HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 12 Dec 92 04:19:57 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec11.114807.61944@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:


>> Jason, the issue is not over the Trinity, and I agree with that point.
>> The issue is over which God you worship.  If you have the wrong God,
>> you are wrong enough to lose your soul forever.  The point is that, the
>> LDS church worships a God who was not always God, but once a mortal man
>> who progressed through laws to become God, and is now a mortal man
>> having eternal sex with his polygamous wives.
>> 
>> The Christian God is an infinate spirit being that was always God,and
>> created the heavens and earth, and came here a a humble man and died
>> on a cross so that those who believed could have eternal life.
>
>I don't beleive this is necessary for one to help others.
>
>I think that the Christian God is the one that has all power and
>all knowledge;

If you believe that God has all knowledge, and He tells us in Isaiah 44:8
that He knows of no other Gods, then why did Joseph Smith believe and
teach that there were other Gods?  And why do you believe the lie?

>has told us to do unto others as we would have
>them do unto us, to visit the sick, the widows and the
>fatherless, to go the extra mile, to turn the other cheek, to
>love one's enemies, to try to be virtuous, avoid contention, to
>love one another.
>
>I see nothing about these things that requires believe in a
>spirit of physical being that may or may not be like us, may or
>may not have a a spouse, may or may not be the only one of its
>kind, may or may not procreate, or that may or may not have
>always existed.
>
>I think that that message is more important than the messenger.

Unless the messenger is YOUR creator and He has said, "YOU SHALL HAVE
NO OTHER GODS BESIDES ME".  If you are worshiping a glorified man, you
have an OTHER GOD BESIDES HIM.

>If I loose my eternal salvation/soul/whatever because I beleived
>that the messeger was like me when in reality he turns out to be
>a nebulous, formless, inteligent power, then so be it.

No one said God was an intelligent power.  He is a personal being.

>For now, I'll just stick to trying to help those around me that
>are in need in any way that I can.

Helping others is fine, nice, and certainly Godly.  But it won't save
your soul.

     "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that
      not of yourselves, IT IS A GIFT of God" NOT as the
      RESULT OF WORKS, that no one should boast."  Ephesians 2:8-9

>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Kermit's "Christlike" example for the non-Mormons
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:45:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


Kermit Tensmeyer, one of my favorite net-Mormons, lectures to Anthony
Rose that:

[...]

 kt> Seeing and see not. Hearing and hearing not. When you accept Christ,
 kt> he will both open your ears and your eyes. He can still preform
 kt> miracles He can cure both your blindness and your deafness.

To which Anthony Rose asks:

 ar> Tell me Kermit, when I "accept Christ" according to your standards,
 ar> will I then post sexually nasty jokes on alt.jokes like you do?

Kermit doesn't quite answer, but replies that:

 kt> your mean Rec.humor ? is there an alt.jokes on your machine, there
 kt> isn't on mine. I'm subsribed to rec.humor.funny but not rec.humor
 kt> and the only "joke" I've posted recently is about my neighbor who
 kt> still won't sleep in the NORTH bedroom.

Two days previous, Kermit wrote to Anthony that:

 kt> I post it here, because email seems to be to difficult a concept for
 kt> you, (it would be real easy to prove to me that you are 1) capable
 kt> of dealing with people in a reasonable fashion, 2) that you are a
 kt> honest gentelman 3) that Christ _has_ touched your life in any
 kt> measurable way 4) that you have interest in something other than
 kt> seeing your name in print.

[...]

 kt> Maybe some day, you _will_ find Christ, and then when you give your
 kt> life to him, he _can_ make a difference in your life and attitudes.
 kt> For this and other things, I pray.

     Now.

     The reason that I put all this background in is to show that Kermit 
presumes that Christ is not in Mr. Rose's life, and that if Christ were, 
there would be a difference in Anthony's life and attitudes. I don't know 
if Kermit means that Anthony should be more like the way that Kermit is,
but the implication is there.

     Kermit is trying to make an argument from authority here: "Christ is
not in your life, but He is in mine. If He was in yours, you would at
least be able to tell from the way that you write on the Net."

     In light of this, it is important and pertinent to take a look at
Kermit's own behavior on the Net. In this way we can see what Kermit's
particular standard of having Christ in his life means.

     Some background on this forwarded post.

     Recently (about 6 weeks ago), someone who is in a marching band in
Iowa sent a whimsical post to alt.tasteless.jokes about why "marching
band is better than sex." Kermit responded to that post with the
following post. The material next to the chevrons (>) is part of the
original letter; the material following the chevrons is pure Kermit.

     The reader should note, in somber reflection, the personality and 
attitude that has been wrought in Kermit's life through his having the 
LDS Jesus in his life.

==========forwarded==post===follows======================================
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Newsgroups: alt.tasteless.jokes
Subject: Re: marching band is better than sex because....
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:15:30 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.

In article <1992Nov5.142807.8443@iscsvax.uni.edu> hickman@iscsvax.uni writes:
>

  From Iowa fer xxxx'sake, must be _all_ virgins
>
>          M A R C H I N G  B A N D
>                IS BETTER THAN
>                    SEX
>                  BECAUSE.....
>
>
>      1. More than 200 people can participate comfortably.

   You mean _your_ not comfortable with more than _one_ ?


>
>      2. You can be as loud as you want and the neighbors won't complain.
>
   If it's good sex, who _cares_ what the neighbors say.

>      5. Now matter how cold it is outside you can still do it.

    On the other hand, you can still do it.
>
>      6. You can do it twice during the week AND on the weekends without major
>           fatigue.

    Fatigue, what fatigue
>
>      7. The more you practice the better it gets.

     I've seen Iowa's band, You'all must practise as much band performance
     as you've practised Sex.
>
>      8. Frequent starts and stops in practice only makes the performance
>       better.

          Ditto.
>
>     I think that is all of them.
>   Pretty clever uh?

     You did this all without help? an Iowa wimmen virgin's

     Must be a lot of ugly chicks.

 Here in the south, we have women, _real_ women.   Marching Band?

   Phfffft!
>
>
>    Jeanette Hickman
>    309 Hagemann
>    University of Northern Iowa
>    Cedar Falls, Ia. 50613
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie

=================end====of====forwarded=====post=========================

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Misappropriated Theology
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:45:19 GMT

Okay, I'll play. . . .

>In article <1992Dec5.221457.18445@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>This is because of a confusion, I think. After all, the God of
>>the Hebrew Scriptures made his covenant with a specific tribe
>>of Hebrews, not even all Hebrews.
>
(Richard Pitts) writes:
>I'm sort of lost on what you mean here.  Abram was choosen by God
>and his name was changed to Abraham - all nations would be blessed
>by his descendant.  His son Isaac and grandson Jacob (later changed
>to Israel by God, too) were the path by which God would bless all
>nations.
>
>Here is what God through Paul, a true Hebrew, said:
>
>    Galatians 3:16 (NIV)   The promises were spoken to Abraham and 
>    to his seed...

Note the word "seed", this means a direct blood descendant. Assuming
you are not a Hebrew, have you not appropriated someone else's
culture?

>>Why then do those of Indo-European stock (I'm assuming, Pitts,
>>Muelhausen, inter alia, have this ethnic heritage) appropriate
>>a covenant the God of the Hebrew testament made with a specific
>>group of Hebrews for themselves?
>
>Here again Paul tells us that all who are of faith are Abraham's
>children.  
>
>    Galatians 3:6-9 (NIV)   Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and 

Note that Paul was a hebrew and so were the Galatians. To take
a harvian tack, Why do you insist that you are a Hebrew?

Dano
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23928 alt.atheism:23758 alt.slack:3494
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 16 Dec 1992 07:31:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) says:

>Answer 1:
>
>There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
>is empty.
>
But putting a square key in a round hole is difficult if not impossible.

>Answer 2:
>
>Christianity is true.
>
Prove it.  Use as many words as you want.  No biblical quotes permitted.



-- 
All propositions are true in some sense, false in some sense and
meaningless in some sense.  
                               --Hagbard Celine H.M. S.H.
<this is a signature virus, to spread it, just copy into your sig-file>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose; ANSWERING
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:16:30 GMT

In article <afKc02j52ePg01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.121338.61947@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>>In article <37QZ02jc2ehb01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
>> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> Has he issues a doctrinal warning on the book?  Does he allow it to be
>>> continually be sold under "missionary" section of the Church's bookstores?
>>> Not a good postion to argue from.  If he doesn't endorse it, he certainly
>>> wouldn't allow it to be sold under that title, in the missionary section,
>>> of all the LDS bookstores.  Trust me!  The prophets have a past record
>>> of cleaning out books that they don't approve of.  This one wouldn't be
>>> an exception.
>>
>>_Mormon Doctrine_ has not been in the "missionary" section of the
>>"Deseret Bbook" store in Logan for several years.  Its in the
>>General Authority's section along with McConkies other
>>comemtaries, as well as commentaries by others: Neal A. Maxwell,
>>Boyd K. Packer, et cetera.
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
>
>
>Maybe you'd be interested in calling the Mesa, AZ bookstore and find out
>why they have it in their MISSIONARY SECTION.  Let me know if you'd like
>the number.

You don't have to go that far, just try a desparate book store in SLC,
and you'll find MD in the Missionary section.  Heck, they even have
special missionary edditions.  (cheaper bindings, paperback.  Common
binding with other books that have been repudiated by mormons on the net
as not being appropriate for defining mormon doctrine).

-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: SPS
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:03:16 GMT

In article Xs3y00Vpc0ibkZh@andrew.cmu.edu, Geoffrey Spear <gs32+@andrew.cmu.edu> () writes:
> 	Funny that the Bible says it's 3, then, isn't it?  If God was really
> responsible for the Bible, you'd think he'd avoid such blantant mistakes.

(yawn) how many times are we going to see this one?

The O.T. lists the diameter as 10, the cirumf as 30.

30 and 10 can be significant to either 1 or 2 digits 
depending on the precision. In this case, it is to 1 digit, 
since without a stated precision, trailing zeros are not 
significant. Pi = 3 is correct to one digit. 

---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       -Paul Davies (on the cosmos)
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: NON-CONFORMISTS UNITE!
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:40:09 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

Wouldn't this subject be a good candidate for an oxymoron?
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jsturges@iastate.edu (Jason L Sturges)
Subject: Help in finding latin translation of bible.
Summary: Looking for latin bible. 
Keywords: Latin, language, bible, translation
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:09:35 GMT


 Does anyone know of a Latin translation for the bible that I could get? 
(or perhaps buy from someone?)  I would like it to be extremely accurate
and as close to the original as possible (if possible).  Please mail
me at jsturges@iastate.edu as I don't have time to read this group.

 Thank you very much.
							-- Jason Sturges

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Why People Join A Community of Faith
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fWvZ6JK@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Dec17.030104.1767@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 17 Dec 1992 17:49:11 UTC

In article <1992Dec17.030104.1767@midway.uchicago.edu> 
dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) calls me on an important question:
>>So, in your opinion, why do people join religious movements  today?
>I think they join for two reasons: one is that most of us know
>we are alive, and that we have to die; it is important to be able
>to make meaning in our lives, in order to provide the fullest
>life we are capable of, not only for ourselves, but for those
>we care about and those who care about us. 
>People join a community of faith in order to not make that
>journey alone; to learn from other's lessons, to gain new
>perspectives: to be part of something larger than themselves.
>A community of faith, unlike say USENET, requires people to
>go out of their way to physically meet, to confront, to accept
>each other with all that that implies, in order to be fully
>human, in order not to live in a vacuum.

I find this very interesting. What you are describing is culture or
family or tribe, is it not? Are the majority of people so disconnected
from each other today that religion is required to bring them together?
Are the only group rituals of significance today religious? Is this
something that atheists are missing? And, speaking of journeys we make
alone, of course each of us dies alone, it is the one heroic act we all
get to partake in, alone. Is it fear of this one solitary journey that
encourages people to join religious groups, under the illusion that the
whole group will pass through as a group and not as
individuals? Is a religious group a substitute family, where instead of
a domineering father who forces the family together despite personality
differences, one has a domineering God image instead, performing the
same role? And, does a religious group make one "fully human and not
living in a vacuum," or is it only an illusion? Why is this sounding like
Bradshaw's dysfunctional family?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:48:55 GMT

In article <78448@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>|>What is there about either Jesus the Christ or the Father that you
>|>don't want to be like or even know?  What does it require of you
>|>to let go of?
>|My intellect.
>In all sincerity, isn't it a little presumptious to think that one's own
>understanding of understanding is the best one out there?

Why not?  You seem to do it.

>Do you think there is any other level of wisdom or understanding in the
>universe today?

I haven't seen any so far.

>Also, on my first question above, what is there, if anything, about Jesus 
>or the Father that you don't want to be like or even know?

It's contrary to reason.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
      The truth is still the truth even if you choose to ignore it.
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:34:24 GMT

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>Other religions say it doesn't matter which one you choose,
>Nonsense.  Read the Qur'an to see what Allah does to kafirs.  Read the
>Hindu scriptures and the teachings of the Buddha to see what happens
>if you don't work towards your liberation from samsara.
Actually, Buddhists completely allow for the possibilities that other religious
paths can liberate you.  Unlike many religions, they do not claim to have all
the answers in a box.

Matt I.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:09:36 GMT
Summary: doomed by the boom

In article <17836@pitt.UUCP>, geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
> 
> This is the problem.  I can't worship such a being who would doom
> people for eternity because they have the wrong notion of what
> His nature is.  This is not a loving God.  What it is that attracts
> you to a wrathful God, I don't know, but it doesn't attract me,
> and it didn't attract Jesus, from my reading of the Bible.
> 
I don't know about the doomed when the boom is lowered part.
I do wonder how the Lord would handle people who lead his people
astray by a foreign gospel such as Joseph came up with. Especially
the temple works which to me are dead works if they are not
required by the Lord for any purpose. He did say something about
a mill stone, but I cannot guarantee the context. 

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Determinism, was Science and choice  
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:19:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec5.102012.1137@nmsu.edu> epowers@dante.nmsu.edu (POWERS) writes:
>Daniel S OConnell (dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: epowers@dante.nmsu.edu (POWERS) writes:
>: 
>: >	It seems to me that by assuming determinism in thought, you
>: >destroy all basis for the usefulness of thought.  This conclusion is no
>: 
>: Not so. Let's assume that all ant thought is totally determined.
>: Is there not usefulness there? I guess it depends on your
>: perspective.
>
>	In the case of thought, totally determined means totally useless. 
>If all my arguments and conclusions are programmed by nature, there's no
>way to tell who is right and who is wrong.  I can't rise above the system,
>as it were.

I take it "there's no way to tell who is right and who is wrong" is
the key question here. First of all, even if everything is determined,
we all do and must act as if it weren't; we cannot be absolutely
concerned with vindication, I think.

Totally determined does not mean totally useless, if only because,
in the end, determinism does not matter. We all act as if we have
free choice (within certain parameters). 

We may never know whether the multiverse is completely solipsistic,
but few of us act as if it is. What I am arguing here is that 
basically it does not matter whether determinism exists; that fact
does not obviate moral choices, because we all believe we have
"free will". Also, given completely deterministic environments
(like the ant example above), I would argue that deterministic
societies still have value.

Dano