HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 12 Oct 92 01:52:31 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) 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.

Same issues?  Perhaps you can be more specific.  How are the issues in the
OCA like the US Constitution?  I see no right to engage in sexual
perversion guaranteed in the US Constitution.

--
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: About this Measure No. 9
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:50:19 GMT

thatcha@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Alexander Thatcher) writes:
] FROM THE OREGON VOTERS PAMPHLET:
] 
] SECTION 41(1):  This state shall not recognize any categorical provisions such
] as "sexual orientation", "sexual preference," and similar phrases that includes
] homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism, or masochism.  Quotas, minority status, 
] affirmitive action, or any similar concepts shall not apply to these forms of
] conduct, nor shall government promote these behaviors.
] 
] 	  (2):  State, regional, and local governments and their properties 
] pedophilia, sadism, or masochisim.   
] 
] 	  (3):  State, regional, and local governments, and their departments,
] agencies, and other entities, including specifically the State Department
] of Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting a standard
] for Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism, 
] masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse, and that these behaviors
] are to be discouraged and avoided.
] 
] 	  (4):  It shall be considered it is the intent of the people in 
] enacting this section that if any part thereof is held unconstitutional,
] the remaining parts shall be held in force.


Trivia Question Time:

1. if We can Conclude that those who are Followers
of a False Interpretation of the Bible, can we
get them Designated as clearly 'HomoSexual' under
the Above Statue? Or At Least clearly as:
'abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse' ....

2. Is there any Clarificatiion for Protecting
RealHeteroSexuals who have been inappropriately
labelled as 'HomoSexual' by persons who have 
fallen Prey to Ideological Deviationalism?

3. Will this Statue Require the Creation of a Board 
of Moral Purity to Clarify which of the Theological
Deviationalists have in fact not set out to engage in
'abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse' activities?

	3.1: will said board also be qualified to
	designate which HeteroSexuals are Clearly 
	Good HeteroSexuals, as opposed to BadHeteroSexuals?

	3.2: Since the bible contains the string:
	"Spare the rod and spoil the child." 
	Will Said Board be Generating a Version of the
	Bible which will NOT contain Clear Sadistic Trends.

4. Does this Regulation Include whether or NOT the
public untilities will be allowed to be used by said
persons designated as 'NotGoodPersons' by the aforementioned
Board of Moral Purity, as:

	4.1: Use of Public Utilities, by said persons will
	clearly VIOLATE the above statute.

	4.2: By allowing Said Persons to Utilize such Public
	utilities, as roads, parks, public transports, the
	State will Be Held Liable for Tacitly supporting
	Said UnGoodPersons.


ciao
drieux

ps: Has Anyone thought about starting one of these in
California, as Clearly It would solve a lot of problems here....



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:23:38 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Oct13.091050.18700@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
|In article <70918@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> 
|> If your respect for me dropped because I support the following,
|> then that's fine.
|> 
|> "The govt cannot facilitate and must discourage homosexual and other
|> behavior.  All of government may not use their moneys or property
|> to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism
|> or masochism.
|>
|> All of government, including the education system must assist in 
|> setting a standard for youth which recognizes that these behaviors 
|> are 'abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse,' and are to be 
|> discouraged and avoided.  The State may not recognize the conduct 
|> under 'sexual orientation' or 'preference' labels, or through 
|> quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or similar concepts. 
|>
|
|I have two questions for Richard. If you replace homosexuality by
|idol worship in the paragraphs above, will you still support it ? 
|If you wont, why ?

Remember the above paragraphs are summarize the proposal.

I would support the substitution or addition of idol worship
to the above paragraphs, with the exception of first sentence
in the second paragraph ("All of government, including the ...")
for it would interfere with the right to freedom of religion.
This is not to say I support idol worship, but our nation has
freedom of religion as one of its tenants.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Most "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:52:37 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct16.152740.26957@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> Isn't it funny how most "evidence" for "Columbus" comes from
> believers?  There is a statue of "Columbus" in Barcelona Spain, with
> the figure pointing to the New World which he supposedly discovered.
> But the figure points toward Africa!

Well, we might elegantly map this to Paul and how he points 
as his version of Christianity!

> >Well, we have even archeological evidence showing the Spaniard presence
> >on the island, as well as material Columbus picked from the new world
> >back to Spain. Thus an objective person, let say an alien being, would
> >logically make a conclusion that Columbus really did the trip.
> 
> This evidence comes from "Columbian" archeologists; they believe
> Columbus made the voyage.  Their "evidence" tell us someone made the
> trip, and can probably give us a date as to when it likely happened.
> But as far as I am aware the archeological evidence doesn't directly
> tell us who made the trip.  That it was "Columbus" does not logically
> follow at this point.

If anyone civilized questions today that Columbus didn't 'discover'
America, then he's the laughting stock, because most evidence is 
against him. If someone questions that there's no evidence of 
miracles concerning Jesus, it's a claim that can't be shown be
fully true or false due to lack of evidence.

We are dealing with two totally different cases. I wonder, one
really has to close both eyes in order to avoid this fact.

> (Perhaps it does follow under system of logic in which a premise is
> equivalent to its inverse.  I don't know.  I've never studied such a
> logic.)

Sorry, I'm more dealing with logic that works in real life, than nice
words that does not mean anything.

You are still trying to map two different cases, and you are failing.
Every sane American agrees that Columbus visited this place due
to the facts presented. Even an alien being could verify that
this is the case.

You don't have the same majority concerning the validity of Christianity.
Does this hurt you, maybe? What is the real problem, I mean both you and 
I agree about Columbus' visit, but we disagree about Jesus the God.

Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:06:27 GMT

Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:49:17 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> article <1992Oct13.180444.711@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.ari zona.ed
>>
>>Mormon Archeology:
>>
>>    Wheat:    Book of Mormon, Mosiah 9:9
>>
>>
>>The Maya and their Neighbors:
>>
>>    by Ralph Linton, Ph.D.  Professor of Anthropology
>>    Columbia University.
>>
>>    " . . . the introduction of wheat and of
>>European methods of cultivation have opened to
>>agricultural settlements thousands of square
>>miles in North America which were not available
>>to Indian groups raising maize by aboriginal methods."
..

>   Since you can not seem to understand that Wheat is not a Mormon
>   Doctrine, testing the doctrine of Wheat by the Holy Ghost
>   doesn't seem to be advice I can listen or follow....

        I believe Brian was attempting to point out that the
BoM, regardless of how fun it is to read, is full of holes.
Little indications is was the product of Joseph Smith's imagenation.
Have you ever read Mormon historian B.H. Roberts manuscripts?
He documents it better than I could.  You can get it from
Lighthouse Ministries 801-485-8894

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.philosophy.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:20:52 GMT

In article <Bw4pz3.Jon@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
[quotes the whole thing, for some reason]
>Ken, this post is kind of interesting because it seems that you are not
>aware of the French Bio-Intensive technique of gardening. You seem to have
>convinced yourself that weeding is the only way to garden.

You seem to have convinced yourself that this odd technique is the only way
to garden.

If someone says "God is like a gardener", that is rather different from
saying "God is like a French Bio-Intensive Gardener".  If that's what you mean,
say it.  Otherwise, "God is like a gardener" means God is like a typical
gardener--one who forces bulbs, burns diseased plants, pulls out and casts
into the trash Japanese maples that don't look right, etc.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: references (was Re: I'm God.
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:19:44 GMT

In article <70546@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}The encyclopedia I looked at this afternoon had 10 pages on Jesus Christ,
}but it only had about 2 pages on Julius Caesar and associated Juliuses.

And you expect us to believe an encyclopedia?  You must know less about how
THEY are published than how the bible was made.  Are you willing to accept
any statement that I can reference to an encyclopedia?  Unlike you, I'll
even give WHICH encyclopedia!

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: Those Darn Burning Bosoms
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:39:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.072005.1824@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>
>
>Based on some offline discussions, Kermit has decided I am a JW, and
>nothing is going to change his mind.  I get the impression he has
>asked God for a sign and received a burning bosom -- so he just knows
>its true. <sigh>
>
>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.
>

_I_ believe you! :)



-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:05:54 GMT
Summary: Quote from Quinn's "Distorted View" concerning revival evidence


Mark, may I refer to you to D. Michael Quinn's little mongraph, "Jerald
and Sandra Tanner's Distorted View of Mormonism." On pages 36 to 37, you
will find the following:

   In an article that appeared in _Dialogue_ before the revised edition of
   _Shadow-Reality_ (but which the Tanners chose not to mention in their
   sarcastic dismissal of any claim that Joseph referred to revivals
   distant from Palmyra), Peter Crawley analyzed the religious
   autobiography of David Marks. He was a farm body who was born only
   seven weeks before Joseph Smith and who from 1815 to 1821 lived in
   Junius, New York, only fifteen miles from the Smith farm. In a further
   coincidence (possibly related to Joseph Smith's 1832 history and
   Reverend Walters' verification of an 1817 revival), Marks stated that
   his intense interest in religion also began in his twelfth year.  From
   1819 to 1821, Marks walked to numerous revivals in towns as far as a
   thirty-mile radius from his home in Junius, but which he described as
   "confined to a few towns in the vicinity of Junius." If one insists on
   1819-20 as the time of the pre-vision revivals Joseph Smith described
   (instead of a very likely 1817 revival that did occur in Palymra and
   which is supported by the 1832 account), then recent research has
   substantiated that within a thirty-mile radius of the Smith farm a
   dozen communities were experiencing religious revivals in the 1819-20
   period. The categorical rejection of these evidences by Walters and
   the Tanners make good polemics but not good history.

In short Mark, you are following Walter's polemics, but ignoring the evidence
to the contrary. Your significant issue strikes me as simply more of the same.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Roman Catholic titles
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:23:18 GMT

In article <Bvw57G.A58@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
>I know the Pope still carries the title "Pontifex Maximus" and I know
>that the Church carries on many other titles from the Roman Republic
>and Empire. Do any of you know the other titles they carry on?
>Consular, Praetor, Tribune, etc? I find that aspect of the Church

   The title _Supreme Pontiff_ (Latin _Pontifex Maximus_) is but one
of the Pope's many titles.  A couple of his other titles are _Bishop
of Rome_ and _Vicar of Christ_.

   _Pontifex Maximus_ was originally a title taken by the Roman
emperors, and meant "Supreme Bridge-builder" (to the gods).  After the
conversion of the Roman Empire, it was thought more appropriate that
the title be given to God's representative on earth, the Bishop of
Rome, or the Pope, with the title understood to mean bridge-builder to
the one God, rather than the gods.  The title was therefore given to
the Pope by Emperor Gratian in A.D. 375.

   As far as I know, the other titles you listed were not adopted by
the Catholic Church.  However, since the Church was left with the task
of governing Christendom from Rome after the fall of the Roman Empire,
it should not be surprising to find vestiges of Roman customs or names
in the Church.  One example is the Curia, the governing body of the
Church.  I'm sure there are others.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:39:39 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct9.035249.26037@macc.wisc.edu> bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
>In article <Bvtzx9.5rL@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes...
>
>>In article <1992Oct7.164938.27930@macc.wisc.edu>, bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes...
>> 
>>>these groups deny each other the title too.  The LDS should learn to shrug
>>>these charges off and realize they are far from alone in the dreary world of
>>>being non-EC Christians.
>> 
>>	This is called equivocation. The issue is not whether 
>>unitarians are christian, or whether being a member of a presbyterian 
>>church makes one a christian. The issue is whether being a member of 
>>the LDS makes one a christian.
>> 
>>	By changing the subject at hand, one is ignoring the issue.
>
>Who's changing the subject?  I have two dictionaries at hand, the first 
>definition given in each for the word "Christian" are:
>- Declaring Belief in Jesus as Christ
>- One who believes, or professes to believe, in Jesus Christ.

Which Jesus though?

>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints clearly meets these
>requirements.

Are you sure it's the same Jesus?  (See 2 Cor 11:4)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:01:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.183109.13522@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:

>Fair enough.  I would just point out that the 'Some LDS' who have/do
>beleive it were of the 'doctrine expounding' types.
>
>>I was refering to your disclaimer that LDS speclation in God having
>>Sex With Mary implied that Jesus was Born in Sin. You said it
>>I didn't    You have been invited to back up your belief in this
>>heresy with scripture. you haven't
>
>I think you have me confused with someone else, (which seems to be
>happening alot lately).  I have not studied the issue of whether
>sexless birth=sinless.  I would say God is all powerful and could
>utilize any means he saw fit to bring himself into the world.

  You would happen to be the guy who was claiming that Mormons belief
  in God's And Sex   implies that Christ could not be Sinless.

  Yep checked my back posts, and yep your the one...
>
>My point is: God is not an exalted man, with a body of flesh and
>bones, living in heaven with his polygamous family, sitting on
>a throne.

Nice claim:  
	Since you have been so positive as to what God is not,
	whould you care to present _your_ doctrine as to what
	God _is_, what the relationship might be between all that
	have ever born and why God can in anyway be constured as
	the Father of Jesus Christ.

	While you are at this task, be prepared to defend your
	postition that Jesus did not pre-mortally exist.

>The Bible presents the virgin birth as just that, and says the
>Holy Spirit was the deliverer of the miracle.  It was not
>a mad roll in the hay with the LDS exalted man god.

	Gee, in all your reading of Mormon "theology"
	and this is all that you got out of as overcome 
	"by the HG"

 [[ This reminds me of a defination : Heber Kimball or Brigham Young
  
   Theology is the philosophies of Men mingled with Scriture..

 ]]
>
>Mark
><standard disclaimer>


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: First LDS now Evolutionists, Who's Next?
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:21:04 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct6.051714.26389@macc.wisc.edu> bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
>In article <cb4m02gc24pD01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes...
>
>>In article <16771@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>
>>>>>the Adam and Eve story or rejected the idea that all life except
>>>>>two of each type of animal Noah had on the Ark became extinct
>>>>>at the time of a global flood in 3000BC, they aren't a Christian?
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely irrelavent to the current discussions
>>>
>>>'Tis not!  In many of these discussions there is the charge that
>>>since the Mormons don't believe every word of the Bible
>>>then they aren't Christian.  Are you saying that you now are dropping
>>>the Bible as an issue?
>>>
>>Certianly is.  To answer the above question:  If someone claims to be
>>Christian and subscribes to the evolution theory, I have to wonder what
>>else they deny about the Bible?  Why would God lie to us about Creation
>>if evolution was true?  If you gonna doubt one part, what else do you
>>doubt?  
>>How does this help our other discussions?
>
>Basically I'd say it helps because it starts to give everyone who's reading
>along a better idea of just how narrow a definition you apply to being a
>"Christian".  During the course of these dialogues you have denied the 
>status of Christianhood to dozens of faiths.  Now we learn that even those
>who entertain the idea of evolution become suspect.  I, and probably 98% of
>all humans living on the earth, am hopeful that the God you describe does
>not exist.  It is hard to conceptualize a God who proclaims that he loves 
>us and offers us a "free gift" of salvation, yet defines the criteria for
>salvation so narrowly that it guarantees nearly everyone on the earth
>will fail.  Pity all the poor physical scientists who doom themselves by
>merely choosing the wrong occupation. Also your statements above look like 
>they came right out of Bruce McConkie's _Mormon Doctrine_.  From the looks
>of them, you may be a better defender of _Mormon Doctrine_ than either 
>Gordon or me.
>
>Also that God is quite a trickster to create a world with so much evidence
>that evolution did take place but if anyone buys into it, then off to hell
>with them ... with the rest of the non-Christians.
>
>Dana


I never said an evolutionist was going to hell.  I stated (but you cut it
off) that this was a discussion that I wished not to get into because
we have not defined exactly what an evolutionist is.  Obviously we have
different definitions of what that is.  I don't deny that evolution in a
practical sense does not exist.  I know it does.  I was talking about the
type of person that says that evolution is THE reason for existance.
Those are quite different.  I didn't meant to offend anyone.  You jumped
the gun Dana and attacked me personally.  Why did you do this? Lets
stick to the important issues!