HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: True Christianity vs. The Myth of Mormonism
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:27:36 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>The Bible has been transmitted at the very least somewhat more
>accurately than any other ancient literature we know of, and at best
>idea for idea.  Its popularity has kept it accurate. 

What?!?  The Roman Catholic Church maintained tight controls over the
document until the Reformation.  The Reformation, along with printing-
press developments, moved the Bible into the hands of the people.

The Vulgate contains errors in translation from the Greek.  And the LXX
documents contain errors in translation from the Hebrew.  The King James,
or Authorized, Version contains numerous errors along these lines, because
of the source documents.  Now, a number of translations are become available
based on early documents, not on these two error-prone, and oft-quoted
texts.

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

If you want some more info, I have a posting that was made to
soc.religion.christian that describes the various bible's source documents
and style.

--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Context (was Re: JWs Child Custody booklet)
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:59:41 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>1) What view does your church encourage children to take towards
>   a parent who is not a JW?  How about if he is a disfellowshipped
>   JW?  How about if he tries to share non_JW teachings and
>   practices with you, like holidays, communion at church,
>   going to church, etc?

	Children should respect their parents. Exodus 20: 12: "Honor your father
	and your mother". 

	Disfellowshipped: 1 Corinthians 5: 9 - 13.

	Like I said before, we should honor and respect his view, but refuse 
	to share them with you. For instance I sometimes go home for Chrissy,
	but I don't either read passages from the Bible or sing Christmas 
	songs. 

>2) What view does your church take towards people of other religions?

	First, there are sheep among them and we try to find them. Second, 
	there are goats and we don't mind them. We love people of the other
	religions, they are lost sheep. We're sorry for them. 

>3) Does your church teach that young people should learn only about
>   the JWs religion?  If not, how should they learn about others?
>   What does your religion teach young people about other churches
>   and the people in them?  (see #2)

	No. For instance the Society has recently published a book about the
	major religions of the world and I for instance read it very much. 
	I don't remember what it is in English, but translated it is "Mankind
	searches God". 

>4) Are there substantial differences between basic principles if morality
>   as taught by JWs and the Catholic Church?

	I'm sorry, but I'm not so well aware of the Catholic principles of 
	morality in practice, because the RC church here is almost nonexistent.
	I think we're stricter in this question - we don't allow homosexuality 
	or other pervertions (Romans 1:26-28) and we disfellowship a person,
	who practices these habits (and doesn't change his way). 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: More on Mormon temple ceremonies
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 03:34:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.233311.6917@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>I asked for substantiation, and Ken noted that such would probably be
>insufficient to convince me.  Allow me to clarify:  I really would
>only like a substantiation of the charge.  Specifically:  From which
>Babylonian religions do the authors claim the ceremony derived? and,
>In what ways are the ceremonies similar?

I haven't the faintest idea, actually.

I was making a meta-argument; I know nothing about the authors you speak of.
Maybe they _are_ unreliable.  I'm just disputing that this unreliability may
be deduced merely from their willingness to speak about details of the
ceremonies.

>But Ken wants to speak of motives.  That's a dangerous subject,
>because it involves peering into others' minds and second-guessing
>them.  The question is not "Would our authority lie?" but "DID our
>authority lie?"  I don't think Ken presumes to have an answer for
>that.  His opinion is valid, but unfortunately it's only backed up by
>"what ifs."  And an opinion substantianted solely by "what ifs" make
>it just that -- an opinion.

The purpose of the "what if"s is not to prove, but to disprove.  You claim
that since Mormons don't see significant similarity, there isn't any.  I give
an alternate explanation: they could be biased.  In order to disprove your
claim that there's only one explanation, I need only give another; I need not
prove it unless I also claim that my explanation is the only possible one.

Now, consider the context: you are replying to non-Mormons with, essentially,
"You don't need to do that.  Mormons did that, and that's just as good."  Well,
it's not just as good at all.
--
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)
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: TRADITION IS NOT THE BASIS FOR CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:52:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr17.035233.18783
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <GOEHRING.92Apr15181221@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>This is getting ridiculous.  A religion based on what man dreams up
>>about God (traditions) does not in any way compare to THE religion
>>which was communicated to man by God.  Someone back me up here.
>
>Demonstrate to me that the Christian religion is not merely something
>that a group of men dreamed up.

When taken in context the Bible does not contradict itself.
The Christian God "makes sense".
Jesus claimed to be God and his life was a testimony to this fact.
Nature points to the Christian God.
Christianity has had more influence than any other religion.
Historical probability points to Christian truths.
Scientific evidence points to Christian truths.
I know it is true, and I daresay you know it as well!

I will not get into wasting time on these, as you have not asked the question
as someone who will even consider the answer.  If I am mistaken in this then
you will undoubtedly embark upon a quest to find out for yourself if these
claims are true, the result of which will depend on your state of mind.


John M.
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:14:17 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>I didn't quite understand you.  Could you be more explicit?
>No $#@% please.

I assume you have read the stuff I wrote about personal conviction - as long
as it is not what you want and what you genuinely feel God wants.  If you ask
yourself if God would want you to be doing whatever you are doing every time
you make a decision would you still do everything you do?  If so - and you
always keep that foremost in your mind - I guess thats all I can say.

>>What makes it sinful is that it is a lifestyle that revolves around sex.
>
>Huh?  Sez who?  Sorry, you don't get to make up your own definitions
>if you're going to discuss this with someone other than yourself.

Says God when he says that our lives should revolve around him since we were
bought with the blood of Christ.

I did not say homosexuality revolved around sex, but rather that society
associates "dirty" sex with homosexuality.  Therefore it might not be the
best label to put on yourself if it doesn't accurately describe your
lifestyle (who knows, maybe it does...)

>>You are merely good friends (or
>>"pure lovers") in my view and this is where the sin comes in.  To jump on the
>>homosexuality bandwagon and fight for something that has no substance is
>>_not_ what God has planned for your Christian life, making it a sin.
>
>What nonsense are you spouting?  You know, I can't even figure out
>what you're saying anymore.  Listen here, and listen good, you deluded,
>ignorant little gnat:  You don't get to tell me that my attempts to
>ensure that I don't get fired, or ensure that my head not get bashed
>in on the street, or my insistence on being treated with dignity simply
>because I have a "good friend" has "no substance".  This is justice,
>pure and simple.  God's justice.

I am going to say it clearly this time: IF you are Christian and IF you are
gay and IF you do not fit the sexual stereotype which society HAS attached to
being gay, then do not announce this fact because your lifestyle will not
show it and it will only cause unneeded difficulties.  What you know as being
gay is really a loving friendship and calling it "gay" can only hurt in
dealing with others.

>>In the
>>same way fulfilling fleshly desires is not in the plan for the new you in
>>Christ.
>
>Sez you.  You have a lot of stuff to work on, pal, before you
>presume to spead your "good news" to others.

What?  Do I need to water it down a little? Say what is comfortable?
Compromise everything God stands for in order to make everyone happy?

No thanks.

John M.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7470 soc.culture.jewish:8169 alt.politics.homosexuality:2375
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:46:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <unixwiz.703458116@mcl> unixwiz@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu (Old Wolf)
writes:
>In <1992Apr15.210646.16347@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind) writes:

>>If I can understand why he feels that way, and recognise that other
>>Christians have given him good reasons to be unhappy with Christians,
>>I do not know why none of the Jewish people participating in this
>>thread can recognise that some Jews have given Mr Carroll good reasons
>>to be unhappy with Judaism.

>*SOME* Jews have given Mr. Carroll good resons...not *all*  and not
>necessarily even all religious Jews...Mr. Carroll blasted all Jews who do
>not put their "bloody, warlike" past behind them...

He was blasting those who will not put their homophobic past behind
them, and quit damaging their own children in the name of religion.

>and Mr. Carroll was flaming Jews because we are Jews....
>And maybe PC has gone too far...I refuse to follow all of PC's dictates
>because I feel that thought control went out a while ago...Shouldn't it be
>alright for me to feel sick about what someone else does??  I personally
>don't like homosexuality..but I'll defend your right to practice...

This is not good enough, and the reason why touches on Mr. Carroll's point.
*Why* do you "not like" homosexuality, and what will you teach your
kids about it? How will you react if a child of yours turns out to be
gay? To what extent does your homophobia have a religious basis?

There seems to be some confusion here that this is a matter of gentile
gays asking Jewish straights to leave them alone. That is not really
the point!

--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: TRADITION IS NOT THE BASIS FOR CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:32:40 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>The Christian God "makes sense".
No, not really.  For we can never truly understand God.  No human can fully
understand the mind of God, nor provide rational reasons for all of His
actions.

>Jesus claimed to be God and his life was a testimony to this fact.
I disagree that Jesus claimed to be God.  Often, he let others make the
claims, and asked their belief, but never claimed to be God.

>Nature points to the Christian God.
Perhaps, and perhaps not.  No more than it points (or doesn't point) to any
other God.

>Christianity has had more influence than any other religion.
Hmm, I suspect this is probably true, though I wouldn't be so quick to make
this claim, since quite a bit of the 'influence' was terribly detrimental.

>Historical probability points to Christian truths.
No more than any other religion.

>Scientific evidence points to Christian truths.
What?  You must have slept through science class.  I'm a reasonably devout
Christian, and I can find NO scientific evidence for God.  My faith in God
is based purely on faith, not on scientific evidence.

>I know it is true, and I daresay you know it as well!
No.  Even other Christians will debate your points...I am.

>I will not get into wasting time on these, as you have not asked the question
>as someone who will even consider the answer.  If I am mistaken in this then
>you will undoubtedly embark upon a quest to find out for yourself if these
>claims are true, the result of which will depend on your state of mind.

This kind of attitude hurts all Christians.  Why can't you simply present
your evidence for God, and leave it to the recipient to decide.  Since no
person will convert except upon belief, being self-rightous and lording
over non-believers certainly won't endear them to the faith.

Treat non-believers with respect and love, and you will get the same in
return.  Do this, 'for even the sinners and publicans love their own...'

 -Steve
-- 
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Origin of Protestants
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:22:36 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <55980001@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com>, guanth@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Brian Guan
Tak Hong) writes:
> 
> Hello world,
> 
>   I am just wondering about the origin of the Protestants.
>   Why did Martin Luther start his teaching and seperate
>   himself from the then dominant Cathotolic Church ?
> 
>   Is there a single, most significant reason ?
> 
>   If there is, then what is it ?

There were *many* reasons, for instance the way of paying for
your salvation, a nice way to get money to the Vatican. Also,
the masses and rituals was conducted using Latin (as well as
the Bible was written in this language), so the common people knew
nearly nothing about the doctrines and the ideas behind Christianity.

In other words, the Roman Catholic church was in a mess, and a lot
of people (Luther, Calvin, others) wanted to bring the message back
to the masses.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Mormon FAQ (part 1 of 2)
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:42:22 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>
>I should think that an informed member knows what their church's
>position is on most matters of doctrine, RCC and Protestant.

But even informed members make mistakes.  Even informed members get
doctrine wrong.  Even informed members slip in their own
interpretations without realizing it.  And most importantly: being
well-informed doesn't make you an official spokesman.

Let me state it a little more to the point.  The disclaimer is so that
Barry Olson can't pick Willard's article to pieces and bash Mormons
over the head with it.  It's so that people with little respect for
accuracy and an oversized eye for sensationalism can't quote it as
"the official Mormon position."  It's so that nobody will expect it to
be infallible.

The article is intended as a brief introduction to Mormonism.  It
isn't intended to be an airtight exposition of doctrine, able to stand
up to detailed examination.  It's designed to be informative, not
defensible.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Child custody
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:06:39 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu


	Rubbish and an old question. 

	I was good in the school, I got an average of 9.1 in all subjects 
	(scale 4 - 10) and I've studied in the University. I have a pal, he had
	an average of 5.4 and he hasn't studied anywhere. The difference 
	between us is that he has a job and I'm unemployed. 

	If we (JWs) say schooling doesn't grant better incomes, we're in the 
	light of my own (bitter) experience at right. 


-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Books  (Was:Re: Top 10 reasons to believe in Jesus)
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:45:11 GMT

In article <+vvjxqm.rohwerwd@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:

   In article <1333@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox) writes:

   >You asked for 10 reasons to believe in Jesus. I have to suggest then that
   >you read a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh Mcdowel.

   >There are far more that 10 reasons for believing. Not to mention the best 
   >reason. It is written that you will not go to heaven except through your
   >belief in Jesus.....:)

	Instead of the previously mentioned book, take a look at
   "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by Episcopal bishop John
   Shelby Spong.  He shows you why the Bible is filled with errors and
   contraditions.

Of course, let's not go too far here.  The Rt. Rev. John Spong says
the Nicene Creed every Sunday, and, I dare say, when he says "We
believe in ... one Lord Jesus Christ, ... God from God ... being of
one substance with the Father" he means it.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | Blessed is the King
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   who comes in the name of the Lord!
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | Peace in heaven,
			  |   and glory in the highest heaven!
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JWs vs. Christians
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:54:02 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>Well, that's nice to hear, but you might consider saving your
>responses until you have time to do them right.  Apparently a lot of
>your responses seem to be thought through in thirty seconds or less.
>You'd be better to keep silent if you don't have the time to read and
>answer the questions carefully.

	On the other hand I don't want to keep the person asking questions
	waiting. In my News-system it's difficult to find the original text
	unless you answer while reading for the 1st time. 

>I'm not interested in the Witness position on blood transfusions.  I
>know what it is and I know the rationale for it.  What I have been
>looking for (and still am) is a justification for YOUR statement that
>the Witnesses' committee on blood transfusions is better equipped to
>judge in the matter than those who actually practice medicine.

	A-ha, that is the point. You see, there's no doctors (as far as I know)
	specialized in this subject. The members of the committee are. 


>>       If you read (and surgeons read) as you boast
>>	you do, you would be willing to order it

>Go read the discussion again.  I never claimed at any point to have
>any special interest or knowledge in surgery, hemotology, or any of
>the related fields.  Nor do I read their journals.  I never "boasted"
>of any such thing.

	No, you didn't. But anyway the best way to see how the Committee works
	is to study the results.                                

	I talked one brother about this. He promised to send you information.


>I'm not asking for a study of blood transfusions, I'm asking for a
>study of the people in the Witness community who study blood
>transfusions.  This is not so that I can decide upon the legitimacy of
>transfusions, but so that I can decide the legitimacy of a claim that
>Witness committees are the consummate authority on the subject.

	I see. The best way is what I recommended above: Read, what they've 
	written. 

>the various Witness committees who study the medical viability of
>blood transfusions are more competent to judge in that question that
>any medical expert or profession I might name?

	Yes. 

>If so, why should I believe that?

	Because they're expertized only to this subject. 

>literature?  Why isn't the medical community flocking to
>transfusionless surgery?  Why aren't they beating down the doors in
>New York to gain access to this wealth of knowledge?

	That is what I wonder, too. One reason may be that bloodless operation
	demands much more skill from the surgeon. Another reason could be that 
	the difference of the risks is considered low.                  
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:13:46 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Apr13.224356.22666@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> My whole point was that this is NOT reflected in the Temple ceremonies!!!
> In them is salvation by the grace of God?  NO!

	Sorry but yes.

> Is Jesus God?  NO!

	Again yes, He is.

> What else do you need besides Jesus?  According to the Temple ceremonies
> quite a bit...  In fact he is not even an issue!  You could be a very good
> Mormon as far as Endowment is concerned and still not believe Jesus is
> your savior.  Have you been through these ceremonies?

	Yes, I have, and if you've been to or heard about them you've obviously
missed the point.  The temple ceremony IS full of symbolism of Christ and His
sacrifice and certainly teaches that the way back to God's presence is through
Him.  Trust me - I'm a Mormon - that's what I believe, that's what I accept and
that's what the church teaches.
 
>>> The Christian Jesus is God as man and died to pay the penalty of death
>>> for us.  "For the wages of sin is death"  He did this because it is
>>> impossible for us to be sin-free.
>>>
>>	And that's the "Mormon" Jesus.  That's the simple, plain and clear
>>truth of the matter.
> 
> Not according to Mr. Sacket (ie Mr. "9 consecutive Temple recommends").
> Then you do not need to go through the Endowment to get to "highest heaven"?
> Do you not need Joseph Smith's .sig to get into heaven?

	Huh?  Not at all.

> The Christian Jesus and the Mormon Jesus are clearly not the same at all.
>
	If you mean orthodox Christian here then I would agree.  But just
because Mormon's don't believe in Christ in the same way that orthodox
Christians do doesn't mean that they don't believe in Christ or teach that
salvation comes through and only through Him.  What you are saying is that
someone can only be Christian if they see things the same way as you do - or
accept the same interpretations that you do.  

-Mark 
> 
> John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc