HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Losing faith (was Re: Mormons...)
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:09:58 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

: Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
: From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
: Date: 14 Oct 92 23:53:45 GMT
: 
: The reason so many
: leave the LDS faith and end up with no belief system, or atheism, is that
: they are so indoctrinated into the sense of "One True Church" that when
: they discover that the "One True Church" is false, they are resigned to
: the idea that if the "One True Church" is false, then ALL belief systems
: are false. 

Of course, this is also why most ex-creationists wind up atheists as well.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 17:40:23 GMT

In article <oVyJsB2w165w@topcat>
topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:

>Besides, what does hatred have to do with the OCA initiative?

I had an interesting conversation with someone recently about schooling
in Nazi Germany.  It seems this person had textbooks which would put
circles around people, and ask: "would you like to sit next to this
sort of person"?  How does this connect to OCA?  OCA mandates that the
notion that homosexuals are bad shall be taught in schools. The idea
that there is no relationship between hatred and teaching it is
dishonest.  This is dishonesty number one.

The suggestion that Albrecht doesn't know he hates homosexuals is also
dishonest.  If he does not, why does he support putting them into jail?
Again we see that by some strange coincidence Hitler's solution and
Albrecht's solution turn out to be the same.

>The fact that some fringe folks in Oregon may be perpetrating violence
>and hatred against homosexuals is no reason to suggest that homosexuals
>should be accorded special political treatment as a protected minority.

Once again, Albrecht is not being honest.  No such suggestion was being made.

>They should not.  Homosexuality is not a condition, it's a sin.

Telling lies is a sin.  Spreading hate is a sin.  Telling lies to 
spread hate compounds the sin. From the sound of it, you must belong to
one of those churches that can't tell the difference between doing good
and doing evil.  Would you like for there to be a law instructing young
children to hate and avoid people like you?  It would at least have a
certain degree of logic to it.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians?
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:18:04 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct14.111844.59702@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.010227.9510@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, 
>press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>>> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>
>Barry, the figure in question is seated.
>The protrusion in question is protruding fron the stomach area,
>(I'd guess about halfway between the navel and the solor-plexus)
>not the groin, or between the legs.
>
>Maybe the figure is wearing a strap-on dildo and just put it on
>too high.  :-)
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu

Is this getting good or what!
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: "FAQ" me baby :-)
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:07:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	Could someone please Email me the FAQ for this newsgroup.
I cannot use FTP. Thanks,



-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:50:43 GMT

In article <242a02pz26d601@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.104845.59694@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>>
>>So then the LDS interpretation is irrelevant.
>>And since Smith is dead, we can ask him.
>>So that means that the anti-Mormon interpretation is the only
>>valid applicable one, right?
>
>No, the LDS interpretation is very valid.  At least those that tell the
>truth.
>

  Gee, you should get a job with slick willie.

  "the LDS interpretation is very valid.  At least those that tell the
  truth."

  And how do we know which LDS tell the truth - By the ones who agree
						with _My_ interpretation

  Are there any LDS that you know of that
  agree with a Rose-y interpretation.		- No

  Then LDS don't tell the truth.		- ?

  [ Didn't Barry O (Now why do I think about a WWF wrestler whenever I see
    that name?) traverse this thread last April?.  Maybe if this group
    were to be archived, we could republish those "arguements" again
    and just save time.                                                   ]


>>> Jason, your church leaders would absolutely cringe if they knew how you
>>> were defending your faith.  
>>
>>Back up this statement or withdraw it.  I'm tried of being called
>>a liar, and accused of misrepresenting my Church's beliefs.
>>
>>It is pointless to continue this discussion with you, Tony. 
>>You're going into my kill-filter.  If you want my repsonse to
>>something you'll have to use email.
>
>Is this because you don't want the public to catch you in future lies?
>I cannot withdraw my statement above.  I will indeed back it up though.

	No, ... It is simply a waste of time to "discuss" something
	when the "other" has no understanding of the discussion
	after 7 or 8 exchanges.


>
>>
>>If you think I've mis-represented the Church in any way,
>>intentionally lied about the church, or anything else along
>>thoses lines, please, speak up and let me know. 
>
>These Mormons that Jason has listed will be able to clear this up for us.
>Guys, tell us like it is!  Does the Mormon Church believe that it's
>Scriptures are full of errors as Jason has told us?  Or do they say that
>the are accurate?

 Did you read the short references that Jason posted... I thought not.
 If you had, you would have been frothing at the mouth about the content.

 As for the Bible being filled with errors, wait till the mormon-bashing
 threads die down, and _that_ thread will proably repeat as well,

 Should this (errors in the Bible) be a part of the FAQ?


>
>Set us straight!  Silence will tell us the Truth!

>-tony


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Keywords: LDS, Mormon, Joseph Smith
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:40:05 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <Bvz0u7.E13@acsu.buffalo.edu>
psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:

>[...]

>It is truly a shame that Smith never learned that his questions
>could have been resolved by "an appeal to the Bible." [...]

>Smith decides he is going to do what James 1:5 teaches and ask
>God in prayer who was right and who was wrong.  [...]

And so Joseph follows some advice in the Bible?  Seems resonable
to me.  Robert continues:

>[...] Did he just make a little mistake in remembering
>when his sister Lucy was born in his previous listing? [...]

I failed to find the reference to a sister named Lucy in Robert's
posting.  The closest I came was a reference to his mother, Lucy
shown below:

> "I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's family was
> proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that
> church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel
> Harrison; and my sister Sophronia."

And then Robert goes on with several accounts of what appear to be
different experiences with God, Jesus, and angels and then:

>[...] many things that point to the conclusion that Smith did not
>begin to claim to have seen God the Father until the mid-1830s.
>Let me point out one of the most obvious proofs of this, taken from
>your own Doctrine and Covenants 84:21-22. We read,
>
>  21. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the
>  priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in
>  the flesh; 
>  22. For without this no man can see the face of God, even the
>  Father, and live.
>
>[...] You must accept that either 1) D&C 84:21-22 is wrong (and
>therefore Smith is not a true prophet), or 2) Smith did not see God
>the Father in 1820 (and therefore Smith is not a true prophet), or 3)
>Smith did not claim to have seen God the Father until later, and the
>result is still the same--making up stories as you go along does not
>qualify one as a prophet, either.

or 4) Joseph Smith did not "see" God with the "flesh" (eyes) but in
some kind of vision (dream).

Mark

(I apologize for not discussing and including more of Robert's text,
our version of "rn" seems to like us submit short postings)
-- 
   Everyone spoke of an information overload, but what there was in
fact was a non-information overload.
   -- Richard Saul Wurman
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18192 alt.atheism:18970 alt.slack:2651
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: All you need is SLACK! was Stop thinking? was Why I am an atheist
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:36:48 GMT
	<1992Oct10.015231.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Organization: extremity of rhythm yea that's whatcha heard, so jus clean out your ears and check the word

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Proof of "Bob's" global empire is everywhere, even your local telephone
>>directory. There are subsidiaries in your town ... see for YOURSELF!!!
>I did.  There isn't.  Not even anyone named Dobbs in the phonebook.
Damn, you're right! I just looked and there are none in my phonebook either.
We now return your newsgroup to its regular pink/false-prophet programing.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cmaguire@time.Princeton.EDU (Cary Maguire)
Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP ME!  I need your advice!  Help me keep this love alive!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:27:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.151802.514@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
daw@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Dave Webb) writes: 

>I desperately need some help and advice.  I have been dating a Jewish
>girl from New York for the past 2 months and have developed a
wonderful relationship...


I find this story terribly sad.  Few circumstances can offer so moving
a description of the social failures of prejudice and disunity.

Perhaps you could consider a Baha'i approach.  Baha'is frequently run
into similar dilemas, as the Baha'i teachings specifically encourage
the fostering of world unity through interracial marriage.  

The Baha'i Writings also require the consent of all living biological
parents as a condition to marriage.  Predictably, many Baha'is are
initially forbidden by their parents, who often aren't Baha'is, from
consumating their interracial relationship in marriage.  

Perhaps paradoxically to the Western mind, (at least mine!), this law
of parental consent, far from inhibiting such marriages, actually
facilitates them in the long run, and places them on a surer
foundation.  In many cases, Baha'i couples, after initially being
refused consent by one or more parents, decides to wait, oftentimes
for years, and to remain faithful to their chosen companion by
refraining from entertaining other marital possibilities.  This act of
obedience to one's parents on the one hand, and devotion to one's
loved one on the other, very often demonstrates to the parents the
depth of character of the couple, and the extent of their love for
their parents and each other, thereby exposing the shallowness of the
parents' objections.  The parents often change their minds, allowing
the marriage to take place, but now with the full support of both
families _behind_ it, instead of against it. Should the couple
themselves fall into marital trouble, the parents are often there
counselling their children on how to remain united.  I have personally
witnessed this process many times, and find the resulting families
simply amazing.

I pray for your success in your difficulty.

Camm
======================================================================
Internet: cmaguire@phoenix.princeton.edu 
"O Son of Man!  Veiled in my immemorial being and in the ancient
eternity of Mine essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I
created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee
My beauty."
					Baha'u'llah

-- 
======================================================================
Internet: cmaguire@phoenix.princeton.edu 
"O Son of Man!  Veiled in my immemorial being and in the ancient
eternity of Mine essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jhays@boi.hp.com (John_D. Hays)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:35:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division
Keywords: LDS, Mormon, Joseph Smith

In article <1992Oct12.202607.16726@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>
>     I follow the one that was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1,
>Luke 2:4). 
>

As do LDS.

>     I think that the Mormons follow the one that was born in 
>Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).
>
At least quote the material correctly:

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, AT Jerusalem which is the land of
our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who
shall be overshadowed and conceive by the poser of the Holy Ghost, and
bring forth a son, even the Son of God." 

Considering the linguistics of the root languages of the Nephite people
and the words which Joseph Smith choose to represent them, "at" can 
clearly be understood to mean "in the vacinity" of Jerusalem.  The audience
is 400 years removed from a first hand knowledge of the geography of
the Holy Land, a great city like Jerusalem (frequently mentioned in the
scriptures in their possession) would be more familiar to the intended
audience than the relatively small Bethlehem. Get out an atlas, and observe
that Bethlehem is very close to Jerusalem and appropriately could be 
considered AT Jerusalem (or in the vacinity) --- Just like "Harvard University"
is at Boston --- although it is really in Cambridge.

Such "straining at a gnat ..."

John
-- 
John D. Hays [KD7UW]           |Email: [UUCP]          ...!hplabs!hpdmd48!jhays
Firmware Engineer              |       [INTERNET]              jhays@boi.hp.com
Boise Printer Division         |       [GEnie]                             HAYS
Boise, Idaho                   |       [Compu$erve]                   72725,424
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Tyre still exists today (was: I'm God.)
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:40:26 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <71478@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> In article <13768@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:

|> |Now it not longer surprises me that Mr Kennedy would use such patently
|> |fallacious reasoning, as I see him to be a theological leech upon the
|> |Christian religion, making his living by peddling his books and ministry, and
|> |giving people lies on which to build their faith.  It does though disappoint
|> |me Richard, that you would continue try to pass such ridiculous arguments on
|> |to us who are not so credulous.  In fact your whole line of argument at
|> |present, reflects an inability to present good arguments or references.  Your
|> |credibility to me will fast go to zip, if you keep up these wild and
|> |fallacious claims, and especially if you keep using Mr Kennedy as a credible
|> |authority.  It seems to me that you base your belief more on a willingness to
|> |accept the word of self proclaimed "historians" who say what you want to hear,
|> |rather than accepting the word of actual historians who publish trustworthy
|> |scholarship and arguments. 
|> 
|> Oh.  It seems you willing want to believe Bible couldn't be correct in
|> this case and so you willing believe the historians over the Bible.

Forgive me for jumping in here - but Richard wasn't this whole Tyre business brought
by you (from Kennedy's book) as an EXAMPLE of history CONFIRMING the BIBLE! 
(If not, I apologize & will butt out). Seems to me that the fact that you are now
accusing Dave of "choosing the historians OVER the Bible" is an admission that
history does not confirm the Bible in this instance. I mean, how can he choose
the historians view over the Bible's unless they are different, and how does history
confirm the biblical account if it's different? Face it, Dave's cleaned your
clock in this argument, it's over, you just (unknowingly) admitted defeat. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Flat earth?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:37:19 GMT

In article <29016@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
}There is a book, "The Fingerprint of God" (I think the author's name is Hugh 
}Ross) which does an excellent job of talking about creation and how, in fact, the
}Bible is consistent with a large number of scientific facts.

Naturally!  When a book contains contradictions within itself on a topic,
half of them are right.  Q.E.D.


Cleverly, they don't mention that the other half contradict the ones mentioned
and observable reality...
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bring On the Cases....
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:41:57 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

In article <71366@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <Bw64vv.8B7@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>|I should hope that no self-respecting homosexual would touch the Boy
>|Scouts with a bargepole.  I just shudder at the thought of a group
>|that sees homosexuality as wrong teaching ethics to youths.

>Is it not that the ethics we advocate are different than the 
>ethics you advocate?????????  Are you not teaching the same
>thing by saying we are wrong??  Where do you get the justification
>for saying we are wrong to teach homosexuality is wrong??
>Are fornication, pedophilia, or other sexual themes wrong?

First rule in my system of ethics is Thou Shalt Not Use Several
Consecutive Question Marks (unless Thou Art Constructing A Regular
Expression).

As far as I can see, this is the Incommensurability of Ethics rearing
its ugly head.  I would like to teach young people that sex has but two
rules: consent and safety.  You would add to this that many other forms
of sexual expression are not sanctioned by God.  Even supposing you were
to convince me of this, the only conclusion I could draw would be that
God and I disagree about the ethics of homosexuality.  Omniscience
doesn't apply here because ideas of what is good aren't facts. 
If you accept this, there is no possibility of our arguing.
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:20:29 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Oct15.141320.5729@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>>Keep the story of the adulterous woman (John 8:2-11) in mind.  Jesus
>>>(implicitly) acknowledges that the legal judgement arrived at by the Pharisees
>>>was correct in verse 7 but goes on to challenge them with the famous, "He
>>>who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
>>>[John 8:7 (NASB)]  You may arrive at the correct legal judgement that someone
>>>is guilty of homosexuality.  But we are all sinners, EQUALLY fallen in God's
>>>eyes and therefore are not qualified to pass judgement.  
>>This reasoning suggests that no Christian is qualified to judge a murderer as
>>wrong, either.
>No, this reasoning suggests that no Christian is qualified to EXECUTE a
>murderer.  Jesus not only allowed the Pharisees to judge the adulterous woman
>as wrong, he agreed with the conclusion.  But they were all unqualified because
>of their own sin to carry out the Biblical judgement.  The same goes for
>capital punishment; we can judge a murderer wrong and send him/her to jail but
>we are unqualified to execute him/her.

_This_ reasoning suggests a Christian who is not homosexual may judge a
homosexual wrong and send him/her to jail....
--
"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 (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:06:34 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct12.202607.16726@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
 brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> I follow the one that was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:4). 
> 
> I think that the Mormons follow the one that was born in Jerusalem 
> (Alma 7:10).

"Jerusalem" as in "the city", or "Jerusalem" as in "the region".

My brother used to live in Sandy.  But to those that weren't that
familiar with the geography of the area he told them he was from
Salt Lake.

Also is there a difference between being born *in* Jerusalem, and
being "born of Mary, *at* Jerusalem which is the *land* of our
forefathers"? (Alma 7:10, emphasis mine, JBH).

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:12:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.160654.18122@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>Keep the story of the adulterous woman (John 8:2-11) in mind.  Jesus
>(implicitly) acknowledges that the legal judgement arrived at by the Pharisees
>was correct in verse 7 but goes on to challenge them with the famous, "He
>who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
>[John 8:7 (NASB)]  You may arrive at the correct legal judgement that someone
>is guilty of homosexuality.  But we are all sinners, EQUALLY fallen in God's
>eyes and therefore are not qualified to pass judgement.  

This reasoning suggests that no Christian is qualified to judge a murderer as
wrong, either.
--
"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 (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc