HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mithraic Cults in Rome
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:44:48 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <17833@awdprime.UUCP>, publius@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (Publius)
writes:
> As Prof. Marvin Vicent pointed out in his "Word Studies of the New Testament",
> when Jesus answered to the inquiring Greeks (John 12:24) "Verily, verily,
> I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it
> abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit", He was applying
> the most prominent symbol - the corn of wheat of the Eleusian Mystery -
> of the Greek pagan mystery religions to Himself - that He was the REAL
> meaning and the REAL fulfillment of that symbol.  The mystery religions,
> in their distortions and corruptions, had that symbol yet without any
> knowledge of its real meaning, as the traces of the ancient memory had
> become blurred, distorted, and corrupted.
> 
> But Jesus Christ is the True Light, who came to seek the lost and brought
> them back to the Father.

I assume this is one way to rewrite the possibility that a lot of Christian
doctrines are influenced by ancient mystery cults. Even so, how are 
you sure that the Christianic movement is the pure source of knowledge,
what if the gnostics were right after all? This all leads to a lot of 
speculation and in general non-constructive thinking. And I'm not sure 
that for instance eating and drinking a god (ritual in both Osiris and 
Mitras cults) are inherited by the early Christian church, or that
the earlier cults had a 'distorted' view of the reality. Somehow the
first explanation contains more common sense than the later.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:05:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>True.  The Bible does not talk about men marrying sheep.  But those who
>are mentioned in the Bible, who followed the law of God would probably
>see the "silliness" of homosexual "marriage."  God did ordain marriage
> between man and woman, but he condemned homosex in the Torah.  I have
> yet to see your interpretation of Romans 1:27.  Do agree with me that
> it applies to homosexuality?  It is obvious.  What good reason is there
> for a Christian not to submit to Paul's authroitative teaching,
> seeing that he was an apostle, and God revealed the truth to the apostles.

Romans 1:27 condemns men who abandoned 'normal' relations with women and
were inflamed with lust for one another, and performed indecent acts on one
another (NIV).

Sounds like a clear condemnation of lust to me.  And fornication.  As for
'homosexuality', it may or may not condemn it.  It's not clear to me.

 -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: 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 09:23:42 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.134014.23423@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	Lutheran 
>>	priest blessed the soldiers in Winter War 1939-1940 causing a massive
>>	bloodshed.

>What exactly are you driving at?  The priest's blessing of the soldiers
>increased the effectivness of their combat, so they killed more of the
>invading Soviet troops?  Was it wrong for the Finns to fight to defend
>their country against the Soviets, or would the correct thing have been
>to let the Soviets overrun the country?   Would that have made the outcome
>better, or worse?  (how do you pick between 2 losing chioces?  don't pick
>at all?)  Or is your problem that the priests shouldn't bless people who
>are about to go off and likely be killed?

	I don't answer the political question about whether to surrender or 
	fight. Your logic is often seen in door-door work here, "if all people
	would have been JWs, Finland would now be part of Soviet Block." As 
	regularly I answer that if the Soviets would have been JWs, they 
	would have never attacked Finland. Besides, until recent time Finland
	was governed from Moscow, so the final result was equal. 

	Yes, nevertheless shouldn't the priests have blessed the arms. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Mormon FAQ (part 1 of 2)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:18:03 GMT
Summary: so let's hear the truth for once

In article <1992Apr15.191210.24051@hellgate.utah.edu>, jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> >In article <1992Apr15.111534.4293@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, wcsa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:
> >> 
> >> This  file does  not represent  an official  position of  The Church of Jesus
> >> Christ of Latter-day Saints. I accept full responsibility for its contents.
> >
> >So why bother? Nothing is ever an official version.
> 
> Just as Antii Silvonnen does not speak the official position of the
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (thank God), and just as Michael
> Bushnell does not speak the official position of the Roman Catholic
> Church, neither does Willard speak the official position of the Church
> of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Those of us who belong to

I should think that an informed member knows what their church's
position is on most matters of doctrine, RCC and Protestant.
Yet, almost all LDS articles, explanations, whatever have the
tag, "this is not official doctrine", and this carries into a
full circle that winds up in the same position. Good try at
rationalizing though!

Love and Kisses,

barry--
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Why Mormon temple ceremonies are secret
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:52:22 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>   Recall the discussion we had about six months ago about this.  The
>   first charge levelled by Christianity against the gnostics was not
>   that they had secret knowledge at all, but that they had the WRONG
>   secret knowledge.
>
>Can you provide a patrisic reference for this claim?  I've read a fair
>bit of the charges levelled against the gnostics, and I've never seen
>any statement or allusion to secret Christian knowledge possesed by
>the orthodox.

I posted the references in the discussion to which I allude, but since
that was six months ago I will try to do it again.  I normally don't
keep such things online.  The only title which comes to mind is
_Clementine Recognitions_, but with patience I will provide more
detailed sources.

>   So yes, it does sound like gnosticism, but that ignores the
>   supportable statement that there was a true Christian gnosis which was
>   lost.
>
>If this is so, then I must ask precisely the same question asked of
>the original gnostics: Why was this oh-so-crucial knowledge not passed
>on through Christ's apostles, and their successors, the bishops of the
>Church?

Because, as goes the Mormon contention, there was much of Christianity
which was not passed on after the death of the apostles.

It's a rather irrelevant question.  You argue from the point of view
that Christianity passed uncorruptibly from the apostles to the
bishops to the Pope.  I don't agree with this assumption, so I don't
see why the fact that the knowledge is not present in the Catholic
Church has any detrimental effect on a claim that it was present in
the early Church.  I argue from a point of view that essential tenets
of Christianity were lost relatively early in the history of the
Church.  Obviously, you don't agree with that, and as such expect all
true Christianity to have been propagated through the Catholic line of
authority.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:06:26 -0700

In article <1992Apr8.130845.1203@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr7.152254.8046@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>   Indeed I have thought. We don't teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>   loot and terrorize like many others do.
>>>>OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>loot, and terrorize?
>>>     Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed.
>
>>Name them.
>
>       Go to prison and ask what is their religion.
> --

        So if I find a JW in prison should I conclude that the JW religion
allows "lying, stealing etc"?  That seems to be the conclusion you'd like us to
draw.  Sorry, but this just doesn't cut it.  The actions of individuals is not
a direct indicator of what a religion does or does not endorse - if it were
then ALL religions would have ALOT of explaning to do.

-Mark

>
>               Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 19:11:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.191301.4386@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>Let me just say that if I were a non-believer, I would still feel that
>homosexuality was inherently _wrong_,
Why?

-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: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:42:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.165851.15812@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>_You_ think: is there anything inherently "bad", "non-natural", "ungodly",
>"deviant", etc. about being black?   No.  About being homosexual?   Depends
>on how you view the Bible...

The common chain among "anti-homosexuals" (for lack of a better word) is the
inerrancy of the bible.   What you guys need to realize is, (from my experience)
most of the homosexual Christians don't accept the literal inerrancy of the
bible.  You obviously feel it is important to impress on them that their
way of life is ungodly, and they must repent.  

As Paul had to conform to the Jews/Gentiles he was converting, so must you
work from the non-inerrent point of view in this case.  This constant
thump-thump-thump isn't going to get anywhere, except get people irritated
and frustrated, on both sides.  

You need to show *why* you think it is inheritantly evil/sinful/ungodly, and work
through whatever implications that raises.
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus & God vs Mormonism vs Christianity
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:00:44 GMT
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute

In article <1992Apr16.113802.16330@en.ecn.purdue.edu>  
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> In article <167CA865F.HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>  
HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
> 
> >  2.  As neither M or C, I know more about both than you do.
> 
> How can you know anything about being a 'C' if you are not?  This is at least
> as crazy as "knowing about" the piano inside and out, but not being able to
> play...
> 

Gee, John, one might be tempted to ask you then how you can be so dead certain  
about what Latter-day Saints do or don't believe. ;-)  Sorry--you left yourself  
wide open on that one.  But on to more important issues....   ..bruce..

Bruce F. Webster
bwebster@pages.com
#import <pages/disclaimer.h>
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:29:53 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr10.023852.28190@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>God made me gay, it's that simple.  The sin for me would be to lie to
>
>Tell me something...  Why would he do this to you?  If I thought God had
>made me gay in todays society I would probably be more than a little
>angry with him.  God doesn't do anything without a purpose, so I am wondering
>what this purpose is.  If it exists I realize that we can't know what God is
>thinking, but I would like to hear any thoughts.

  John, I'm wondering why *you* think God would make a people gay?

>     17 But the one who joins himself to     \ -There is no question in my mind
>   the Lord is one spirit with Him.          /  that THIS is the ultimate.

  Oh boy, the state of mystical Union. Now we are getting into the kinda
of things that I feel is the heart of true religions. It's not "correct
beliefs" is the all and all, its the act of actually getting in there
and to spiritually work past all of this outer garbage that we carry 
and to Unite as One with the Divine.

  To me the joy that all of us can take in from this Union is the 
place that CAN bring us together in unity. Where as focus on "correct
beliefs" as truth seems to me to have a way of causing disharmony
and distruction among/between us. 



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

	David Hatcher


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Paul and the Church
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:16:17 GMT


It is immediately clear that Kent has not bothered to read this too
carefully, for right off, he says:

In article <22917@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

   The narrative in Acts begins shortly after the Crucifixion. The
   author of Acts is most likely a well educated Greek who identifies
   himself as Luke. 

Nowhere in Acts or Luke is the author identified.  I suspect you have
never bothered to understand quite what the author is saying.  



--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | Blessed is the King
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   who comes in the name of the Lord!
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | Peace in heaven,
			  |   and glory in the highest heaven!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Erin Anderson <erisande@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: The After-life
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:00:49 -0500

>Erin Anderson writes:
>	Question...  If there is such a Being as God, or whatever they
>call him now, IF he exists, Then how can Hell be posible?  My eartly
>
>I respond:
>	I think earthly parents (fathers especially) have been known
>	to disown their children.  You're right.  Sometimes it's silly,
>	but other times, can we blame them?  I suppose we will find 
>	out when we die.

	Terence gave me the best response in either net or mail...
"...we will find out when we die."  I like that.  Simple.  No
questions.  But I thank everyone for their responses so far.  Take
care one and all...
---
	The best sentence in the Bible:  Jesus wept.  Proves that if
this IS actually a true story, that the main character has a bit of
emotion.  Lovely, isn't it?  :)			Kryst -
					(Rhymes with 'list')
-- 
Erin Anderson    -    Socks    -    The Robe, The Ring, and The Romance.
ARC's Philosopher, Dreamer, & Stand-up Comedian.
		       (Lis's Hero on call 24 hours.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:37:55 GMT

In article <2304@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:

>I believe that children are an integral part of the family.  There
>is no substitute in life for raising children;

There's no substitute in life for lots of things. You don't get to decide
for others what's important in their lives. Or do you? C'mon, I wanna
hear you say it: "I get to decide what should be important to people
I've never even met."

>for anyone who is in some given state of fulfillment, it could be made
>better by having and raising children under the right circumstances.

No, it couldn't. You don't know me. Or my situation. You don't know millions.
Or their situations. Understand?

>> How about between
>> a homosexual couple and a sterile heterosexual couple? 

>I would say that, much as the family is an integral part of our happiness,
>and as children are an integral part of the family, men and women are also
>best off in the proper relationships together.  Before you stretch this 
>out into all sorts of logical absurdities,

No need. You've already stretched it about as far as it'll go, even to
the point of having it snap back in your face. Your whole argument rests
on your belief that you know what's best for everybody. That's an awful
lot of people. Do you expect any of them to take you seriously? Or are
you just talking for the fun of it?

>> The bottom line is that the "perversion" in
>> homosexuality rests solely on the fact that its existence bothers you.

>Who's generalizing about someone else's life now?

If I'm generalizing, how's it feel, there, Mr. Omniscience? Will you now
state, after all you've written, that you are not in the least disturbed by
its existence? Think of all those kids not being born. Think of all those
poor, miserable homosexuals who can't possibly be leading happy, fulfilled
lives. Doesn't any of that trouble you? If homosexuality doesn't bother
you, why think it perverted?

>> Do you imagine that homosexuals are really just heterosexuals gone
>> astray? That if they really, reeeeeally try they can go "straight"?

>Just as people who 
>have enjoyed heterosex for years sometimes begin to enjoy homosex, there
>are cases of those who have gone the other way (and many other ways too).

I take it then that the answer to my questions is "yes". Well, what
can one say?

--
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
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:26:40 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <53896@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
> 
> In article <1992Apr7.195156.23577@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> birdman@nwu.edu
(Christopher Kush) writes:
> >
> >But what about the Top One Reason Not To?
> 
> There is a way that seems right unto man,
>     but the end there of is death. (Proverbs)

Eh, what about the eternal life concept we have discussed about earlier?
Does the Bible contradict itself?

Cheers,
Kent
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:36:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23252
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <adams.702737823@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> No...his audience was Jews.  He taught along the lines of the Covenant Law.
> That law *never* applied to Gentiles.  We were covered by the Noahide
> Covenant with it's set of seven laws.  If a Christian *wants* to follow the
> Covenant Law, there is nothing stoping them.

Jesus audience was Jews. Paul's audience was Gentiles. In that sense
we agree, I guess.

Cheers,
Kent
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 11:46:46 EDT
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject:    re: Gay teens, suicide, and Christianity

One last time on point #3 in my first posting on this topic.

My opinion and assertion is that both the Jewish scriptures/Christian
OT and the Christian NT contain contain strong strands of emphasis
which serve to generate many kinds of harmful conduct, and that not
to disavow these strands is in essence to contribute to a mentality
which will generate more bloodshed, more intolerance, etc.

If someone identifies him/herself as a Christian or a Jew and feels
that all conduct done by the scriptural "good guys" or all of the
laws and admonitions attributed to these "good guys" are estimable,
then I most certainly would _not_ put my faith and trust in such
a believer and I would and do encourage others not to do so.

On the other hand those Christians and Jews who take pains to
search throught their traditions and specificly and overtly reject
the strands of their tradition which so emphatically embrace
war, bloodshed, death, etc.  and seek to make a coherent personal
faith from the positive, loving, life-embracing part of their
scriptures most certainly are trustworthy.

Clearly not _all_ Jews or _all_ Christians will fall entirely within
either category.

I feel that a much more misunderstood part of what I have posted
is the following remark of mine:

>The example which began this thread was homosexuality -- this
>is little more than a detail in the entire panorama of violence
>which is venerated as holy by many Christians and Jews.

Mr. Aromdee has quite misunderstood what I meant.

What this remark means is that objection to the Jewish or Christian
scriptures is not based _only_ on considerations about homosexuality --
though that is the topic of this thread.  Homosexuality is only _one_
area of many where the influence of these writings has operated for ill.

I am surprised that not even one person has been willing to give
an example of how they would treat a homosexual child vis-a-vis
their religious tradition and how they would seek to ensure that
the child involved did not become a suicide statistic.

Perhaps scripture for queers is most easily written on toe-tags.

Jack Carroll