HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 1 of 2)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:42:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.001935.26762@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>Mormons do not say Jesus is who Jesus said he was in the Bible: God.  They say 
>this is because the Bible is wrong - I say it is because they are not Christian
>(following Christ).  I personally have found much more evidence that the
>latter is the case.  Someone who profesess to follow Christ but does not have 
>made this statement in error, so I think they need to re-evaluate what it means 
>to be Christian.  As with all arguments, this comes back to the
>fallibilty/infallibilty of the Bible.  This issue will not be resolved here,
>but my personal study has led to this conclusion.
>
 Let see what John (Cary Quad) Muehlhausen is saying here:

 A. Mormons deny that Jesus is God

 B. Mormons claim that the Bible is wrong

    Therefore these mormons must not be christian. And I would have to agree
    with him, any mormon who believes that Jesus isn't God and that the
    bible is wrong would be Christian, for that matter that individual wouldn't
    be LDS either.

 B'. Mormons claim that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is 
     translated correctly.

 A'. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the creator of the world and
     that he is the God of the Old Testament.

    Is there anyone here (besides barry) who has a problem with accepting
    either of these two statements as be acceptable as christian.

    [ Yea I know, there is much more to being christian that the above two
      statements. We can get to that later if you all like.]

  I would regard statements from Purdue's resident wacko (John M) such as 
  the above off the wall claims as X can't be christians because I say
  X believes so and so, to be unrepresenative of X's beliefs no matter who
  or what X may be.  It is apparent that John understand little about

   1. Homosexuality
   2. Mormonism
   3. Christianity
   4. God
   5. Spiritual Living
   and proably
   6. Life.


John you wouldn't by any strech of the imagination be an EE major would you?



-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"
From: zazen@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (East Coker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Franciscans down a F117A with a prayer ...
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:04:30 GMT
Organization: Is God a Taoist?

In article <1992Apr6.145803.7742@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Saddam Hussein still has a job. Do you?) writes:
>In article <1992Apr1.213754.16453@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, zazen@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (East Coker) writes:
>> In article <1992Mar31.174515.17622@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>>  
>> the plane crashed because of error though. 
>
>yeah, but when it comes to causes, "error" is pretty flat beer.
>what caused the error?

Gremlins

-- 
East Coker
"In my beginning is my end .... In my end is my beginning" --- T S Eliot
(my opinions alone)
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:00:27 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <3277@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>your hamburger as well. In Acts 15, the sexual prohibition is against
>"fornication", but the meat stuff included blood, strangulation, and
>idol-worship.

Some Christians take this stuff seriously.  I would refuse meat with blood
in it (if I knew.)  I also take the prohibitions against idol-worship
seriously.  Here in the west, idol worship in its most literal sense
is not a very popular type of religious practice, though it has grown in
recent years.  

Since Christians today don't seem to take this stuff
>seriously, it is hard to see the Biblical basis for hating homosexuals
>as being anything other than a phony excuse.

Christians are not to hate homosexuals.  Of homosexuals, drunkards, 
extortioners, etc., Paul wrote, "and such were some of you, but now ye
are washed.." to the Corinthians.  Christians are to show love, not hate
for other people.  But we are to hate sin itself.
Link Hudson.
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 1 of 2)
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:25:29 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

> Mormons do not say Jesus is who Jesus said he was in the Bible: God.  
	
	Yes, they do John.

They say 
> this is because the Bible is wrong - I say it is because they are not Christian

	No, simply not true.

-Mark
> John M.
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:27:59 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr7.181932.18054@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>>The question is, do you ever sin anymore?  I've accepted Jesus, but
>>I still sin; now, I believe they are forgiven.  Are you saying that
>>if you accept Jesus, you will no longer sin?
>
>The main difference b/w homosexuality as a sin and me sinning is that 
>I repent of my sins in an attempt to stop doing them.

  Yet, you have never stop sinning, have you?

>Homosexuals are not repentful of their sin.
>They are forgiven for their sins, but unless they repent...

  And they still live just as much as any other Christian within 
the grace, glory, presence and spirit of God. I can't help but think
that spiritually the formula that you offer is lacking some heart
centered awarenesses of homosexuals and their relationship with 
the Divine.


        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
                                        Thomas Merton


	David Hatcher
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:24:29 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Apr7.195156.23577@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>
>But what about the Top One Reason Not To?

There is a way that seems right unto man,
    but the end there of is death. (Proverbs)

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7031 soc.culture.jewish:8002
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:21:52 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Apr14.184414.2487@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>Jack Carroll is not a Jew-hater or an antisemite, and it's
>both obnoxious and ridiculous to make the charge.
>distasteful given the substance of his note which addressed the
>horrific experience many gay people have had at the hands of Christian
>parents.  He added the experience of gay Jews from his experience
>with gay Jews.

]   These are religions of intolerance and power, and they are obsessed
]   with punishment, bloodshed and death.  Anyone who claims to be
]   a Christian or a Jew and cannot or will not demonstrate that he
]   has repudiated the power-lusting part of his heritage is an
]   assassin poised to rip your throat open as a sacrifice to his
]   blood-drinking god.

If this isn't Jew hatred, tell me, what _is_ Jew hatred?
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Jealous God (was Re: Fundamentalism)
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:20:33 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <23249@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.203628.4491@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu
>(John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> 
>> In article <22582@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>> >opposite. I think the doctrine of heaven and hell is the
>> >torture of a soul; thinking about this is certainly a torture for a 
>> >believer always scared to end up in hell.
>> 
>> No Christian should be scared they will end up in hell, because we have
>> assurance otherwise.  I know I'm not.  
>
>You are never sure about this, because you could eventually sin and
>not be one of the selected ones. In my case life is easier, I don't 
>believe in such concepts and I create heaven and hell based on my
>daily life.

Once again, who are you to say what I am or am not sure of?  It is not
debateable.  I _am_ sure.  You cannot change that no matter how much you would
like to.  I realize that being sure of anything is a foreign concept to you,
which I would not hesitate to label as the "hell" portion of your fantasy
world of no absolutes.

John M.
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Talk.Religion.Misc?
Keywords: religion, no no topics, intolerance
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:01:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsd.1992Apr17.020107.2111
Organization: AT&T


I gotta chuckle sometimes about this board:-)

Some howl that we are to be more tolerant towards religion and
religious people. I am very tolerant as long as I don't talk
about religion, politics, or morality. I learned this from the
taverns(the unofficial church):-)

The nature of the board will be heated discussions:-) on religion
that is why the board is called t.r.m. Now maybe someone should
create a new board called talk.religion.religious-tolerance.

I could easily get along with Jay, Willard, Hal, Kermit, Jason,
cause I'm sure they are all fine people in their daily routines
just as long as the topics I mention never come up. But, as I said
it is the nature of this board that causes problems. I don't get
into discussions of this sort off the net.
I'm only intolerant because I'm on this board, so shoot me:-)

Love and Kisses to all,

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Prayer and Religious Activities in the Public Schools
Keywords: prayer, schools
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:20:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.100547.5400@pegasus.com> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:

>Buddhist philosophy has much going for it
>and I would much rather have my kids exposed to a Buddhist than an
>atheist, or a secular humanist.

How's that again? Buddhists, as a rule, *are* atheists, and a great many
of those might be called secular humanists (depending on what is meant
by that). Furthermore, as a zennie, I try to expose myself to christian
children at every opportunity. (do I really need one? --> )  :-D

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |         Laden e-mail runs
Academic Computing Center       | Bumbling, creaking through the net
University of Virginia          |         Sysadmins tremble.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Buson
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: True Christianity vs. The Myth of Mormonism
Date: 17 Apr 92 07:08:18 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Apr17.055655.648@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.2>
>>
>>	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
>
>>>
12345.14231@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>	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
How about the Secret Gospel of Mark?
The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Library?

Sound like God's making some revisions.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Quality of life
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:32:18 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr8.051809.3965@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>,
zazen@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (East Coker) writes:
> >That was indeed an interesting note.  It got me to thinking:  Like Kent,
> >I don't worry about any of those things either.  And, like Kent, I really
> >recommend my religion: Christianity.  
> 
> Interesting, leads one to wonder if perhaps religion or its absence has
> no effect on ones happiness.

Yes, I think you are on the right clue, happiness and meaning of life
has seldom anything to do with selecting the one and only religion
from a great many. Or then do as some people I know, select as many
as possible so you have a greater chance to end up in the right heaven.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM')
Keywords: zeal, znake, zloth, zailfish, zalamander, zcorpion, `Zoof!'
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:47:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.151128.14198@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>Now I ask you, what is so terrible about the Mormon temple ceremony?
>Why is it so dangerous that it needs to be exposed, contrary to the
>wishes of its participants?

I think it's human nature to expose what's hidden.  (This is orthogonal
to whether such an action is good or not.)

>What's unacceptable is that this admittedly subjective good is being
>used to justify something which is objectively bad -- the ridicule of
>innocent people.  In my view, it's evil for evil's sake.

Why is exposing the Mormon ceremony tantamount to ridiculing Mormons?
It strikes me that that needn't follow.

>Making people feel like dirt is a very poor way of helpig them,

Huh?  Describing the ceremony makes them feel like dirt?
You probably mean more here.

>As I said before, if Mormonism is
>so inherently evil, and if the Mormon temple ceremony is so inherently
>immoral, why can't our authors simply display a more pleasing
>alternative?

_IS_ it immoral?  I wouldn't have expected so.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs vs. Christians
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:25:45 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>"Hematology" is the name of the specialization in medicine that deals
>with the subject of blood.  This covers hematological transmission of
>disease, chemical compatibilities between blood types, disorders of
>the blood -- in short, most if not all of the topics necessary to be
>and expert on blood transfusion.

	Thank you for informing me - now I'm more knowledgeable and must admit
	that I was ignorant. 

>There are many, many hematologists in the world.  If you say that one
>committee is better than them all, then I'd like to see some evidence.

	In fact the committee uses the results of their research. They study 
	about 4,000 periodicals about the subject. 

>involved in original research.  To claim they are experts under this
>assumption is ludicrous.

	No, they don't do research, but they have yet the newest information 
	about transfusions. They utilize the results and while they can do it
	more effectively than a single surgeon can do.  

>This was your explanation before, and I said I didn't believe that.  I
>don't think it follows that a group who does a lot of reading is
>automatically the better judge, especially if you consider that the
>group may not have training or recognition in the field.  THAT's what
>I want to know.

	Yes there are also working doctors among them. My answer was that you
	should study the results first and then express your opinion about 
	it. 

>There are non-Witnesses "expertized" in hematology, and I want to know
>why those people aren't as "expert" as Witnesses.

	I don't know any of them, so it's a bit difficult to say. As said, we
	trust to their work and we use their studies and results. It's like 
	you would wonder how the one, who designes a computer doesn't know
	the details of 80486-processor. He only USES it.    


>I don't have much of a problem with the Witness position per se,
>because it's essentially based on faith, and you can't really argue
>that logically.  But YOU made a very silly proposition with only
>minimal circumstantial support.  I'm not questioning the validity of
>your faith, I'm questioning the validity of your logic.

	Yes. My support is based on the results of the newest research. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Biblical Reasons for Believing in the "Deity" of Christ.
Date: 9 Apr 1992 05:42:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

Hey, Wayne! Your top 10 reasons will  gloriously convince all those who happen 
to take the Bible as true. In other words, you reason with people who already
abdicated from reasoning. That's easy! How about reasoning the rest of the planet,i.e. us, the non-believers, into accepting Jesus' deity? Good luck!

Cheers!
-- 
Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
Department of Economics
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:29:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: apollo.1992Apr6.132917.12458
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Apr6.102851.5857@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. That is not natural, its 
>	extraordinaire. Judge was, perhaps, worried how these children could
>	survive in the world. 

( I can just picture this conversation in that Kansas courtroom....)

OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
loot, and terrorize?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7366 soc.culture.jewish:8135
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:18:40 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr8.193425.9351@athena.cs.uga.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> Disobedience does not please God.  The Nicolations taught that it was okay
> to engage in sexual immorality.  Jesus warned them that He would come against
> them with a sword.  Today there are people creeping up in the church world
> who are comparable to those who followed the way of Balaam spoken of in
> II Peter 2.  
> 
> The Scriptures are explicit that performing homosexual acts is a sin in
> the sight of God.  God has the power to set people free from any sin,
including
> homosexual sin.

The problem is to justify why God is free to love men, while two men
loving each other is a sin. 

Cheers,
Kent
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:31:19 GMT
	<1992Apr13.230317.25587@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<1992Apr14.021317.24595@spdcc.com>
	<1992Apr14.052931.5892@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <adams.703260182@spssig>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

dams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>Sex simply for sex sake, outside of marriage, is fornication.  As
>such, it is to be avoided.

Why?  What besides the holy text of the Christians justifies this
restriction on behavior?  Who is harmed by sex for sex's sake, inside
or outside of marriage?

--
You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics.  But not
much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority
ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient
book written by ignorant nomads as a guide.  -- Doug Graham (dgraham@bnr.ca)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: The Ending of Mark (was: Myths Concerning Christianity #3)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 23:01:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <MIB.92Apr6093631@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>  Mark cannot have ended at 16:8; the
>grammatical construction is ended prematurely.  Both additions after
>verse 8 are in very different styles from the rest of Mark; the
>shorter ending is remarkably abrupt.  It is quite likely that the last
>page was lost very early on in the history of the Gospel, and a
>reconstruction of it, perhaps from memory, perhaps not, was added by a
>scribe later.
>
  If there ever was any "last page" or "original ending" to this
  Gospel, it must have been lost *very* early, so early that the
  authors of Matthew and Luke were unable to find it, and hence
  had to invent their own mutually-contradictory accounts of
  people seeing the risen Jesus.

  A more likely scenario was that there *never was* any "original
  ending" to Mark, and that the Longer Ending was composed to meet
  the objection from unbelievers that nobody actually SAW Jesus
  after his supposed resurrection. I set out a detailed argument
  supporting this in my book, "The Making of the Messiah"
  (Prometheus Books, 1991).

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
       
                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc