HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Loving God  (Re: Homosexuality and Christianity)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:48:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr10.193012.6932@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>For me loving God means listening to the rest of his Word.

  For me, loving God means to totally open my soul naked before
my Beloved God. It's a reaching towards God with TOTAL faith that
has as its vehicle the love that I reach out towards God with. 

  The experience of knowing God through this inner eye of love, "I"
feel brings one to a much greater understanding of Divine wisdom
and spiritual Union with God.


	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Guarenteed Salvation (Re:Homosexuality and Christianity)
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:05:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: spssig.adams.703368305
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In article <adams.703343852@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>>The Bible _guarantees_ salvation for Christians.
>>
>>[Matthew 7:21-23, NIV deleted (seems to disagree)]
>>
>>See anything wrong with your 'guarantee' now?  Looks to me like some
>>Christians will be condemned....

>It dependson how you define Christian.  If it applies to all who call 
>Jesus "Lord, Lord" including those who do not obey, then there is no
>guarentee.  If it refers only to the elect, who believe and obey, and whom God
>chose from the foundation of the world, then there is a guarentee.

Are you one of the elect?  Do you obey all of God's laws?  If not, then how
is your salvation guaranteed?

>>[opinion follows]
>>This verse would also seem to imply that non-Christians who did the will of
>>the Father will be saved....
>>
>> -Steve

>This is not implicit in the verse.  it simply says that those who call Jesus
>Lord and do not do the Father's will will be sent away.
The counter being that those who do the Father's will, whether or not they
call Jesus 'Lord, Lord' will be accepted into the Kingdom.

>Jesus also said that He was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no
>man could come to the Father, except by Him.  This second verse is found
>in Matthew, which contains the Scripture you quoted.
By Him.  To me, that says that only by Jesus death and resurection were the
gates of the Kingdom opened...for without the sacrifice none could be
saved.  Once the gates are open, salvation is now available...

We obviously think differently on this matter.  I beleive that everyone can
be saved, and some that think they are going to be saved have been greatly
misled...just as the Pharisees were accused of slamming the gates of the
Kingdom in mens faces, yet will not enter themselves...

Basically, you and I don't get to decide, nor can we do any specific thing
which will guarantee salvation.  God will judge us on that day, perfectly
fair, by His own standards...And He doesn't even have to apply the same
standards to all...

 -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
Xref: sparky a.bsu.religion:7 talk.religion.misc:6883
From: corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox)
Newsgroups: a.bsu.religion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: What is a christian?
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:52:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-cs.1337
Distribution: usa
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana

What is a christian?

     I have been reading many of the postings in this group. I have
responded to a few. I have read things about homsexuality and the
bible, and responded. I have read things about the logic of christianity.
I think that there is a problem with what christianity really is. It can
be defined how ever anyone wants it to. I will say though that as a
christian I always thought that it catagorized those people who have
accepted Jesus as thier LORD and SAVIOR. The second part is the one
that most people have no problem dealing with. Or better yet people
don't have a problem believing that Jesus existed or does exist, for
what ever thier reasons. Heck, why is that hard? It is a historical
fact that Jesus existed. I have only this to say about that. The devil
himself has no doubt that Jesus existed and is he in heaven? So it seems
to me that you have to do more than acknowledge Jesus as your savior. You
have to make him your lord. This is probably very old news some people.
What I am trying to say here is that NO where is it said that one has
to believe in Jesus without proof. In fact God has created the bible
for just that reason. Now one might ask "ok so what does that mean I
make Jesus my lord." It simply means that you hand control of your life
to God. This is said to be hard for you are giving your life to He that 
does not speak to you, that you cannot sense with any of the senses, that
you do not even know. I tell you that none of those things are true. God
does speak to you, you can sense Him, you can Know Him. It all seems way
too easy and that is the problem. We live in a world where nothing is free.
where you pay a price for all that you have. Well the price has already
been paid. We only have to pick up what was purchased and enjoy it. I ask
you then what is a christian? If a christian was asked by his father to 
obey his guidelines what would be his response:

A: I know in my heart the father would not have said this it must be wrong

b) There is know proof that God said this to be true.

c) I will do my best, for I trust that my father would not lead me astray
   

"He who has the knowledge of God knows it to be truth, there is know believing
 to it! He is also  open to all opposition for how could what is true be false."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  send me some mail! I like mail.....:)
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Mar14.124112.6401@apollo.hp.com>
	<1992Mar31.175928.11857@meaddata.com> <3198@daily-planet.concordia.ca>
	<1992Apr8.215020.11495@meaddata.com>
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:31:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.215020.11495@meaddata.com> jeb3@meaddata.com (Jennifer Bing) writes:

    I think it is safe to say that Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost act
    and speak in agreement. God said "Thou shalt not lie with mankind
    as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 Read also
    Romans 1:27.

Ah!  

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is
written, ``Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the
things written in the book of the law.''  Now it is evident that no
one is justified before God by the law; for ``The one who is righteous
will live by faith.''  (Galatians 3:10-11)

And, in case you are wondering just what ``all the things written in
the book of the law'' are, here are a few.  How do you score?

``You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of
your beard.''  (Levicitus 19:27)

Had a haircut lately?

``From among all the land animals, these are the creatures that you
may eat.  Any animal that has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed and
chews the cud--such you may eat.  But among those that chew the cud or
have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: ... The pig, for
even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew
the cud; it is unclean for you.  Of their flesh you shall not eat, and
their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean for you.''
		(Leviticus 11:2b-3, 7-8)

Had any pork lately?

--
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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE DARKSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:14:50 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <adams.702156334@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
> 
> >IMHO, the church is filled with hypocrisy.  There are people within
> >it who call themselves Christian but yet certainly are not there
> >for Christ.
> Although you will find hypocracy in the Chruch, you will also find those
> who truly practice Jesus' teaching.  Yes, the likes of Jim & Tammy Bakker
> and Jimmy Swagert are a disgrace, but they are not the church.  Nor should
> they represent it.  Look to those who take to heart what Jesus taught.
> Don't throw the baby out with the bath-water.

The problem - as I see it - is that Christianity does not have any 
moral or ethical automatic protections against misusing the message.
In that sense there are no guarantees that Christianity per see will
provide a moral way to avoid human greed and other negative emotions.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:09:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

>In article <1992Apr14.180352.8110@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>What astounds me is the relative attitude displayed by many Christians on
>this newsgroup.  Lets face it, there are absolutes and they are worth
>proclaiming, one of which is the salvation plan of the Bible. 

Some of us think the higher calling is to love everyone as Jesus loved us,
and to avoid sanctimonious, self-assured, self-rightousness.

 -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: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:14:27 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: harry.cis.ksu.edu

mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:

>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> 
>> True - I am relying on the Sackets research.
>> 

> Could they be....biased?  Would it be too much to ask of you to get
>some more information from a different (and I might add more reliable) source? 

Now here's an intelligent statement, but unfortunately one that could
never produce fruit.  Why?  Due to the secrecy of the Mormon practices
in question, no one in the Mormon commuinity would volunteer any information
to confirm or deny the exact truth or untruth of the practices in question.
Sure, we have Jay telling us what the "party line" is on doctrine, but
there is no independent confirmation.  No one but a Mormon is allowed to
participate, fine.  No one but a Mormon is allowed to know any of the
"secrets," fine.  Ask a Mormon about the ceremonies and they say, "Sorry, 
that's confidential."  Or we get the reply, "That's inaccurate," but 
not the explanation as to how true or false the claim is.  This is all
well and good, but all this does is perpetuate anti-Mormon sentiment 
and leaves questions unanswered with no possibility of resolution.

Let me state here that I don't mean to imply that the Mormons here on
the net are intentionally deceiving us as to the actual content of the
ceremonies or other aspects of their religion.  However, as an outsider,
I must say that when faced with evasiveness and secrecy under any guise
(and that is how I truly view it) I assume the worst.  Is that my fault
or is that Mormon public relations fault?
 
Jay Windley writes:

>>>Given the general level of misinformation here, it should be obvious
>>>to the reader that any temple secrets which might have been revealed
>>>here would have been so badly distorted as to be worthless.  Again, I
>>>do not confirm or deny the presence of any such information.

This is a classic example of a Mormon response that begs the question.
Without full disclosure the issue of "What exactly is Mormonism?" is not
going to be solved in a Protestant's eyes.  In the meantime, more myth
and conjecture fly without adequate response from the Mormons, though
I suppose it seems adequate to a Mormon.

This is all IMHO, of course.

-- 
-----------  Scott Parish  a.k.a.  parsons@harris.cis.ksu.edu  ------------
"The evidence of God's existence and His gift is more than compelling,
but those who insist that they have no need of Him or it will always find
ways to discount the offer." -- Pascal
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why soc.religion.mormon failed (was: why do we have no votes?)
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:22:45 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <u#@byu.edu>  writes:


> I don't think there will be another attempt to create a Mormon  
newsgroup.


Whoa!  Look at the postings in here talk.religion.misc!  Remember, a  
newsgroup is what we make of it, not what it is called...if this isn't  
talk.religion.mormonism, I don't know what it is... :)


Sean Luke
Brigham Young University
sean@digaudio.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:55:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.003701.3902@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.221210.20447@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>How about oral sex, a man fingering a woman to orgasm,
>>a woman giving a man a "hand job", a woman using a vibrator,
>>or a man using one on a woman?  For that matter, how about
>>sex between 2 women?
>
>Yes, yes, yes, yes.... Bad in that they are indulgent in nature and fleshly
>in origin.  I equate all these things with getting wasted.

"Getting wasted"?   

All I can gather from them being indulgent/fleshly, is that they do not
cause procreation, wheres "normal" sex does.  We keep coming back to
that.  Do you feel that is the case?  

How about different positions?  Is it OK for the woman to be on top?
How about "doggie" style, or "on the edge", etc.??

>All of this assumes that the homosexual has no choice in the matter which I
>am NOT convinced of by any stretch of the imagination. (If you respond to
>this also respond to the above please out of courtesy.) 

I think the jury is still out on the nature/nurture aspect.  Even assuming
it is strictly by choice, we are still left without a clear explaination
of what makes it sinful.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: revelation vs. reason
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:34:17 GMT

In article <rnvqbINNrfb@agate.berkeley.edu> 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu writes:
>For those of you who have time to answer elementary questions:
>
>1) Is there or not factual or logical proof of existence of God?

There is currently no consistent body of evidence supporting the "God"
hypothesis that I am aware of.  Nor am I aware of the existence of a
logical proof of the existence of God.

As for proof of the NONexistence of God, it depends on how you define
"God".  Certain formulations are subject to logical refutation (e.g.,
the formulation of God as an all-powerful, all-benevolent creator who
will punish us if we don't follow some arbitrary set of rules, believe
in it, etc.), i.e. the formulation can be shown to be internally
inconsistent.  Other formulations, e.g. the "invisible God" formulation,
are impossible to disprove.

>2) If  there is no such a thing, is there anything else but:
>"God can only be achieved through revelation as opposed to 
>reasoning" as a "proof" of existence of God?

No idea, but I suspect that different people have different ideas of
how to get to "know" God (there are probably at least as many ideas
about how to get to "know" God as there are about what God is like).

>3) If the quoted argument is the only "proof" then how much 
>credence should one give to rationalizations about Jesus, Paul,
>after life, healings, hell, etc,etc....?

Not much, as far as I'm concerned.  Most of the Biblical pronouncements
concerning Jesus (particularly with respect to miracles and the like)
can't even be backed up with independent historical references.

>4) If the quoted argument is the only "proof" what other reasons
>people should have to analyze religion otherwise than a disease?

Religion often serves as an important part of people's lives.  In some
cases, it gives people hope where they might not have any otherwise.
In others, it serves as an excuse for the person to avoid thinking and
taking charge of their life.

I see religion as being a tool.  It can be used for the benefit of the
individual or group, or it can be used for the detriment of same.

Unfortunately, I see much more of the latter than the former, but I
may be seeing through colored glasses...

>Cheers!
>
>-- 
>Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
>Department of Economics


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:43:28 GMT

In article <18120@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>Yes.  It would be a miracle Kent, especially if someone nearly eight
>centuries before you predicts that your wife will be expecting and
>also predicts what you will name that child.
Last time I checked, Emanuelle!=Jesus.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
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: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 04:53:47 GMT

In article <22277@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <adams.701193927@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>> The exhortations to follow the law were made to Jews.  Gentiles were never
>> required to follow the 613 Levitical laws.  The message to the Gentiles
>> conists, IMHO, of the basic tenants that Christ laid down: Love God, love
>> your neighbor, love your enemies and do unto others.
> 
>> The Levitical Laws were a covenant between God and the Jews.  As such, I am
>> not a part of that covenant.  I'm a part of the New Covenant, in Christ's
>> blood shed for me.
>
>And Jesus explained this himself in the New Testament? Didn't he explicitly
>state that he was not going to break any existing laws? Don't you 
>break the laws stated in the Old Testament just now?  

According to the Tanakh itself (note for Christians: this is the term
used by Jews for what you consider the Old Testament -- we don't use
your term because we don't consider there to be another one), the 613
commandments of the covenant were, with seven exceptions, only applic-
able to Jews. Since you claim that Jesus based his teachings on the
Tanakh (a premise of which I am highly dubious), he would have also
accepted this.

>And wasn't it
>*Paul* (him again) that introduced the idea of a separate covenant
>for the gentiles, it was needed in order to move the religion into
>new cultures?

He may have introduced the idea that gentiles needed a separate covenant,
but he certainly didn't invent the idea that gentiles weren't included in
the original one; that's a long part of Judaism. What Paul changed was the
concept that gentiles didn't need one at all; the Jewish one was never
applicable to gentiles.

>Cheers,
>Kent

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Sorry, Michael
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:58:24 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

Apparently I got it in my head a few posts ago that Michael Bushnell
was a Roman Catholic, but it has just been brought to my attention
that he isn't.  Sorry for the inadvertent promulgation of "uninformed
garbage."
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Radical departure
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:41:19 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: angry young man

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.

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:23:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr8.022333.17044
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr7.195156.23577@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>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 

Lets have it...  Just what is life all about?

>nice to be able to think about that myself, instead of passing it on to some  
>deity I've never even talked with.
>

You mentioned prayer, then you say you have never talked with God.  This is
true.  You have talked to God but not with Him.  In fact, I don't believe you
have the desire to - but if you do sit down and read some of the New
Testament so that He has half a chance maybe He will say something.  Worth a
shot isn't it?  Communication is a two way street - you have to tell God what
is on your mind, but also be willing to listen for an answer.

John M.
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 16 Apr 92 09:03:10 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>So, Andreas, you're quoting way out of context.  Additionally, you are not
>God.  Answer the question.  I say John's baptism was from Heaven.  I have
>answered the counterquestion.  Your turn.

	I wanted only to say a similar response as Jesus said to Pharisees, who
	knew the right answer themselves. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint