HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Mormonism is not Christian should be the title, not Mormons.
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:58:46 GMT

In article <29GN02Ul26vD01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE) writes:
>* It is possible to prove that the LDS church is not Christian by     *
>* using some of it's own basic assumptions.  Let me put it this way,  *
>* simply stating these assumptions as Mormons believe them:           *
>*        1. Christian churches are apostate.                          *
>*        2. But the LDS church is Christian.                          *
>*        3. Therefore the LDS church is apostate.                     *
>*                                                                     *
>* But that conclusion is not acceptable to Mormons, so let's try      *
>* again:                                                              *
>*        1. Christian churches are apostate.                          *
>*        2. But the LDS church is not apostate.                       *
>*        3. Therefore the LDS church is not Chrisitan.                *

>* But Mormons don't accept this conclusion either. What is the        *
>* problem? Very simply, it is found in Mormonism's basic assumptions. *
>* Mormonism assumes that the LDS church is Christian, while at the    *
>* same time assuming that Christianity is apostate. The only way out  *
>* of this dilemma is for Mormonism to either discard the untenable    *
>* theory of a total apostacy, or cease to claim to be Christian.      *
Hmmm...I'm a bit dubious that Mormon's actually believe that
Christianity is apostate. You have evidence, of course?

In any case, this is easily fixed by simply saying "All Christianity
but Mormonism is apostate."

Surely you can do better than this.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Those Darn Burning Bosoms
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 01:09:55 GMT

From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
> In article <1992Oct14.072005.1824@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT
> >So, as Kermit continues to refer to me as a JW, I would like
> >everyone to know that I am not, nor have I ever been, a JW.
>
> 		Kermit's testimony was that you `claimed to be a full
> fledged JW.' I have never seen this claim from you. Is Kermit bearing
> false testimony?

Yes, another instance of a burning bosom leading someone astray.
Kermit can ask God for a sign, or a stronger testimony, but
that will never change the fact that I am not a JW.

I have never claimed to be any form of JW.  I believe Jesus is
Jehovah, eternally existing, never created, not an angel,
etc.  This makes me not a JW.  What makes me not a Mormon is
that I reject the Father being some exalted man, who lived his
earth life on another planet, created by some other God above him,
and creator of Jehovah.

Jesus even said his Father is Jehovah,

  'If I glorify myself, My glory is nothing;
   it is my Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say,
   'He is our God';

The only God the Pharisee's would refer to as "our God" is the
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- Jehovah.

One God, Jehovah -- who has dealt with mankind in 3 seperate
personal distinctions.

Yours,
Mark
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED Former LDS,...)
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:53:27 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

> 
> All I see is the LDS leading people to a different god -- not the one
> historically worshipped by the Jews and Christians.
> 
> Do you really beleive the Mormon god is 'Min',  sitting on a throne
> with an errection?  Thats what the Pearl of Great Price says.
> 

	Mark, in your last post you talked about Mormons being deceptive.  What
do you call this?  

	You have also printed qoutes with references that simply do not exist. 

	If this is your Christian god's form of honesty I think that says alot.

Take care,

-Mark

> Mark
> <standard disclaimer>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:50:54 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <70562@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> In article <13715@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
> >solely on the basis of sexual orientation.  So, to put the question more
> >clearly Richard, if you were a voter in Oregon, would you vote for this
> >initiative?
> 
> Yes.  

If someone would transport you backwards in time, and you would vote
for the US Constitution, would you vote against it? I'm just curious,
because we are dealing with the same issues.

Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: QUESTION
Date: 11 Oct 92 03:33:44 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

<IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:

>Hi, I'm new to this newsgroup.
>I'm currently a member of the LDS church but I'm not
>sure that I believe alot of the doctrine.  Some of it
>seems way far out.

>What I want to know is, if Mormonism is a false religion, and
>Joseph Smith was a false prophet, then:

>1) Why is Mormonism one of the fastest growing religions in the world?
>2) Why are 99.9% of Mormons successful/prosperous?
>   (Look at Utah....only 2% unemployment or something like that!)
>3) Why does reading the Book of Mormon bring you good luck (or does it)?

>If someone could please answer these questions, I would be VERY
>appreciative, as I am very confused.  Alot of things aren't
>making sense to me.

>Thanks in advance.....................Andie.

Disclaimer: I am not agianst the Mormon religion and in fact know very little
about it. But if some people in it are really using the above arguements, they
are simply parcticing the mis-use of statistics. 
 
1) The Mormon religion is small. Therefore when people join, the % increase
looks large. For example, if I start my own religion, and then you join it,
thats a growth rate of 100%, WOW!!  (I think Islam is the fastest growthing
religion in terms of numbers of people joining, but I could be wrong.)

2) You (or someone) is reversing cause and effect. The Mormon religion is small
and largely in Utah, which which happens to have a stable economy. Thus the
Mormons look to be prosperous.  But its not necessarly because they are 
Mormons.  This type of "reasoning" has been used to argue that Jewish people
are greedy!  Its crap.

3) Do you believe that quartz crystals or rabbit's feet bring good luck? You
sound very gullible. I don't mean that as a insult. You might look up books
on critical thinking. One book I used to get examples for a class I'm
teaching is "How to lie with statistics" by D. Huff. It's a bit dated though.

Best of "luck" in your inquiries,

Mike Sullivan
mike@math.utexas.edu
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Please Help
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:05:42 GMT
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual



I have serious problems with your survey, like all other surveys. It reduces
a complex human predicament to a 1 or 0, or to a black and white response.

For exemple, I may believe that the woman has a right to make decisions. However,
that does not mean that I agree with the decision she makes.

Your question, Are you pro choice?, should have been complemented with other
questions, such as, Do you believe that abortion should be used for birth
control?, or, Do you believe in responsible sex?, or, Do you believe in
sex outside of marriage?, etc.

So, tell us, what is the purpose of your survey? As you can see, I won't respond
because I find the questions to be far less then what is needed to express my
beliefs. My answers could be interpreted in a fashion which I may completely 
disagree with. Like, if I would say that I am pro choice it might be interpreted 
that I agree with the moralality, or lack of it, which may be attached to such 
response. Or, that I agree with the termination of a pregnancy 5 minutes prior
to a natural birth of a full time baby just because she so feels like it at that 
moment.

With brotherly love,

		Frank
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: To Roger Holfeltz
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:39:32 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Roger:

I have answered your letter, but I accidently deleted your address!
Can you send it to me again, my header distorts your address and will
not re-interprete it.

thnx,
-tony

agr00@amail.amdahl.com
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bring On the Cases....
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:57:05 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Bw64vv.8B7@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
|In article <71237@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>I don't think a homosexual should be representing a group that 
|>sees homosexuality as wrong (e.g., boy scouts) - a group that 
|>teaches ethics to youth.
|
|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?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:37:41 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:

> As a Christian, I am opposed to government interference with other people in
> most cases -- I do not know of a single word from the New Testament that tell
> Christians to try controlling other people.

Darren,

Your problem may be that you view the Old Testament as God's Word Emeritus.

Don't limit your horizons.  After all, God didn't write an Old Testament
and a New Testament.  He wrote one, complete book of His revelation.  Read
it all some time.

--
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mtf39190@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael T Freeman)
Subject: Boston Churches of Christ??
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:07:38 GMT

	Does anyone have any information on the Boston Churches of Christ,
alson known as Crossroads Movement, etc?  I am curious about their beliefs, 
origins, etc.

-- 
                                                   Michael Freeman
						   mtf39190@uxa.cso.,uiuc.edu
						   U of I at Urbana/Champaign

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: MOTD was Tyre still exists today (was: I'm God.)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<13707@pogo.wv.tek.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:08:44 GMT

In article <13707@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>So Mr Kennedy can not even be trusted to get historical facts correct.
>As to Mr Kennedy, I find it disgusting when an evangelist who claims to
>represent a god of truth, falsely presents himself as a historical authority
>and then presents lies to gain followers for that god.  I find it repulsive
>when I see some charlatan and fraud ostensibly lying for a "God of Truth." 
>If there is really a Jesus who is "The God of Truth", and a Devil who is 
>"The Father of all Lies", then it becomes obvious who Mr Kennedy serves with
>his disinformation.
>    He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth, will proceed
>    by loving his own sect of the Church better than Christianity, and end by
>    loving himself better than all.
>				Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Right on! You have to wonder about a religion that requires free gift
grifts and other used car salesmen techniques to SELL the TRUTH.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP ME!  I need your advice!  Help me keep this love alive!
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:18:25 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Oct9.022705.19090@Princeton.EDU> cmaguire@time.Princeton.EDU (Cary Maguire) 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.  ...

Why do I get the impression of vultures?
--
"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
From: bberbeni@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich)
Subject: Re: How do they do it?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 92 04:16:08 GMT

In <ldu9v0INN3k0@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:

>In article <1bn8c4INN2ov@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield) writes:

>>Tarantulas *never* sting.  Also, they seldom bite.

>I don't care.  Just keep the sonsabitches the hell away from me!

Tarantulas are cool!  I just about shit one time when I got one put on my
back by a "buddy."  Then I began to like the li'l buggers when I found out
that they have personalities and actually can get into racing other
tarantulas.

!Peeve:  Tarantula races.  Makes for a hell of a date ("I want to leave. Now!")
         "But Deb, this is my place and that guy's my roommate!"

Yeah, gotta admit that there's something about women named "Debbie" or any
other variant of Deborah.  They seem nice on the surface.
--
"Yes, he really said that!"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Tony Rose doesn't answer challenge
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:20:28 GMT

Recently Tony said he was trying to understand the Mormon
religion and to discover the truth.
 
I answered him with a challenge to meet on common grounds
and I'd explain the LDS doctrines to him.  This seemed
reasonable to me.
 
Time has now passed, and no response!
 
One can now see his true motives!
 
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
 |             not your's either; and                                  |
 |             only mine, when authorized!                             |
 |                                                                     |
 |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:53:52 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct15.050312.18324@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
> From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
>> 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:
>> >> [...]
>> >>> Hmmm...  Looks to me like the figure has a *very* long outie
>> >>> navel or it is ment to be the figure's right fore-arm.
>> [...]
>> > Maybe he was singing to a crowd with a microphone, and placed
>> > the microphone between his legs to pause for the painting.
>> > Or he was blessing a crowd with a stick of some sort and placed it
>> > between his legs for the painting. Binary thinking will lead
>> > you to the penis explanation.
>>
>> 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.  :-)
> 
> God, as pictured in the LDS Scriptures, is 'wearing a strap-on dildo'?
> If one of us had said that, the LDS crowd would have cried foul. :(

True.  It was a rather tastless thing to say, I guess.

> While you may wish to view the substantial protrusion from the body
> of Min as merely a withered arm growing out of his stomach, 

I'll say it is.  It's proportions make John Holmes look small.

[...]
> If you want to think it is a 16 inch "outie-naval", thats your
> perogative.  But I don't think it is a widely held opinion.

16 inches sounds more like a fore-arm measurement/proportion to
me rather than that of a penis.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:27:27 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct8.150244.19691@news.yale.edu>,
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) wrote:
> 
> In article <fTC57qk@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> >That's Jehovah-1 (aka Wotan, Yahweh, RA, etc). See the Book of the
> >SubGenius for details. The SubGenius must have SLACK!!!!!
> Is it possible we have really found the first man stupid enough to
> really not realize that the SubG is a joke?

And Paul will answer: "But it's all transcendental, live and let
live, and the question of SubG being real or not real can never
be defined by humans". Sometimes I think that Paul would be a
Markov3 generator, then again if this was the case the programming
behind it was lousy.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18365 alt.politics.homosexuality:6451 alt.sex:33030 soc.singles:27810
From: wjb@moscom.com (Bill de Beaubien)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.singles
Subject: Re: <them> attitudes...
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:10:47 GMT
Reply-To: wjb@moscom.com
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford NY
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.3 beta PL7]

drieux, just drieux (drieux@wetware.com) wrote:
: Does Jimmy Swaggart Represent Xtianity any Better
: than the Pope....
Represent the reality, or what one's supposed to be?

: ps: You would Think that by Now SomeOne would have coined a word for 
: 
: DerivingSpuriousConClusionsPriorToFullyAnalysingTheRelevantData.
How 'bout "assume"?
-- 
Who needs lime jello?  We had lasagna...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Gay attitudes...
Date: 16 Oct 1992 17:00:22 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct16.135021.94484@watson.ibm.com> jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh):
>>weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:

>>>   [flaunting means putting on wigs and dancing in the street.]
>>>   Stable people, gay and straight, do not flaunt their sexuality 
>>>and private lives. So please, "girls," keep it in the bedroom and
>>>let the rest of us be judged for who we are and not by the distorted
>>>image you portray. You deny all of us the opportunity to be accepted
>>>as decent, constructive members of the community, which we are.

>> I have a number of gay friends, and one of my coveners is gay. All
>> of these men are IMHO very mainstream in their attitudes and appearances.

>you've stated that you have a number of gay friends who
>are "mainstream" (whatever *that* is).  how does that
>relate to the view expressed in the letter that those
>gay people who "flaunt their sexuality" (whatever *that*
>means) are responsible for the oppression of *all* gay
>people?

Based on my experience, I think that the "flaunters" are a minority
who make everybody look bad. We have the same problems in the Wiccan
community. Certainly those people have the right to express themselves
as they wish, but they just make things more difficult for those of us
who wish to be a part of society in spite of the fact that we don't
fit the WASP mold.

Eric
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Coming Attractions on Mormonism
Summary: it just won't work; oh oh, i'm being negative:-)
Keywords: criteria doctrine christian
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:12:55 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct8.113343.26907@cbnews.cb.att.com>, wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
> 
> 
> Once again, I anticipate taking about three months to carefully organize,
> research, and write (in a somewhat conherent fashion) several lengthy files
> responding to the recent exchange. The result will be posted in early or
> mid January 1993.
> -- 

As always, from many, many discussions on just what eactly IS Mormon
Doctrine on pick-your-topic, lacking the stamp-of-approval from
the First Presidency, the documents you put so much "work" into are
or will be meaningless in the long run. The documents will be Willard's
version or point of view.

Can you get the First Presidency to endorse your work? The endorsement
would serve to reduce the speculative and the resulting fallout of
endless bandwidth wrt Is, Is Not what LDS believe. Back to square one:-)

barry--
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18420 alt.politics.homosexuality:6461 alt.sex:33078 soc.singles:27876
From: machman@hardy.u.washington.edu (the machman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Robertson Roulette
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:06:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct15.200640.10980
Organization: University of Washington

markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:

>In article <blah blah> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>>                     Robertson Roulette
>>                     by Joesph L. Conn
>> 
>> The Bush Campaign needs The Religious Rights Support, But
>>         Can The Average American Voter Stand Pat?
>
><Rest of article not included>
>
>Here's a puzzle.  There is one word in the rest of this article which makes
>it practically certain that this text came from a real paper source by way
>of a scanner.  What is that word, and why does it betray the true origin of
>the text?

And who really gives a desiccated shit?

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -