HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Bible and Abortion (was: The sin of shaving)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:34:56 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

slhw4@cc.usu.edu writes:

>Regarding abortion and Numbers 5:12-31 --

>n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
>[...]
>> Note that: 
>>    a) NOWHERE in this passage is their ANY HINT that God disapproves
>>       of abortion!
>> and
>>    b) NOWHERE ELSE in the Bible is their ANY direct reference to abortion!

>Numbers 5:12-31 does not seem to me to be a *direct* reference to
>abortion, and it specifically applies only to cases of adultery. 
>That's a rather limited scope wouldn't you say?

>Exodus 21:22-23 is not a direct reference to abortion either, but
>itmore explicit (concise?) that Numbers 5:22-23, and a bit more
>direct:

>"If men stive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit
>depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be
>punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and
>he shall pay as the judges determine.

>"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"
>(Exodus 21:22-23)

>That what the KJV says.  How does the NIV and NASB render it?

Exodus 21 [From the Oxford Annotated NRSV]

  "(22)When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there
   is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible
   shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the
   judges determine.  (23)If any harm follows, then you shall give life
   for life."

Exodus 21 [NIV]

   "(22)If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she give birth
    prematurely* but there is no serious injury, the offender must be
    fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
    (23)But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life"

* Or {she has a miscarriage}

So NIV & NRSV would agree on the text, with NIV using more traditional
language and giving {miscarriage} as an alternate text.

 -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: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Number of books in the Bible
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:27:12 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.192608.7655@dg-rtp.dg.com> grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross) writes:
>>The concept of sin is clearly defined in the Bible (a book of 66 books
>>covering a period of over 4,000 years).  Check it out sometime.

>   Actually, there are 73 books in the Bible.  You must be using the
>King James Version, which removed several books from the Bible.
Not.

The 'King James' transations included all of the Deuterocanonical books (or
Apocrypha).

 -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: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:42:40 GMT

---
corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
|news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:
|>>>         The dictionary I have handy defines apostacy as:

|>>>                 "renunciation of one's religion, principles,
|>>>                 political party, etc."

|BTW, by definition, a large part, but not all, of Jehovah's Witnesses
|are apostates.  They had to renounce their former religions to become
|a full-fledged JW, even going so far as to have to write a letter of
|resignation to their church.  But of course, you're the true religion,
|so it doesn't count in your case, right?

Nice point.

JWs encourage potential converts to keep their minds open
about the JW faith.  Of course, the JWs have the true religion, 
so open-mindedness about other religions isn't necessary.  Slam 
that mind shut after you've converted!  What a double standard.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Nowhere in the Scriptures is there any indication of God's disapproval 
of birthday celebrations per se. [...] It is a case of men presuming
to know God's thinking and making judgments and rulings that God himself 
has not made. [...] they are matters of minor significance, never
warranting the sense of superior righteousness produced by Witness 
abstention, and certainly never justifying the policy of 
disfellowshipment now in force."  --Raymond Franz, 
				    "In Search of Christian Freedom"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:52:05 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)

>In article <91721@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>>-Terence:
>>>(B) I believe that we (humans) are created in his image (figuratively
>>>    more than literally).  If sin is a departure from him, and homosexuality
>>>    departs from our design
>
>>-HYS:
>> This assumes that God is a heterosexual.
What assumes that God is a heterosexual?  This assumes that our physiology
is designed to be heterosexual.  Some things are asexual too you know.

>> I'm not familiar with any Scripture which lets on to God's sexual 
>> orientation. Why would an omnipotent everlasting being feel sexual urges?

Actually, interestingly enough, you'll find that in most Latin tongues,
that God's Word is feminine (e.g. une parole, or masculine depending on
translation like un mot) while God himself (un dieu) is masculine.  
Now, do the masculine and feminine halves of the Latin vocabularies feel 
sexual urges towards each other?  There's no two ways about it right? 

I consider "being in His image" figuratively more than literally.  Why?  
Image-wise, I think this concerns spiritual matters--a spiritual reflection 
of the Creator.  Behavior-wise, I think this concerns messing with the 
Creator's creations.  

>Either man is created in God's image, sexuality included (leading to the
>absurdity which Hot mentions), or s/he isn't.
>
>But I suspect that Terence will suggest...
I don't know what you're talking about.

>Where [is] an end to this speculation about what exactly is and is 
>not in God's image?
I don't know.  I've briefly presented my current idea anyway.
> Well, we *do* know something, if indeed _The Bible_ is true, about
>God's image. If you're made in God's image, Terence, when do you next plan
>to massacre entire populations, children and pregnant women included, as
>The Good Lord did in Hosea?
(1) review my postulation on being in God's image, (2) I do not understand 
your question as it pertains to me.  If a painting reflects Picasso's image, 
is the painting capable of producing more art?  Please restate the question.
(3) Excuse me.  The Sodom/Gommorah of pre-1000 BC massacre doesn't happen 
*in* Hosea which is only a report from around 760 BC.  It only mentions the 
massacre.  The rest of it is only Hosea's pleading to the people of Ephraim 
which makes plenty of sense in its historical contexts.  Besides that, 
what do you think is the main point of Hosea Simon?

>Have you considered the possibility that the whole shooting match is
>crap from start to finish? Just a thought.
Yes.  Just an answer.

Terence
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: : Polite Discourse
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:39:34 GMT
Organization: Politic Discourse, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Simon Clippingdale) writes:

>Proof by desire-for-it-to-be-so. Not really very convincing, if I might
>say so. Would you believe anything which it felt good or comforting to
>believe, irrespective of its truth or otherwise??

Ah Mr. Clippingdale. I would direct you to the religious philosophy
of William James where he addresses precisely the question you ponder,
in a pragmatic way. I would highly advise the book - I think it is
a good read and it is not that long. 

James makes the case (successfully I think) for the will to believe
(believing "what" is another matter). Even scientists of high repute
like Frithof Capra at Princeton for example have got around some of
the thorny questions. This is not to advocate any particular dogma
however.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 10:08:42 GMT

lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
>corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:

>   Ok, Laura, but how do you know the Bible is Jehovah's Word?  Because
>   the Watchtower told you?  Because you were raised in the "truth" (like
>   I was)?

>Creation is evidence enough for me.  I cannot comprehend how man could just
>evolve. Humans today cannot create life or duplicate the healing process of the
>body.  Does all this not account for something?

Yes. It means quite simply that our knowledge of the human body has not
reached that level. It does not require us to immediately think "Oh dear
I cannot comprehend this. God exists, QED".

I cannot comprehend how people would want to eat an oyster. Do I then need
to postulate the existence of a God who makes people eat oysters?

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From: jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir)
Subject: Jesus Would Gag
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:46:03 GMT


I don't know that much about Christianity.  I do not believe in  God,
but from what I have heard about the teachings of Christ, he would
be sickened by what Christianity has become.  Televangelists have used it
to make money.  Many others have used it to spread fear and hatred.  From
what I have seen, Christians believe in an evil God.  Unless you follow what
the Church believes God wants, you are going to hell.  Any God that is so cruel
would not deserve to be worshipped.  The thing that sickens me most about 
Christians is how many of them look down on other religions or lifestyles.  Just
because someone is not Christian does not mean they are inferior.  And I can
understand why someone would not approve of homosexual activity, but why hold
it against them in other aspects of their life.  Most Christians really make me 
sick.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:48:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <91721@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <22656@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:

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

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

Quite so.

But Terence's position begs the question: if indeed humans are created in
God's image, and hetero/homo/bisexuality are, and have always been,
observable human behaviours, then, well, erm....

You can't have it both ways, Terence :-).

Either man is created in God's image, sexuality included (leading to the
absurdity which Hot mentions), or s/he isn't.

But I suspect that Terence will suggest a retrospective, biblically-based
division between those observed parts of humanity which are supposedly in
God's image and those which aren't, and will call the latter "sin" or some
such. For this purpose, "love" itself will have to be divided into Correct
and Sinful along lines of orientation.

Where an end to this speculation about what exactly is and is not in God's
image? Well, we *do* know something, if indeed _The Bible_ is true, about
God's image. If you're made in God's image, Terence, when do you next plan
to massacre entire populations, children and pregnant women included, as
The Good Lord did in Hosea? Or did that part of God's image get lost in the
image-transcription process? If so, how do we know that homosexuality didn't?

Have you considered the possibility that the whole shooting match is
crap from start to finish? Just a thought.

> Brian.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
From: cpyy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:28:28 EDT
Distribution: na,talk
Organization: Cornell University

> People read it into the Sodom story, why wouldn't they read it into
> the Beloved Disciple story?  What you see depends in part on what you
> want to see.

I wouldn't go so far as to condemn all such entities.
It is evident from the scriptures that lesbos are OK, as long as
they are good looking.

	-Jon
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:15:55 GMT

In article <sbuckley.712454579@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>Eric Rescorla writes:
>>When one is discussing poetry, different rules hold entirely.
>
>>The truth of christianity is one of the former, not the latter.
>
>  this is where we disagree.  the truth of not only christianity, but of
>the entire spiritual world is dependent on more than empiricism.  i don't
>expect you will acknowledge the existence of an empirically-unverifiable
>spiritual world as long as you hold empiricism as the limit of your means
>to explore it.
Mr. Buckley. You are claiming that an entity exists. In what way do
you propose to demonstrate that it exists if not by empirical methods?

-Ekr





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:12823 rec.arts.sf.written:10334
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Going Back in Time to Meet Jesus Christ -- What Would You See?
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:52:29 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

(Lawrence E. Brown) writes:
>(Paul Moloney) writes:
> (Paul Harvey) writes:

>->If you want to know what it was like, watch Monty Python's "Life of Brian".
>->The original title was Life Of Jesus, but some people felt that would be
>->too realistic. Always look on the bright side of life ...

>>Actually, there's a very good Sf short story about package holidays
>>to Jerusalem at the time of Jesus to witness his crucifiction. Can 
>>anyone remember the title?

Or how about the bit in Hebert's The Jesus Incident, where she is sent back 
in time and watches teh crucifixion.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus Would Gag
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:04:55 GMT
	<1992Jul24.144417.18904@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> <sbuckley.712264209@sfu.ca> 
	<12514@inews.intel.com> <sbuckley.712393751@sfu.ca>

In article <sbuckley.712393751@sfu.ca> 
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
  disregarding the luke 14:26 red herring, i'll say that the bible is the
one true path based on ten years of studying different philosophies and
spiritualities from all over the world that claimed to explain much of the
workings of the world.  all of them failed me in that they either couldn't
answer all my questions or substantiate any meaning in life.  the bible
answers all my questions, and through it i found meaning in life when every
other avenue of exploration utterly failed me and i was left void of
any purpose in life.


Who failed whom? And why did you stop asking questions? What is the meaning
of a rock? What is the purpose of a rock?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:41:25 GMT

David Hatcher writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>  christians are christians because they acknowledge the new testament,
>>the new covenant in jesus as updating/fulfilling/replacing the laws in
>>the old testament/covenant.  

>  And I always thought all a person needed to do to be a Christian 
>was that they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour.

  exactly.  that is the message of the new testament--that jesus will 
reconcile us to god.  this covenant replaces the one of laws in the old
testament.  the new covenant is accepting jesus as our saviour.

>  To me, there is much to be said that the way to God is through the Son.
>So to me, what that means is that God is not know through laws, but though
>spiritually becoming One with Jesus Christ. 

  what do you mean by "becoming one with jesus christ"?  is that like
what i've heard in the past about becoming one with the god in us all? or
do you mean to invite jesus into our lives?  or do you mean us becoming
jesus?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Keywords: read the bible for goodness sakes.
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:29:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.220609.4521@samba.oit.unc.edu> Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:

[spiel #12 deleted]

with the power of computers and communications at our disposal,
it is time to develop a new system for devout Christians to use
to enlighten the net with.  rather than actually having to type these
words of wisdom in for the net to ponder, why not develop a database
of standard Christian spiel, call it Christspiel 2000. Sages such as
Mr Gross could then simply type "Spiel #12" in the article body
and everyone could then ponder what it means in the current subject
context.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus Would Gag
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:32:32 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <l78f20INNqbq@male.EBay.Sun.COM> lesley@pleasanton.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>	
>>>-Lesley:
>>> My conclusions is that God sent His only Son Jesus Christ..to make a
>>> covenent with His people by His blood to forgive us of our sins, to
>>> keep us from going to Hell..for those of us who chose to follow Christ.

>> You've said what you concluded, but not why. The question was "why".

> Becuase Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Lite....for now and
> enteranl happiness.

I asked *why* you concluded that. I was hoping for more than a reassertion.
Time to give up, I think.

>>> As for Santa being inserted into the Word of God that is impossible...
>>> Santa (Chris) didn't heal the sick, make the blind see, or the lame to
>>> walk...there is no way..you could replace God.

>> Says here in my scripture that Santa, acting through his son, did all that
>> stuff, and it also says that the scripture itself is the Word of Santa and
>> therefore true.

> If your scripture says that I would like to see your book...and I would
> like you to tell me how you know it's the truth?

This is precisely the point I am striving so fruitlessly to make, Lesley.
In case it wasn't apparent, this Santa business is a thought experiment.
I do not actually believe my hypothetical scripture; I want to know why
you believe your non-hypothetical one.

>> How does my position differ from yours?

> Becuase the bible is the Word of God...which was inprised by the Holy
> Spirit..(which, by the way is part of the trinity) which makes it part
> of God. That is the turth.

And my scripture is the Word of Santa, etc, etc, etc. Do you not even
slightly grasp the point I am trying to make?

>> Do you have some evidence independent of scripture?

> Sure, mircales happen every day...do you thinks Santa Clause does mircales???
> And this mircales come by the power of prayer....thru people praying to
> God not Santa.

No, I don't think Santa (a) exists, (b) does miracles, and the same goes
for God. Of course, if you have some objective evidence for prayer-induced
miracles, that'd be nice. As a start, though, a double-blind prayer efficacy
trial with proper controls (easy enough to formulate) which showed a
significant effect of prayer would *really* make me sit up and listen.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Number of books in the Bible
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<Bs6InG.1sH@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:57:38 GMT

In article <Bs6InG.1sH@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

   In article <1992Jul27.192608.7655@dg-rtp.dg.com> grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross) writes:
   >The concept of sin is clearly defined in the Bible (a book of 66 books
   >covering a period of over 4,000 years).  Check it out sometime.

      Actually, there are 73 books in the Bible.  You must be using the
   King James Version, which removed several books from the Bible.

Actually, it didn't.  The King James translated the entire Apocrypha
as well.  Parliament even passed a law that made it illegal to print
Bibles without including the Apocrypha.  But, since the CoE didn't
hold the Apocrypha as Sacred Scripture in the same sense as the other
66 books, printers left it out to save cost--there was no theological
import to the decision.

Later, when the Puritans arrived, they had a theological reason for
excluding the Apocrypha, and a big market was born.

However, all the major English translations of the Bible (except,
possibly, for the NIV; I'm not sure about it) include the Apocrypha as
an integral part.  The decisions of printers to publish only part of
the translators' work is a different matter.



--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion