, you might
find that the things you're saying about God are somewhat different from the
things you _meant_ to say about God.  If God is really like a gardener, then
he does demand that churches be attacked for what they support--this is what
it _means_ to be like a gardener.  If God doesn't demand this, _you_ were
in error when you compared him to a gardener in the first place.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Those Darn Burning Bosoms
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:12:52 GMT



Based on some offline discussions, Kermit has decided I am a JW, and
nothing is going to change his mind.  I get the impression he has
asked God for a sign and received a burning bosom -- so he just knows
its true. <sigh>

So, as Kermit continues to refer to me as a JW, I would like
everyone to know that I am not, nor have I ever been, a JW.

Thank you
Mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: Robertson Roulette
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:38:04 GMT

In article <ldprb8INNbkv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Eric Marsh

>Church & State
>October 1992
> 
> 
>                     Robertson Roulette
>                     by Joesph L. Conn
> 
> 
> The Bush Campaign needs The Religious Rights Support, But
>         Can The Average American Voter Stand Pat?

[long fascinating & frightening article deleted]

  Any one else getting the feeling that we (the U.S.) are edging towards a civil
war between those who support a constitutional democracy on the one hand and those
who would impose a fundamentalist, theocratic dictatorship?  I hate to sound
sensationalistic, because I don't think these people could enlist enough 
"average Americans" to pose a threat as things stand today. But a cataclysmic (sp?)
event like a second Great Depression (a VERY real threat as we are only three years
from reaching the point that INTEREST PAYMENTS eat up 90% of the national personal
income tax receipts) could easily send people running to simplistic, fascist
movements such as this. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Johanna Wise <jmwise@cherokee.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: islam
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:06:56 GMT-0500


does anyone know where I could mail people for more info on this?
is there a muslim  newsgroup? egyptian? pakistani? wherever?
please mail me as I dont read this newsgroup.
Thanks. J.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:09:10 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct7.133934.7299@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>In article <f0eB02eP24VZ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.161635.14116@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct6.114200.13090@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you reject the virgin birth, you are rejecting a SINLESS saviour. To reject
>>>>Jesus as sinless, you are rejecting His ability to be a perfect sacrifice
>>>>without blemish.
>>>> 
>>>
>>>As I understand this common fallicy, all who are born via the mechnism of
>>>sex are born guilty and thus seperated from God at Birth. This fallicy
>>>requires that Jesus to be born with out Sin so that He could be a Perfect
>>>Sacrifice?. The Catholic Doctrine of Immaculate Conception takes this
>>>idea one step further, Mary was not born in the normal way and that she
>>>was without sin, so that her Son could not be _contaminated by sin by
>>>being born by her.
>>>
>>>Mormons have a simpler solution to the overall problem: Children are
>>>born without sin. Children who die with out baptism before they are
>>>accountable are believe to return to the presence of God.
>>
>>Can you back this up with Scripture?  What age is acountable?  Eight
>>years old?  Is this in the Bible?
>
>
> And the precise support for the belief in children being sinless is
> one of those that comes from the BoM. 
>
> The requirment that children are born in Sin is Augistine and Post-Augustine.
> It is a non-Biblical doctrine perpertrated ;-) on the opiated masses.

This is not true.  We are born into a sinful nature.  "there is NONE that
is righteous, no NOT ONE"  (Romans 3:10)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
Subject: Re: Christians are not Christians.a
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:09:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.155152.11249@waikato.ac.nz>, sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes...
>In article <5OCT199214542776@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>> To all foaming-at-the-mouth Mormon haters (You know who you are):
>>
>> So what if the Mormons are making an honest mistake?  Doesn't Jesus love them
>> too?  If so, won't he straighten them out bye and bye?  How do we serve Him by
>> fighting among ourselves?
> 
>So are you saying that if someone is straying from God, that we should just let
>them go on sinning, saying that God will correct them in time anyway.  Doesn't
>seem consistent with "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every
>creature".  Also, Ezekial (I think) said that if someone sins, and you do not
>correct them, then not only them but you will die for that sin.
> 
>> Jesus Christ is the center of my faith.  Joseph Smith means nothing to me
>> except I believe that Jesus sent him.  The Book of Mormon means nothing to me
>> except that it teaches me about Jesus even better than the Bible because it
>> hasn't been translated by so many uninspired men.  My Mormon church means
>> nothing to me except I believe that Jesus wants me to be a Mormon.
>> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preaches Jesus better than any
>> other church on earth.  That is why I love it so.
> 
>A dangerous statement, because there are many churches preaching Jesus very
>well, and, in my observence, better than the LDS church.
>I am not a Mormon Hater, but I do believe that Mormons have made an honest
>mistake, and my love for all of them as Gods children leads me to disagree with
>them and to pray that the Lord will help to correct them.  May Christ be with
>you.

You cannot love a man by attacking his religion only by showing him something
better.  If fundamentalists and evangelicals could show me something better, I
would still be a Baptist.

You cannot convince me of the correctness of your teachings or the
incorrectness of mine because I am convinced you do not undertand the Bible
when you read it.  Quoting scripture does not persuade unless you understand
the scriptures you quote.

Besides I am in a better position to judge between mainstream Protestantism
and Mormonism than you are.  I know both positions from the inside.  All or
most of what you know has been learned by reading pamphlets written by Mormon
haters or attending their filthy seminars, not a very objective source of
information.

As for those scriptures about following false prophets, I could find you dozens
of scriptures warning against failing to follow true ones.  Remember, there
were many who refused to follow Moses.  I imagine they supposed him to be a
false prophet.  Nothing can be proven from the Bible or any other scripture
because it is all incomplete.  That goes for the Book of Mormon as well.
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 12 Oct 92 01:49:47 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

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

>                                             So, to put the question more
> clearly Richard, if you were a voter in Oregon, would you vote for this
> initiative?

If what you've quoted is essentially the OCA initiative, I'd vote for it.
Sounds reasonably moral.  The right to sexual perversion is not quaranteed
by the Constitution ... or the Bible.

--
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc