HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Mormon FAQ (part 1 of 2)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:36:42 GMT
Summary: indefensible positions must have disclaimers

In article <1992Apr15.214223.341@hellgate.utah.edu>, jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> 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.

So you and all the other LDS are afraid of making mistakes? Does
a mistake compromise your position in heaven?

> 
> 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.

Oh yes, keep the target moving, that way we don't ever have to
answer to the heathen gentiles. 

> 
> 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.

Oh yes, it is full of holes because it is not offial doctrine. It's
just a brief overview to totally confuse people as to what the LDS
actually, officially believe. That way, when backed into a corner
we can always claim it is not official doctrine. Good ploy! I wonder
why the O(o)rthodox faiths never thought of that. Must be that integrity
factor they like to employ.

Love and Kisses,

barry--
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:37:08 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Kent (ksand@apple.com) writes:
>>Sorry to state, but this is the carrot behind Christianity. Every religion
>>needs a cookie in order to gain followers, and the issue of eternal life
>>through Jesus was the solution in the case of Christianity. Sorry, but
>>personally I would never believe in such things, it's the same as the
>>issue of free lunches, someone is paying for them anyway.
 
Terence (lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil) responded:
>...Kent would never believe "such" things...
>how sad a life.

Kent(ksand@apple.com) then writes:
>>No, I don't either believe in used car salesmen, politicians and lawyers.
>>It's all based on real personal experiences, used cars salesmen being
>>the worst kind. 
>>After I purchased a brand-new car, avoid any contacts with lawyers,
>>don't actively involve in either politics or religion I feel like
>>a free man. 

Back to the original point, if one "would never believe such things,"
as "free lunches," (or your children being nice to you, or your 
spouse being good to you forever and other things that would kind 
of be free, but not really ), where is the hope in this person's life?  
Is it really happy and joyful to presume everyone in the world is out 
to get you like used car salesmen, politicians and lawyers, etc?  
What a life astrangled!  It would truly be naive not to hesitate to 
trust in others, but ruling out the possibility is dismal to the max!
I like to believe that not everyone has such selfish (jealous but not
selfish) designs on our lives...especially Him.  (I suggest you read 
some of the other responses you got to figure this one out.
I thought I read some good stuff in Steve Adams' postings to you.)
Some have ultimate desires for others that are truly better than 
these stereotypical use/abuse used car salesmen, politicians and 
lawyers, etc.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:54:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.041833.4967@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind) writes:
>> Sorry, but the quote says "anybody who claims to be a Christian or a Jew",
>The quote ALSO says "and cannot or will not demonstrate that he has repudiated
>the power-lusting part of his heritage" -- that's what we call a `qualifier'.

The quote contains several sentences.  Another sentence refers to Christians
and Jews in general and does not include a qualifier.

>The Jews didn't kill anybody in the Middle Ages, but the armed invasion of
>Caanan included atrocities that haven't been attributed to the Crusades (can
>anybody cite an instance of the RCC executing infants?).  I rather suspect
>that if you add up all the victims reported in Joshua, you'll get a much
>higher death toll than for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition combined.
>
>Why does it matter when a religious group kills people?  If it's not hateful
>to describe recent atrocities as bloody, why is it hateful to describe ancient
>atrocities as bloody?

Historians don't believe the slaughter of the Canaanites described in the
Bible actually happened, God-ordered or not.  So if you mean to say Jews are
bloody murderers for having killed infants, you're wrong.  And if you mean
to say Jews are bloody murderers for _believing_ that it is right to kill
infants, you're _still_ wrong, since one cannot find Jewish beliefs just by
looking at the Old Testament.
--
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: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Subject: Re: No such thing as atheism...
Originator: mackenzi@Aragorn.McRCIM.McGill.EDU
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 14:30:09 GMT


In article <1992Apr15.152908.23364@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr15.025029.18772@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
|> 
|> >	You missed one minor point in your disection of the major
|> >thesis of the article.
|> >	The gentleman claims we atheists are trying to disprove
|> >the existence of God...not so...
|> 
|> Right. I believe I said as much. So what minor point was it I missed?

As far as I know, atheists are NOT trying to disprove the existence of God,
but instead are looking for proof of his existence.  The existence of God is
the issue, and it is up to those who assert this fact to prove it.  

For instance, I could tell you that my appartment has gremlins in the walls.  
You could say, "I don't believe you.  Prove it", and then I could say, "well,
can you prove they AREN'T there?"  Sound familiar?  

--Paul
From: jonathan@ukmug.uk.mugnet.org (Jonathan Allen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith  (Was:Re: I've forged a cancel of a sendsys)
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:10:38 GMT
Organization: MUGNET UK Backbone (UKMUG)

In article <srqjlpn.rohwerwd@netcom.com>, rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) wrote:
>      Please remove your illogical pro-censorship and pro-politically correct
> statements from all your future posts.  You are insulting all people that
> give authority to logic over unfounded bibilical faith.
> 
>      As you should know by now, the Bible contains many contradictions
> and errors and as a consequence does not stand up to logic.  A couple
> of errors are the creation story and the virgin birth.  Christianity
> is a very false religion.

Boy oh boy, I normally pull my horns in when someone starts off on this
track, and leave it to die out - after all, if you _want_ to go to hell,
I can't stop you - but you really do go too far on this one.

I don't stuff my religious beliefs down the throats of others, and I don't
see why you should stuff your atheist views down mine.  You do me and a
number of other people a grave injury when you accuse us of deliberately
insulting all those people who either through ignorance of the facts, or
from a deliberate choice to ignore them, have decided that being a disciple
of the Lord Jesus Christ is not for them.

I am just as prepared to respect your intelligence and free-will as the
man standing next to you, be he a disciple or not.  Moreover, I am not
in the habit of dismissing the beliefs and standards of others as
'illogical' or 'very false' - especially not in public.  If I may offer
my suggestion: an apology is _very_ much called for.

If you would like to have a discussion about (what I believe to be) the
truth and integrity of the Bible, then I am quite happy to have it, but
it really ought to be by email or in an appropriate newsgroup.

In the meantime, I and the net await your apologies ...

Jonathan
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:18:23 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Kent Sandvik (ksand@apple.com) writes:
>I've also noticed that a typical Christian attitude to life tends *not* to
>be on the naive side, where you trust strangers and whoever.
>Aas everyone knows would you like your kid to ride home in the car 
>of a stranger? And aren't fundamentalist Christians usually for
>death penalty?
Do you have statistics for this one?  reliable ones?
>What I've learned is to prepare for the worst, and plan for the best.
>Ultimately I'm personally a very optimistic person, but I've been
>bitten enough times so I know how to handle certain situations.
>And it also improved radically the quality of life, for instance
>by buying a brand new car I don't need to visit the car dealer
>for 5-6 years! By no need of following hundreds of religious
>rules how to behave, talk and act, I feel much more free,
>basically using the law of the land and common sense with
>my moral actions.

You've prepared for the worst?  If you were to die today,
and found yourself at the gates of heaven, and God were to
ask you why He should let you in, have you prepared a 
decent answer?  Have you been through this situation enough
times to know how to handle it?  

BTW, you're right.  Forget following hundreds of religious
rules how to...  Try just one:  Love your God with all of
your heart and with all of your soul and with all of your
mind.  That is THE MOST IMPORTANT one of them all.  I presume
you've broken it infinitely more than thou shalt not kill, etc.

Terence
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 16 Apr 92 09:13:50 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>If you are referring to the State Lutheran Church in Finland, I would
>assume that it is much like the State Lutheran Church in Sweden, in that
>you are bascially automatically a member.

	Yes, in the exception that the Lutheran Church of Sweden is even worse. 

>How did they steal money from you?  Details, we want details!

	I wasn't the member of the church and they still made me pay tax once.

>Try this on for size, Andreas/Annti:

>[Matthew 23, NIV]

>   "(Jesus says)(13)Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you
>    hypocrites!  You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces.  (14)You
>    yourselves do not enter nor will you let those who enter who are
>    trying to."

>You are a 'blind guide' if you hold that your religion is 'perfect' and
>slam the door to heaven in the face of men. 

	Pharisees instead of educating people hid the Truth by inviting 
	traditions. Matthew 15:3-9. I, instead, tell the word of Bible to 
	everyone, I don't hide it. 

>BTW, what about those female JW's violating I Timothy 2:9-15?  Proof
>positive that there are `false' JW's.

	Yes, I'm aware of this (especially verse 9) and I try ny best to 
	give them advise whenever it is possible. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homsexuality and the Bible #2
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:55:54 GMT

In article <1307@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox) writes:
>wether or not homsexuality is "right or wrong". What I have to say about this
>is that if you are a christian then I ask you to recall this verse:
This verse is a lousy translation.

>  "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall
>   not inherit the kingdom of God? Do no be decieved;
>   neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
            ^^^^^^^^^^^
should read "pornous" i.e. those who engage in "porneia" loosely
translated "sexual immorality." What does that mean? Good question.

>   nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves,
        ^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^
malakoitai and arsenokoitai.

Literally translated "soft men" and "sleeping men."

Homosexuals is not a good translation of arsenokoitai. Male prostitute
might be better. Again, it's not clear what it means.

The rest of the argument is premised on this and is therefore equally
bogus.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:03:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr14.115213.26412@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.052931.5892@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>OK, OK... I give up.  I know that homosex (to borrow the term) is
>>wrong, and everyone who does it knows its not wrong,

>Hasn't it occurred to you that someone must be wrong here?
>And it strikes me that you have to show that homosexuality IS wrong.
>If you can't support it, perhaps you should admit of the possibility
>that your gut feeling is wrong and that homosexuality is ok.

Yes someone must be wrong.  I do not believe I am that person.  Lets leave
it at that.

>>If not, then its hopeless.  I just hope you guys come around sooner
>>or later.  Now to the Mormon thing...  :-)
>
>Great. Now that you're done insulting gays[I'm told by at least
>one gay man that gay applies to both gay men and lesbians,
>so don't flame me if it doesn't just gently chastise me,
>well...maybe you COULD discipline me just a bit....] you're
>going to insult another bunch of people who probably haven't
>done anything to you. Wonderful.

What astounds me is the relative attitude displayed by many Christians on
this newsgroup.  Lets face it, there are absolutes and they are worth
proclaiming, one of which is the salvation plan of the Bible.  If you cannot
accept anything as fact then I wonder how sure you are of your salvation.

John M.
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:20:38 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>And, not having read the booklet which prompted some of the judge's
>remarks, you have absolutely nothing to base your "garbage" statement
>on, except that it makes the Watchtower Society look bad; and anything
>that does that *must* be garbage.   It's gotta be part of the great
>conspiracy of Satan, to make the JWs look bad and persecute them;
>the judge, and whoever else re-tells the story, must be accepting
>bribes as part of the conspiracy.   Right.  

	Now you start this again, when we ask for PROOF. When I asked you
	proof for year 1925, you promised to order me a book. NOTHING happened.
	It seems that you're just making empty claims. OK, I can do that as 
	well: Have you heard that the pope has won the break-dance championship
	of Vatican ?

>Is it garbage that all JWs, young and old, need to maintain their
>integrity to Jehovah, no matter what?  Even if it means losing
>their life?  Is the claim that the JWs recently held up as a good
>example, an 11 yr old boy who for years jumped out of his family's
>bathroom window and snuck off to JW meetings against the explicit
>orders of his parents?  (thus, the JWs teach kids to disobey their
>parents if the parents won't willingly let them do what the JWs want?)
>Too bad the judge didn't have that little beauty as evidence.  After
>reading such an article in the Watchtower, is there any doubt that
>the values of the JWs really can be hazardous?  

	Yes, and Moses was rebelling against the law of Egypt, when he led 
	Israeli from Egyptian slavery. A similar case, indeed.

>Charlie, what would your reaction be if a Catholic gave a young
>JW boy a Catholic magazine, telling him that in order to maintain
>his integrity towards God (which he must do to avoid God destroying
>him) he should defy his parents, jump out of a window, and sneak
>off to mass 3 times a week (often at night) alone?  Or would
>you feel better if some Catholic was waiting around the block
>to pick him up and help him defy you?

	En garde !
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:41:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.034635.9400@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.023852.28190@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
[much deleted]
>> On that same note would God allow the Bible to become warped?
>
>And how, exactly, is God to "prevent" idiots from warping ANYTHING that
>is written by his inspired agents?  That's a serious question, actually.

Since this is a serious question, I'll attempt to answer.  But there are
a couple of things I need to know first.

1.  Does God have any limitations in terms of how he can interact with the
    real world?  For example, is God bound by what we perceive as the laws
    that govern the universe?  If so, what are these limitations?

2.  Exactly what do you (or John) mean by "warping"?  Does this refer to
    the words as written, or to their interpretation?  Or perhaps both?

Pending answers to these questions, allow me to tentatively answer yours.
God can prevent anyone from warping anything that is written by his
inspired agents by inspiring anyone who reads the words of his agents in
*exactly the same way* as he originally inspired his agents.  That is,
through the appropriate mind controls, he may insure that every person's
interpretation of the words of his inspired agents is the same, and matches
the original intended meaning of the words.  You may think of this as
occurring in the form of an instructive voice as the person is reading,
or something more subtle and harder to detect.  The form doesn't matter
much, as long as the end result is the same: a consistent (from person to
person) interpretation of the Bible, regardless of the language the Bible
being read was written in and regardless of the experiences of the person
reading it.

A sufficiently powerful entity may accomplish anything...


>Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
>					As the tears scald and start;
>mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
>standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)
From: brown@cs.utk.edu (Lance A. Brown)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:08:15
Organization: Univ of TN, Knoxville - CS Department
	<BROWN.92Apr8205349@duncan.cs.utk.edu>
	<1992Apr10.014956.20038@ncsu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
In-reply-to: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu's message of Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:49:56 GMT


In article <1992Apr10.014956.20038@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu
(CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:

>>> The Bible is relevant to all. To say that some action is evil
>>> because the Bible says it is evil is not "passing judgement."
>>
>>Here is where the judgement comes in.  It is _your_ belief that "The
>>[Christian] Bible is relevant to all".  Not all people believe that.  That
>>makes it a judgement.

> That the Bible is relevant to all is from the Bible- not from me.

Same problem, You believe in the Bible, and what it states.  Other people
don't.  If person doesn't believe in the Bible, than it is not going to be
very relevant to that person regardless of what you say.

Also, Your statement is circular logic.  i.e.  a book, X, has a
certain characteristic Y for all people because it is so stated in the
book, X.  round and round and round....

Lance
--
Lance A. Brown  <brown@cs.utk.edu>
  The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data,
     and the Data is Life -- The Player's Litany
                                 from _The Long Run_ by D.K. Moran
From: publius@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.comics
Subject: Re: Isaiah 14 and Lucifer
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:37:35 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <MIB.92Apr6154239@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>It seems pretty clear that the author is speaking about an earthly
>king of some sort.

There is no reason why Isaiah wasn't speaking about both, with a
proud earthly king as a type of the Adversary.  After all, this style
of writing is quite common in the OT.

Regards,

-- Publius
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are mine and not my employer's.