HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: ^REPOST^ Straw Poll: Mormon Specific Newsgroup
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:24:43 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

The following is a repost.

-----8<---If--you--cut--here--you--will--ruin--your--monitor--->8-----

I'd like to conduct a straw poll.

Since most of us will be going on break for the holidays
(including me), I'll continue the polling a few weeks into
January so that everyone that wants to gets a chance to
participate.

I will post a summary of the results.

Don't post to the net.  Email your reply to: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
(Replying to this post *should* do the trick.)

-----8<---If--you--cut--here--you--will--ruin--your--monitor--->8-----

Questions:

1a.  Do you think that a separate newsgroup should be created for
     discussing Mormon specific things on Usenet?

1b.  Why or why not?


2a.  If you do think that a Mormon specific newsgroup should be
     created, should it be moderated?

2b.  Why or why not?


3.   If you do think that a Mormon specific newsgroup should be
     created, what hierarchy and name should the newsgroup have
     and why?


4.   (Optional)  Just to get an idea of who is providing feed
     back, what is your religious persuasion?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:45:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.191459.9032@nuchat.sccsi.com>, kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
> 
> If "Original Sin" is what you claim it to be, then I would consider it to
> be a very central part of being human.  That being the case, why do you
> believe J could certainly experience humanity?  I agree that he might be
> able to experience certain aspects of it, but I wouldn't agree that he
> would be "fully human" unless he had *all* the tendencies that we humans
> have.
> 
> On the other hand, if "Original Sin" has no effect on our behavior (i.e.,
> we'd behave the same anyway even if we didn't have it), then (and only
> then) I would agree that J could be "fully human".

I figured my mention of disobedience would cover behavior.

> 
As Ken A. pointed out to me, J wouldn't experience being _fully_
human while walking the earth without original sin on him. So I
basically agreed and needed to modify my statement.

I believe J experienced the full weight of _all_ human sin and
conditions when he became sin on the cross, so in that sense he
did experience all and more. 

barry--
From: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Fundamentalists Promote Pornography
Date: 21 Dec 1992 22:56:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


What is hate literature against the church of Christ?  Religious 
pornography, right?

The reason I ask, a while back some fundamentalists came to our
church (Mormon) and started handing out hate literature against
our church under our own roof in one of our own meetings.

Why do they do this?  Do they really think this is Christian
behaviour?  Why don't traditional Methodists, Lutherans and 
other Protestants do it?  Are fundamentalists the only 
so-called "Christians" who "love" us Mormons enough to offend
us to our faces in our own meetings?

If we realy are the Church of Jesus Christ as we claim, the 
fundamentalists should not be spreading this kind of hate
literature around.  They are doing someones bidding, all right,
but it isn't the Savior's bidding.

It isn't Christian to spread hate literature against anyone.  
We don't do it.  Nobody else does it.  

Hate literature is religious pornography.
---------------
Cleveland Freenet: cj195 (John W. Redelfs)
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 28 Dec 92 10:21:15 GMT
	<TORKEL.92Dec25003925@lludd.sics.se>
	<ksand-271292170443@wintermute.apple.com>
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <ksand-271292170443@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
 (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >If we can't agree on
   >the premisses, how could we then agree on the logical conclusions?

  I'm not aware that agreement on the truth of Christianity was at issue,
but only whether there is logical reasoning in Christianity.

   >Now, if someone else says this is bogus, how could they verify
   >that my logical conclusions are false when I defined the ground rules
   >and these are based on metaphysical definitions that may or may not
   >be ever verified?

  It may well be that it is quite impossible for us to either verify
or falsify or even to make sense of your conclusions or premisses.
This is compatible with your reasoning being perfectly logical, and
verifiably correct.

  Of course we are unlikely to find in Christianity any logical
reasoning in a strict and formally defined sense. But the point is
that your complaints about the premisses of Christianity being
unverifiable or arbitrary, the conclusions being untestable, and so
on, are not even relevant to the question whether there is logical
reasoning from premisses to conclusion to be found in Christianity.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: "What does science tell us about God?" (Time Magazine)
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:52:09 GMT

e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) asserts:

>            The essential conflict between science and religion is in 
>       how one arrives at conclusions.  Religion generally is based on 
>       authority: a person, a book, or a set of traditions.  It has 

It should be noted that not every religion is based on authority;
e.g., that is not what liberal religion is about.

Dano
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The 'wave-collapse' of logical reasoning
Date: 3 Jan 93 02:14:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

OK, here's another Gedanken-experiment concerning a priori logical
statements -- such as the ones that theists use to define that their
doctrines have logical elements.

I'm using the classical Socrates and moral men, but with a little twist:

All X are Y
Socrates was an X
Socrates was thus also an Y

Is this a logical statement? IMHO this is not clear until we have 
defined X and Y, and with this 'collapse' of premises we could suddenly
clearly state that this was indeed a logical statement.

Now, X was in my interpretation defined as men, and Y defined as dirty,
so Socrates was indeed a dirty man :-). Suddenly something that was 
assumed to be very logical was merely an opinion.

Let us take another example with Jesus and mortal men:

Jesus was a man
Jesus didn't die (he resurrected)
All men are not mortal.

The second premise is based on an opinion that some people think is 
real, some not. As long as we can't collapse this one and declare
it as universal knowledge the whole logical statement is really 
another opinion, and can't be defined as a logical true or yes
declaration. In other words there's a clear distinction between
mathematical/logical statements, scientific ones (empirical knowledge)
and metaphysical constructs (thanks Russell!).

I hope this clarified my point (gee, you start to think a lot
when you drive from San Jose to Berkeley a nice Saturday day
with a kid screaming in the back seat)!

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: 2 Jan 1993 13:59:24 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: intercon.com

Argh.  I'll probably regret this, but I'm getting a little tired of seeing
this particular canard presented every time anyone suggests that Christians
are not necessarily closed-minded bigots by definition.

The passage in question is John 14:6:

	"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the
	 Father except by me." (REB)

Now, I will admit that you can quite easily interpret this passage as
exclusionary, especially in isolation, despite the fact that John is
most mystical and least literal of any of the Gospels.  However, like
statistics, it is possible to "prove" almost anything with isolated
passages from any text.  I would argue that in the context of John 14-15,
in fact, this passage is *not* the all-encompassing legalism that people
seem to want it to be.

However, the least people could do is marshall some semblance of an actual
argument--at least that might be entertaining, and not just a repetition
of the same preconceptions that have been bouncing around for years.  It's
not as though there aren't very real systemic problems with institutional
Christianity...


Sigh.  Grumble.

Amanda Walker
-- 
"Alas for you lawyers! You have taken away the key of knowledge.  You did not
 go in yourselves, and those who were trying to go in, you prevented."
	--Luke 11:52
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Daily verse BG 1.7
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 02:41:18 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

                                TEXT 7

                         asmakam tu visista ye
                         tan nibodha dvijottama
                         nayaka mama sainyasya
                       samjnartham tan bravimi te

  
asmakam--our; tu--but; visistah--especially powerful; ye--who;
tan--them; nibodha--just take note of, be informed; dvija-uttama--O
best of the brahmanas; nayakah--captains; mama--my; sainyasya--of the
soldiers; samjna-artham--for information; tan--them; bravimi--I am
speaking; te--to you.

    
                              TRANSLATION

	But for your information, O best of the brahmanas, let me tell you
about the captains who are especially qualified to lead my military
force.

From Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: 31 Dec 1992 10:59 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: elroy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec30.191422.25631@wam.umd.edu>, bast@wam.umd.edu (Jaguar) writes...

..post deleted....


>Jaguar
>stalking tammys tail and hope she does not notice!
>(bad kitten)


Tammy
<pretending not to notice that kitten is stalking>
8-)


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: "What does science tell us about God?"
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:16:06 GMT

Brian Kendig writes

>It's entirely possible, I suppose, that some 'prime mover' exists
>behind the universe

If the universe is the Universe, where is 'behind'? When mover and
moved are discerned, they are relegated to membership in a set.
Neither can be that set's universe. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24865 alt.pagan:14744
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Date: 04 Jan 93 03:11:11 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec31.053218.20356@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>> >[Someone responds to Kent:]
>>>  [Me:]
>>> >This argument suggests that God is capable of sinning.
>>> If you mean that if God is capable of what we're capable of...I believe 
>>> He is.  Jesus was tempted in the desert. If He wasn't capable of sinning,
>>> then His temptation was bogus. 
>
>It is my understanding that "X is capable of Y" means that there are
>circumstances under which X would do Y.  This means that God is not capable of
>sinning.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with your terms <grin>. But I think we _may_ agree
in semantics, even if we disagree on syntax. I interpret "X is capable of Y"
to mean that X has "attributes (as physical or mental power) required for 
preformance of or accomplishment", and/or "traits conducive to or features 
permitting", and/or "general efficiency and ability" [quotes from Webster's
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary - not the OED, but more readily available]. 

My understanding is that a being which is omnipotent is capable of [has the
required attributes & features which are required to do] *ANYTHING*.

Therefore my understanding is that God *can* do anything. What God actually 
*chooses* to do is independent from what he *can* do.

IE, I don't believe that God can't sin; I believe that he *WON'T*. By choice.

-jen
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 09:18:25 GMT

lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
: > 
: >Well, it depends on how you define/interpret the teachings....
: >Honestly, is it fair for pagans to impose the definition of what it
: >is to be Christian on others?  
: 
: I know perfectly well what it is to be Christian.  I was raised in a
: Missionary Baptist church....not Southern Baptist, MISSIONARY Baptist...
: you know, the guys that make the Southern Baptist look liberal.  While
: this probably taints my view some, I still know what it is to be Christian.

I would disagree strongly with your statement. You know that your particular
sect of Christianity taught. That is all you can get from that sect. 

My mother was a devout Christian. However, she was also one of the most
tolerant people I ever knew - far more so than most pagans I have met.

: I am not talking about approval or disapproval.  I am talking about
: philosophies.  The philosophy of the Christian religion does not allow
: for any other god than that of God the father, son, and holy spirit.
: If you are a Christian this is the philosophy you follow....you cannot fast
: on Tuesday and eat on Tuesday...it is physically impossible.

That is what some sects teach - certainly. However, even the KJ version
of the Bible is misinterpreted. An example: One of the 10 commandments
is "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Now, may sects believe that
this says that you will only worship "God". They refuse to read what is
actually there - it does not say that. It only says that "God" will be
your primary deity - nothing more. It does not, in any way, prohibit the
worship of other deities.

: Once again I am discussing philosophies, not trying to divide.  Christians
: would call the woman who refers to herself as Pagan/Christian a blasphemer.
: She is welcomed among us.

Once again, you are using too broad a brush. There are, believe it or not,
many Christians who do not feel this way. I have met a number of them. Don't
forget that there are also tolerant Christians.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: humour: New Creation story
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:47:27 GMT

n9140981@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Christian Becker-LHE) writes:
>Drawing Board- by Charles Spano, Jr.

I like it!

There's also a similar story in the back of _Getting Home_ by F. M.
Busby: the universe ends, and Yahweh admits defeat because of some
clever moves on Satan's part.  They decide to play their game again,
and they roll dice to decide who'll be on what side.  "All right!"
exclaims Yahweh, "now I get to be the bad guy!"

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: 3 Jan 1993 18:31:57 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, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) says:
>
>If a pagan can be an atheist - a claim I have made that you have not
>denied - then paganism is not a religion. It would be more of a "mindset"
>or way of life. As such, their religion is incidental.
>
It's more like the "pagan" ideal is like an umbrella.  Many groups and
beliefs can fit under this umbrella.  There are many different religions
within paganism.  From druidism to wicca.  I have met both jews and
christians who are also pagan.

-- 
When subtlety fails us we must make do with cream pies.
                                                    --David Brin

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:01:00 GMT

I believe Mr. Sarver has misunderstood the point I was trying to
convey with the Euclidean geometry example, so I will clarify.

>Skinner would reject Euclidean geometry on the premise that he has never
>seen a line; so because he can't see it, he doubts its very existence.

This is not true on two counts:

  1. I do not reject Euclidean geometry.

  2. I have not stated that being able to see a phenomenon is my
     standard of proof.

The standard to which I object is one that says premises must be
verified in order for an argument to be valid.  It relies a
non-standard definition of "valid argument".  The pronouncement
contained in the subject of this thread relies directly on this usage.
I've pointed to authoritative sources for the standard usage, some
remain unconvinced.  (Kent Sandvik claims he has texts which disagree,
but refuses to provide citations.)  I feel my point is now best made
by noting the implications of this non-standard use.

For this reason I put forward Euclidean geometry as an example of a
system which relies on unverifiable axioms.  Using Mr. Sandvik's
standard for finding logic I am forced to assign the title "illogical"
to geometry, because its axioms cannot be verified.  I conclude that
Mr. Sandvik's standard is not very useful, for geometry is generally
considered logical.

My counter-example to the claim, "there's nothing logical in
Christianity" is a logical argument I attribute to Christianity.  (To
guard against irrelevant responses I again note that the example is
intended only to demonstrate the existence of logic in Christianity.)
It begins with the premises:

     1. Relationship with God is good.
     2. Sin inhibits relationship with God.
     3. All sin.
     4. Forgiveness removes the effect of sin in (2).
     5. Accepting Jesus provides forgiveness.

The conclusion is, "Accepting Jesus is good."  The propositions which
connect the premises to the conclusion were not made explicit (the
connection was assumed obvious).  Because Mr. Sarver suggests there is
no relationship between the premises and the conclusion, I will state
the propositions.

     o Sin inhibits something good, namely relationship with God.

     o Forgiveness restores relationship with God in that it removes
       the inhibiting effect of sin.  When sin is present, forgiveness
       is therefore good.

     o Accepting Jesus provides forgiveness.  It follows that if 
       sin is present, accepting Jesus is good.

     o All sin, so accepting Jesus is good, universally.


Because of the above chain of reasoning, my example differs from the
argument,

      1.  The sky is blue
      2.  The grass is green
      3.  Therefore, gravity pulls things downward (assume local reference for
          the word "downward")

which is not valid, for no chain of propositions can connect the
premises (1 and 2) to the conclusion (3).



                              Gregg Skinner
From: pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rebellion against Santa?
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:22:18 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec21.181635.6216@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.022711.124572@zeus.calpoly.edu> jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) writes:
>>It never ceases to amaze me why people have such cold hearts, as to
>>continue to deny their belief in Santa. I'm sure you all know what I

>Thank you for your moving message of hope.  In this holiday season,
>we can sometimes forget the real meaning of our celebration.
>Let us renew our humble efforts to live a Santalike life.
>
>>                     -Yours in Santa,
>>                         John David Munch

Hmm... I never thought there are so many dyslexic disciples
of the Dark One around. Truly the world's ending a-cometh.






-- 
---
Thus spake Kalmoth the Dreaded, Bane of the Forests of Gnoy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: gene@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Dr. Gene De Lisa)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:24:13 GMT

In article <fWMUmqa@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <BzGp8w.J74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>>The whole point is the term 'pagan' is, I believe how Christians caharcterized
>>non-believers. For a person to call themselves pagan is to, at best, engage in
>>mocking Christians (not that I have any problem with that, mind you.)  I just
>>think it is better to use, oh, I dunno, the actual NAME of your faith system,
>>if it has one, and if it doesn't, then why throw a silly Christianity-derived
>>term on there?  I find the word is used largely for attention-getting and 
>>pretense.
>
>Aren't you being Christo-centric here? There are pagan Christians by the
>way. It is true that many Christians use the word pagan in a derogatory
[lines deleted]

It's time for some facts.


Pagan is the term that early xians used in a derogatory sense for non-xians.
You cannot be a xian pagan any more than you can be a non-xian xian!

Being a pagan does not mean that you follow x,y,and z but that you don't
believe in the xian, islamic or jewish god. Period.


btw., it really doesn't matter if you agree with this definition.
You don't even have to agree what "red" is a color either.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc