HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cwblack%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Charles W. Black)
Subject: Re: Discrimination by Utah Mormons
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:25:43 MDT
Organization: University of Utah

In article <1992Apr15.103535.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fscdh3@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>	Ok, I have a question for all of you Mormons out there.
>Particularly the ones that were born, bred, and raised in Utah.
>I lived (past tense) in Utah for 3 1/2 years, and through all that
>time, I was consistantly descriminated against by others because 
>I was not of the Mormon faith.  Now, what I want to know is this:

I realize that your question was not directed at me; however, I think
someone that hasn't lived in Salt Lake City very long would be better
able to answer your question.  Someone who has lived here for a long
time might not realize this type of discrimination.  I have lived in 
Salt Lake City since August.  I have experienced no discrimination due 
to my non-Mormon status.  

Before I moved to SLC, I was warned over and over again that I about
all "those Mormons."  I was told by many people to "watch out for
them."  As it turns out, I don't think even one of those warnings
has proven to be useful.  It may be that I am sheltered by the University
environment, even though I do live three miles from campus.  But, even so, 
I see no evidence that I have been treated unfairly.

I would be interested to hear just how you were treated unfairly.

              ----------  Charles W. Black  ----------
                  ------  cwblack@asylum.utah.edu  ------
                     ---  Department of Computer Science  ---
               ---------  University of Utah  ---------
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: True Christianity vs. The Myth of Mormonism
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:56:55 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr16.212345.14231@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.003443.28165@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>
>>The very fact that we know these errors exist is not reason to believe that
>>there are errors which have gone undetected.  Trust God a little, man.
>>I am confident that He will make known any errors that pop up.  
>
>	Now he understands the original message that the mormons started
>	with. God has made known the errors in the Bible.

This is pretty weak.  Making errors known of so that they may be corrected
and re-writing are two very different things.

>
>	Oh you thought he would use some other method. What method do you
>	think God would use to notify the common man that errors had crept
>	to the transmitted medium of God's Word. I would be real interested
>	to know what you think would be an acceptible way for God to tell
>	us of mistranslated sections of the scriptures.

Case in point: dead sea scrolls

>
>	Is there an assumption that since, no errata has be posted, that
>	God thinks that there has been a perfect transmittal of the Gosple
>	message. Is there something wrong with this assumption.

There has been a perfect transmittal of at least the gospel message.
You know, I even found myself in agreement with a Mormon recently. You two
should talk.

>
>>							        You must
>>admit that the Bible is unique among all books both as far as circulation and
>>individual translations are concerned.  The goal of the Catholic church was,
>>and is, to keep what was written accurate.  I am aware of the control tactics
>>of the early Catholic church, which is why the Bible was kept out of the
>>hands of the commoner.  This does not mean that they changed the Bible, and
>>in fact there is every evidence that they maintained the Bible to the best of
>>their ability.
>
>	Would like to comment on why different versions of the New Testament
>	books were included and why other books were excluded from the organised
>	canon?  At what point in history did the book that we have in the
>	New Testament become Canon and how did the theology and doctrine of
>	=The Church= change after this acceptance. Do you have a pet theory?

I have information, but not with me.  See McDowell

>>
>>>So the idea that 'popularity' protected the meaning of the Bible is
>>>ludicrous.  It wasn't popularly available.  Heck, most people couldn't
>>>have read it, if it had been available.

It is now though!  If one could establish reliability through the early
stages the battle would be won...  Any takers?  I admit that history is not
one of my stronger areas.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:01:39 GMT

In article <adams.703284892@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.703260182@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>[...]
>>>There is no unforgivable sin.  
>
>>Oh?  What about the "sin" of not believing?  Is this, too, forgiven?  If
>>so, then we atheists have nothing to worry about, do we?
>
>With God, all things are possible.  I cannot say whether or not you will
>have this chance.  That is up to God.  I don't propose to limit what God
>can do.  It is his pergoative to deal with you as he wishes.  I can't claim
>that it is fair or unfair, either.

