HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:32:30 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <bfeB02QJ23eV01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
> I asked them how come they considered the words of the Prophets to be
> Scripture, and they read to me the above passage from the D&C that I have
> quoted above. I said OK!  But now, when I refer to a passage that one of
> the Prophets said and taught as Doctrine, they say, "Oh no, that isn't
> LDS scripture!".  So I refer them to the above passage in the same way and
> context that they referred me to it, and they do just as you have, they
> tell me that I am misinterpreting it!  Well, if you guys can use it in
> that context, then why am I misinterpreting it when I do the same?  It is
> not logical!  So please, I reask the question, if I have indeed
> misquoted this "Scripture", please inform me of two things:
> (1) What is the above passage "REALLY" saying?

That their words are scripture (but not necessarily canon) *when*
*they* *are* *moved* *to* *speak* *by* *the* *Holy* *Ghost*.

How does one know whether or not the Holy Ghost is backing up
what they are saying?  The answer is in D&C 50:19-24.

> (2) Why do my LDS friends use this passage to prove to me that the words
>     of the Prophet IS Scripture when I ask about item number 5 above?

Because they *are* scripture (but not necessarily canon) *when*
the prophet is moved to speak by the Holy Ghost.  And the Holy
Chost will let those that receive the word that what he says is
true (or if it's not true), *if* the receiver searches for that
confirming witness.  (Again, see D&C 50:19-24.)

What the LDS consider scripture are:
1. The Old and New Testaments.
2. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
3. The Doctrine and Covenants.
4. The Pearl of Great Price.

These are special in that these are considered "canon" or in
other words, they are the "standard" by which everything else
that claims to be scirpoture is measured.

5. The words of the prophets, especially the combined voice of
the First Presidency *and* the quorum of the Twelve Apostles, are
also considered scripture insomuch as they pass the test of D&C
50:19-24.  Due to the nature of some of these statements though,
such instructions can be very localized, or be meant for a very
specific group of persons and/or only for a certain amount of
time, or specific condition that in the future may not exist.

LDS believe that since man's condition is dynamic, so also is the
word of God to man *in* *certain* *areas* is also dynamic to meet
*some* of the ever-changing needs of man.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:23:56 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <BvCyIv.ACr@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <ksand-280992193304@wintermute.apple.com> 
>1.Kent types so fast that he types at least 75 words per minute.
>
>Now that is either true or false, possibly metaphorical but I would call it
>a rather poor metaphor at best.
>
>2. Kent types so fast that he is the keyboard.
>
>That is metaphorical. The issue of true/false is largely unimportant to 
>metaphors. I assume you are not a keyboard, but it doesn't matter.
Consider:
Kent is either a slow typist or a fast typist.
2. Is "foo" if Kent is a fast typist.
2. Is "bar" if Kent is a slow typist(e.g. two fingers, 2 wpm).

You may not like the words "true" "false" but clearly there are metaphors
which are accurate and those which are not. Would you like to choose
words to go in for "foo" and "bar" to substitute for "true" and "false"?
-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."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17385 alt.atheism:18186
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:46:34 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <6911@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes:
> Couldn't be bothered to work out who this was
> 
>>>> Jesus from Nazareth.  (Yes, I mean all those quotation marks).

> So who was Jesus from Nazareth if Nazareth didn't exist until after
> his death?

   Who says Nazareth didn't exist until after his death?

Karl
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:48:49 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <WIGGINS.92Oct6144209@lilac.cs.odu.edu>,
wiggins@lilac.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) wrote:
> I assert that the "extraordinary evidence" was given to them, but not you.
> And, you have the free choice of believing or not.  I think that we both
> agree, though, that reality is a thing apart from either one of our
> perceptions.  However, the fact remains that some choose to believe and others
> not to believe what these writers are trying to persuade us to accept.

The interesting observation is that those who wrote the Gospels didn't 
even witness this themselves. The documents are written many, many years
after Jesus lifetime. So we don't even have guarantees that the Gospel
writers witnessed the events. Are you 100% sure about who wrote the
Gospels?
Many known scholars arent. This is the point. The Gospels are written
based on tales and people's stories, not on real witnessing of happenings.

> I also assert that one's assumptions are usually biased.  It would be better
> to start out "devil's advocate" and negate the argument with later-found
> truths as the argument progresses.

The 'devil's advocate' statement is that the Gospel writers didn't 
witness the events. Neither did Paul, the man behind modern Christianity.

Cheers,
Kent

Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Summary: and this is family values?
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:51:36 GMT
	<1992Oct1.152042.18300@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
	<69599@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Organization: (DISS)Organization

In article <69599@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>No problem.  I DON'T PREACH MYSELF - REJECTION OF ME IS REJECTION OF THE
>LORD, for I preach Jesus as Lord and me his servant.  You can be done 
>with me and that's fine, but Jesus is still Lord and His word never 
>returns void.

Woah, the devil you say?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fTmBW#a@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Oct2.180641.28848@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:52:25 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>I would indeed say that that meaning of "slave" is fairly useless,unless you
>want to distinguish degrees or types of slavery.
>Do you care to distinguish different kinds of faith?

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Sure, why not? OK, you first.

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Huh?  I didn't say that _I_ wanted to distinguish different kinds of faith.
>I only know of one kind.  Pointing out that your position leads to recognizing
>two kinds of faith doesn't mean that my position leads likewise.

You mean you can only see ONE kind of faith? And is that kind of faith
true or false? I thought it was pretty obvious that there is at least
one kind of faith for every person on the planet. Clearly what I refer
to as faith and what you refer to as faith are two different things,
that's two types already. You aren't getting dogmatic or anything on me,
are you? Did I ever tell you about my barking dog?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:17:28 GMT

My reading comprehension must have taken a hit when I read this bit.  Sigh...

In article <1992Oct3.072447.8844@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (That's me) writes:
>In article <69739@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

[...]

>>For we are living fulfilled lives today.  However, if we are right,
>>what have you lost??????
>
>The ability to fulfill your life even more than it already is.

Of course, this answer of mine makes no sense, because it is not an answer
to the question actually asked.  :-)

If you are right, then I have lost whatever your God wishes me to lose,
no more and no less.  Because if you are right, then your God chooses
and sets up the rules, and may change them at any time and for any reason.

Of course, if your entire belief set is right (a bizarre thought, that,
inasmuch as it would require contradictory beliefs to be correct
simultaneously), then your God is a real bastard and I would have the
"choice" between eternal slavery to your bastard God and eternal punishment
of some sort.  I'm not really sure which one is worse, but it's definitely
a choice between two evils.

If hell is the mere absence of your God (but the continued existence of
my essence), then I will choose that, for I have thus far survived quite
nicely without any help from this God of yours.  Such a case would mean
that your God isn't quite as much of a bastard as he would be if hell
were actually unpleasant in the extreme.

Of course, one would then hope that, in hell, one can run across others
who have been placed there, and that one will thus not truly be alone.


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Honest Question for an LDS
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:53:00 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


Jason states:

>Mark makes another outrageous statement:
>
>Mark:  "One of the serious claims Mormonism makes about Joseph
>Smith is that he is as necessary and important in one's receiving
>eternal life in the kingdom of God as Jesus Christ is."
>
>He then provides quotations saying exactly the opposite!
>
>Mark:  Doctrines & Covenants, 135:3 states that "Joseph Smith,
>the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only,
>for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that
>ever lived in it."
>
>Note what the statement really says is that Jesus is more
>important than Joseph Smith, not equally important.  That is
>perfectly plain English.
>
>But what of all of Mark's quotations.  Do any of them claim that
>the life or death of Joseph Smith has any atoning power?  No.
>Does Joseph Smith some how save us?  No.


Forget what Mark has to say about this (no offense Mark), but I have a
specfic question:  If what you say is true, then please explain what
is meant by this:

     "If we ask who will stand at the head of the resurrection
      in this last dispensation, the answer is Joseph Smith..
      No man or woman in this last dispensation will ever enter
      into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of
      Joseph Smith."  Journal of Discourses Vol. 7 p.289
And this:

     "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration,
      there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside
      The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints".
                       Mormon Doctrine p.670

Like you said above.  This also plain English. And it IS in context.  If
you don't believe it, please look it up for yourself.  And also, don't
tell me that the latter one is Bruce's personal opinion, because he
footnoted it! (Doctrines Of Salvation Vol. 2 pp 1-350)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:34:06 GMT

In article <BvGpp7.79G@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.224428.20515@cs.yale.edu> 
>she had a snake for a pet, and an amulet
>she was raising a dwarf, but it wasn't done yet
>
>Now, tell me, are these metaphors true or false? Or are they foo or bar?
>Does she or doesn't she have a dwarf? Does it really make a difference?
>Oh, by the way, here is an interpretation you may or may not like:
>The she is Eve, the dwarf is Adam, the snake, well you know who that is, right?
Metaphors are metaphors FOR something, Mr. Harvey. This would be a lousy
metaphor for the interaction of a photon with a molecule of Rhodamine 6G.
-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."
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:18:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <68995@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> Agreed.  That's a big point - The lack of knowledge or good models
> or whatever you want to call is a major source of why certain problems
> persist.  As I noted in the above post, I know many divorced women
> and a few men (the women usally get the children and tend to hang around
> my circles more) and I know none of them that by informed preference
> are single parents - the other parent left or something.  Often the
> lack of maturity on one or both partners is a negative point for the
> continuance of a two parent family, but not always.

Note that lack of maturity has nothing to do with religious beliefs
or upbringing. I do know of religious people that have divorced, and left
children in a one-person family situation. I'm not extremely religious,
and we have a stable mam-pap-child situation just now.

Cheers,
Kent
Example of common sense, part 1:
Reporter: What would happen if science discovered some fact
          that contradicted Buddhist doctrine?
Dalai Lama: The doctrine would have to change.
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: QUESTION ULTIMATELY ANSWERED! (Are Mormons Christians?)
Keywords: Luke 14: 26
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:31:51 GMT

In article <aceI02Rm23Up01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> 
agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE) writes:
>A Christian is:  an individual that has accept Jesus Christ as his
>                 personal Lord and Saviour, and has turned his life
>                 over completely to Jesus, and acknowledging his Deity,
                       ^^^^^^^^^^
So, single and no children right, and no worldly possesions except for a
Bible and the clothes on your back right? Strickly Luke 14:26, right?
Oh, and by the way, here's a little tip, when you refer to The Lord in
the third singular, capitolize the first letter. And the name's Yeshua or
Joshua, not Jesus. Always helps to get the name right first.

>                 that is that he IS GOD IN THE FLESH.
>                 This individual, to be classified as a Christian must
>                 accept the fact that he has fallen short of the Glory of
>                 God and in no human efforts can reach the holyness of
>                 God.  Thus, this person depends on the perfect life of
>                 Jesus Christ to "replace" his sinful life by his
>                 acceptance of Jesus into his life.  John 1:12 says, "to

Yes, that's the sneak in on someone's coat-tails trick. Let Jesus do the
dirty work for you. Yo! Stop fronting and use your head!

>                 as many as RECEIVED him, to them he gave the authority
>                 to become the Sons of God". This means that he is only
>                 depending his faith in Jesus to save his soul, as there
>                 is nothing he could do to save himself.  This person is
>                 a Christian.
>What has to be asked
>is, "IS MORMON THEOLOGY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY?".  The answer to this is
>absolutely not.

Yes, and God told you this absolute TRUTH directly, right?

>I am not endorsing Mormon
>theology, because I do think that it is incorrect.  But because I think
>that it does not mean that I don't love you as a Mormon.

Oh, you are TOO kind and loving. Hate the sin and love the sinner eh?
Kind of de-personalizes the whole thing, nice eh?

>Give up your good works!  They are as filthy rags in the eyes of God

Give up your attempts to convert Mormons, they ARE filthy rags in the
eyes of The Lord!

>I will continue my discussions on the newsgroups over doctrinal
>differences, and if you want to know more about this FREE GIFT of God
>(Romans 6:23), write to me via personal email and I will be glad to
>discuss this further with you on a personal level.

Ah, and you are a FREE GIFT salesman as well? Do you do Tupperware
also?
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:20:56 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)


  Just in case my silence has been ascent to any arguments regarding my post
"Mormons are not Christian", our news system has been playing up and we missed
all articles on 3 & 4th Oct, and  maybe some on the 2nd. I have asked a couple
of people to email me any relevant responses. I think the system is working OK
now...so post away!!!


-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17382 talk.philosophy.misc:1842
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Dogbert on brain research
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:46:40 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Sep19.134636.7629@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

For obvious reasons, I have added talk.philosophy.misc to Newsgroups.

>About a week ago, the comic strip "Dilbert" contained an episode in which
>Dogbert manipulates Ratbert into abandoning a bag of potato chips by
>telling him that "Science has shown that the part of your brain responsible
>for conscious thought doesn't activate until _after_ you act."

This is the philosophy of epiphenomenalism, and it is the height of
naivete to think that science can establish any such thing.

>"So that means," continues Dogbert, "that your life is nothing but a series
>of absurd rationalizations to justify the random interaction of chemicals in
>your brain." 
>        
>Ratbert, who has begun to twitch uncontrollably during this lecture, finally
>cries "AAAGH! My life is absurd!" and falls off his chair. Dogbert
>takes the bag of potato chips and reflects, "That was mean, but arguably I
>couldn't control myself."

>Does anybody know anything about the research Dogbert is referring to, or 
>did the creator of "Dilbert"  (whose name, BTW, is S. Adams!) just
>make that up?  Any info that could help me out would be welcome. 

Besides the two-liner I gave you above, all I can say is, don't hold 
your breath.

Peter Nyikos
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Arrogance (was Family values defined)
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:15:35 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Oct01.184422.38915@watson.ibm.com> jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:
>rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts):
>> No problem.  I don't preach myself - rejection of me is rejection of the
>> Lord, for I preach Jesus as Lord and me his servant.
>
>let's rearrange: "i preach jesus as lord and me his
>servant.  therefore, rejection of me is rejection of
>the lord."  sounds like unmitigated arrogance.

No.  It is a word of promise and warning from the Lord to His servants.

   John 15:18   "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
   John 15:19   If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As
      it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the
      world. That is why the world hates you.
   John 15:20   Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than
      his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If
      they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.
   John 15:21   They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do
      not know the One who sent me.

   Luke 10:16   "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you
      rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:59:25 GMT

nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:

>In article <fS9Uenb@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.233730.29345@unixg.ubc.ca> 
>>morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>>>In article <Bv5JCt.LwE@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, 
>>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>Sunrise and sunset could only be avoided under the following conditions:
>>>   -- 0-degree tilt of the earth's axis to the ecliptic, AND

>Shouldn't it be 90 degrees between axis and plane of ecliptic?

No, a 90 degree tilt to the ecliptic (plus a 24-hour spin) would preserve
the current staus of  day and night but would remove the seasons (i.e. the
sun would always appear directly over the equator) leaving the tropical
zones in perpetual summer and the arctic zones in perpetual winter. A 0
degree tilt of the earth's axis to the ecliptic would remove night and day
and also make the North (or South) Pole the hottest part of the world (in
unending noon time mid-summers light). I think one of the planets is very
close to this state of affairs, don't quote me but I think it's Uranus. Of
course the other way to stop day and night is to match the earths axial spin
to it's orbit about the sun, so that one side of the earth always points to
the sun. This, in fact, will be the state of affairs in the distant future.
The Sun and Moon's tidal effects are constantly slowing the earth's rotation
down (much as the moon's has now to the point where only one side
continually points to the Earth). Is this discussion due to Joshua and the
stationary Sun?