Good enough.  This is a lot more reasonable than what a lot of the
Christians (particularly fundamentalists) I've talked to seem to think...

Many Christians *do* seem to limit, in their minds, what God can do.  I
find it quite strange.

>>>Remember, Paul was a sinner.  So am I.  So are you.  
>>>None are hopeless except those who do not hope.
>
>>None?  What about those who do not believe?  Those who *cannot* believe?
>
>Sorry, this entire post was in response to comments relating to
>homosexuality and the condemnation of homosexuals.  Thus, the information
>related to believers.

Understood.

>As for non-believers, there are a number of views among Christian
>theologians past and present.  Some believed that God continues to work on
>souls of those who have died, so that in the end, all souls are saved.
>Ireneaus wrote along these lines.  In his theology, every single soul is
>saved.  That would include Hitler, Ted Bundy, etc.

Interesting viewpoint, that.  Quite laid back, I must say.  :-)

But it does make you wonder: if everyone is saved like that, then what's
there to worry about?  Just do your best and the rest is taken care of.

Definitely not a philosophy that someone with a fundamentalist attitude
would agree with (it's too laid back :-)  ).

>Again, my personal belief is that atheists may be able to gain salvation.
>Of course, just because I believe doesn't guarantee that I will gain
>salvation.  I too, will have to stand before God and be judged.

Could be.  In any case, thanks for answering my question.

> -Steve


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:47:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <2368@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:
>I'll say it one more time, for the sake of this discussion:  We 
>believe that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ,
>that Jesus Christ is God, and that if we follow him we can return
>to live with him.  Is this not Christian?  

It is, and I do not doubt that you have a good understanding of what it means
to be Christian.  HOWEVER, _many_ Mormons, both on this board and elsewhere,
contradict you on the most basic issue (i.e. saved by works).  Because there
is no permanent "official" doctrine I am simply afraid that the Mormon faith
_can_ be a breeding ground for misinformation about Christianity, and people
should carefully consider whether or not they want the chance of this being
their experience.

What you have said (as far as important things go) is the essence of the
Christian faith, but is not an accurate portrayal of whatever the official
Mormon doctrine is at the moment.  I feel I can say this with authority since
I have had _many_ first-hand experiences with people who claim to know what's
up with Mormonism but are not in agreement with you.

I will accept Mormons as Christians if it can be said that the _unchanging_,
_official_ Mormon doctrine includes the following:

-Men are saved _fully_ ("highest heaven") _only_ by accepting Jesus Christ
 _who is God_ as their _personal_ Lord and Savior.

-What humans do (good works) is not in any way responsible for the salvation
 above, but is responsible for "rewards" in heaven.

-That men are created in the image of God only, and will not aspire to be gods
 themselves, but rather to serve God in glory forever.

I feel that these are necessary.

John M.
From: vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: `An Attribute and Law of God' (was:Re: Even more Mormonism!!!!!!!!)
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:37:02 GMT
Organization: Hampshire College

Matt Wood said a great many very interesting things, but time restrains
me to one response, at least at present.  My apologies.

I said, 
` Mormons believe that God is incapable of forgiving those who are truly
  penitent without first strictly and sorely punishing someone who is
  innocent and completely uninvolved. '

To which he (I presume from the name; otherwise, I am sorry) said,
` An interesting restatement of your previous sentence.  A better 
  restatement would be that justice (an attribute and law of God)
  demands that a penalty be paid for every law broken. '

Ah, but justice is a _Terrestrial_ concept.  For every crime, a punishment
goes right in there with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, which 
is the Law of Moses -- the Terrestrial Law.  A Celestial God could not be
bound by it.  A Celestial God would, by definition and nature, follow the
Celestial Law, Christ's Law; turn the other cheek, forgive freely all who
trespass you.  Punishment could have no part in it.

Vincent
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:08:45 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

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. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:51:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.151704.26809@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Yes, but the case is not mine, Jesus himself said it (Luke 6:43,44).
>	"For there is not a fine tree producing rotten fruit; again there is
>	not a rotten tree producing fine fruit. 
>
>	False religion can only produce works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21 :

Andreas,

Since the "tree" of the Catholic Church has produced such fine fruits
as Mother Theresa, who has given her life to serving God and the needy,
have you now proven that the Catholic Church is "true religion"?

And since the Catholic Church requires an oath of chastidy and poverty
from its nuns and priests, thus shunning the works of the flesh,
have you again proven them to be "true religion"?

The Southern Baptist church I've been to strongly encourages charity 
from its members, and promotes the fruit of a strong faith in Christ, 
have you now proven that the Southern Baptists are "true religion"?

And the Mormons I know live clean lives, even avoiding caffeine;
they seem very concerned with avoiding the works of the flesh.
Have you now proven that the Mormons are "true religion"?

Shall we continue?  Have you also managed to prove E. Orthodox,
Islam, Hindu, etc as "true"?  How many others?  

If no rotton tree produces fine fruit, and all the religions I know
of produce at least some good fruit, what have you proven?                                    

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: ANDREAS - Read This!
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:52:12 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

This is directed at Andreas, all other JW's please forgive me....

(and this is reposted - I cancelled the original because I left out a very
important sentence!  The one about them being women.)

SOME JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ARE FALSE!  (by Andreas own standards!)

Last week, I was approached by some Jehovah's Witnesses.   They wished to
tell me about JW's.  And they were women.  Please explain this in light of
the following:

[I Timothy 2, NIV]

   "(9)I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not
    with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, (10)but with
    good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.  (11)A
    woman should learn in quietness and full submission.  (12)I do not
    permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be
    silent.  (13)For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the
    one decieved; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
    (15)But women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in
    faith love and holiness with propriety."

Obviously, they were not silent.  And their clothes looked pretty expensive
to me.  Give it up, Andreas.  You lose.

Again, all rational-minded JW's please forgive me...Andreas specifically
attacked my denomination. 

"Fight fire with fire I always say!"  (Bugs Bunny)

 -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: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: True Christianity vs. The Myth of Mormonism
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:28:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.175725.7347@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
 
>
>Jay writes:
>>>	In reality, Mormons have no firm basis for truth other than the
>>>words of sinful man.
>>
>>And upon whom do those who place their trust in the Bible alone rely?
>>By whom was the Bible written?  Dummelow treats the fallibility of
>>Biblical authors in the introduction to his marvelous commentary.
>
>The neat thing about the Bible is that we do not trust in one person,
>who may write what they please, but rather in a myriad of authors
>writing independently who produced a book with far more coherency
>than would be possible if it were not of God.
 
The Book of Mormon is also written by many authors too.
 
>The Bible has been transmitted at the very least somewhat more
>accurately than any other ancient literature we know of, and at best
 
It was a family history!  If I were in charge of a family history,
I'd be careful too.
 
>idea for idea.  Its popularity has kept it accurate.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, people who kept it (Jewish) took the charge seriously.  Popularity
has very little to do with it.
 
>
>John M.
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger in a strange land,
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
 | Roger Holfeltz   -  The truth can be made up,       |
 |                     if you know how                 |
 |                                                     |
 |  My mind IS a terrible, terrible thing              |
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably     |
 |             not your's either!                      |
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens)
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Organization: ingr
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:14:44 GMT

East Coker writes:
>
>Please support the statement: "entities who were created by God to minister to
>mankind" It is my understanding that Lucifer was booted out of the club because
>want to be like (or greater than, I don't recall) god. I do not recall that 
>Lucifer was created with the purpose you state. Is this not a conclusion that
>you have arrived at?

I didn't mean "exclusive" to mankind.  To be more accurate to Bible accounts,
I probably should have stated that angels were created by God to assist in 
carrying out his will in both heaven and earth.  Satan is associated with 
angels in Job, and in Revelation he is cast out of heaven by the archangel 
Michael.

>Yes, the quantum state vector can be reduced by concious observation, but how
                                                                       ^^^^^^^
>this occurs is not understood, there are many theories. also, let us not
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>forget that quantum theory is verified only for objects that are suitably
>small (i.e. photons, not flying bricks).  In any event I don't see this as an
>explanation. 

>You might also try JS Bell's book "The Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" as
>well.  In this work, Bell attempts to debunk much of the nonsense that has
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>been said to be consequential of quantum theory (e.g. god gives us free will
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and god retains gods omniscience via our reduction of the universes
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>state vector).
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
To rephrase your own words, if collapsing the quantum wave function "is not
understood", how can you "debunk" the theory of God giving us free will while
still retaining omniscience via this observable and verifiable direct 
interaction we have with all possible futures?

Todd Stevens
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:40:25 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

I have recently read a book writtten by David Wilkerson called The Vision.
If I remeber correctly, it was written in or before 1973.  Wilkerson
told of how homosexuals would be given places of authority in churches,
and be recognized by religious establishments.  This would be done under the
guise of love and understanding.  He wrote that a day would come when in
nearly every major city, there would be a church that catered to homosexuals
and lesbians.  Sunday school literature would describe homosexuality as
a valid means of sexual expression.  He also wrote that it would not
be long (from when he wrote it) that homosexuals would begin to flaut 
their perversion on national tv talk shows.  
Instead of offering to help homosexuals, churches would tell them to accept
their weaknesses as "gifts from God."

Nearly every one of these things has happened or started to happen.  I heard
of a homosexual church opening up in Washington D.C. not long ago.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: a little confused...
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:31:16 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr8.002131.20922@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>>---
>>I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
>>fathers upon the children... Exod 20:5
>>
>>The son shall not bear the iniquities of the father... Ezek 18:20
>>---
>
>Along with the ones I deleted at the top, I have no answer for this
>one on textual grounds.  Any takers?

A thought (rare occurence :-) :

Is having iniquity visited upon you the same as bearing it?  Because the son
of a "wicked" man has a tendency to be wicked himself (only natural) does not
mean that he _will_ be wicked or pay the price for any wickedness OTHER THAN
HIS OWN.  I read the above as saying that a hardened heart will be
transmitted father to son _but_ any misdoings of the son are his own
responsibility, and he is not held _accountable_ for his father's.

John M.
From: davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why is Free Will so necessary?
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:25:53 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why is Free Will so necessary?
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: California State University, Fresno
Keywords: 

In article <2308@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:
>davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller) writes:
>> So, Free Will is necessary for us to "become like him."  In other words,
>> "becoming like him" is worth all the suffering and evil in this world.  If
>> God wanted us to become like him, why didn't he just create us just like
>> him, instead of putting us through all this torture?
>
>Roughly speaking, this is the difference between walking across the country
>and flying across, or between creating a sculpture and being given one.

Your analogy is false.  You're trying to say walking across country
gives you some satisfaction that flying doesn't, and that creating a
sculpture does the same.  But who defines how you get a feeling of
satisfaction?  Your creator, of course.  So he can just give you the
feeling without the pain, since he's omnipotent.

Originally, I was also questioning whether "becoming like God" was worth
all the suffering.  You see, I feel that *nothing* is worth the cost 
that we have to pay here in God's universe.  (Thousands of children
dying of starvation every day; sentient beings killing each other to
sustain themselves; people born deformed; people born brain dead; people
born in the ghetto, growing up with bullets whizzing around their heads;
political prisoners getting tortured; young boys used as cannon fodder
being given "keys to heaven"; etc. etc.)  I don't think you can compare
the strained muscles you get walking across country to all of this.

>The destination is not the same place if the travels are different.

If I knew I was going to be killed by a mugger, walking across country,
I'd rather fly there, thank you.

And I'd rather disappear into oblivion now than take tha chance that I
might break one of God's arbitrary rules and fry in hell for ever.


>                        User Interface Team Leader
>                    ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
>            "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.

--
                                                 davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
"It's almost like having a fifth sense or something!"
                -- Homer in _Call_of_the_Simpsons_