HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:00:28 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <9PDisB4w165w@topcat>, topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com writes:
|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.

I see no right for the government to regulate sexual behavior
between consenting persons in the US Constitution.

How utterly unsurprising to see Albrecht back on his hate kick.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com       C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye.  The more light you 
shine on it, the more it will contract." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:02:44 GMT

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?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:07:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <39209@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes:
> >Also, I want to let you in on a little secret:-)The standard WELS
> >teaching on "works" holds that one doesn't even need to attend
> >church*, Gasp! True, Grace without dutifull works Is the standard.
> >Can you honestly say the LDS church teaches that?
> 
> Do they teach the following teaching of Jesus:
> 
> "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
> Father forgive your trespasses."
> 
I see we are drifting here. I still am somewhat bewildered as to
why Mr. Farkas invoked the "mind control" article in direct response
to my article on grace and works. Perhaps since you jumped in you
wish to speak for him?

barry--
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:02:45 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <70497@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>No faith is trust/belief - the message is simple.  Jesus is God and
>came to earth as a man - he lived, died, was resurrected, and ascended
>to the Father in heaven, from which he came.  He is returning.
>His death paved the way [and paid the way] for all to have access to
>the Father.


 This describes the Christian path to gain access to our Beloved God. 
The thing is, there are a lot of people who also have access to our 
Beloved God without going through Jesus or even believing that Jesus 
is God. There simply in not "One True Way" to gain access to God. Except, 
that it HAS to be through ones heart. 



	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Reply-To: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:40:52 GMT

In article <WIGGINS.92Oct6141351@lilac.cs.odu.edu> wiggins@lilac.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) states:
>I think the Romans and Jews didn't write of his miracles, etc. because they
>were predisposed not to believe he did them, weren't they?  For one thing,
>I doubt too many Romans knew Jesus except by hearsay, and probably blew off
>what they heard.  And the Jews, many of whom had the opportunity to see Jesus,
>didn't want this guy upsetting *their* religion and rivaling them.  It's no
>surprise not to see much about him except from those who believed him.  Yet,
>he *is* mentioned by Roman and Jewish historians.

Two or three references to Christians, but almost nothing about Jesus.
See my post in response to Richard Pitts in this thread.

>Even the Roman Emperor heard about him.  

I'm interested to hear what Roman Emperor you refer to as knowing about
Jesus. History gives no reason to believe that Tiberius knew anything
about Jesus.  It's doubtful that Caligula knew anything about Jesus or
much of anything else going on around him unless it had something to
do with sex or bloodshead!

There is a very slight possibility that Claudius encountered
Christianity.  Suetonius (AD 65-135) states in his account of the life
of Claudius (emperor from AD 41-54) "He drove the Jews out of Rome who
were rioting because of Chrestus." Orosius confirms this expulsion
happened in AD 49.  It is not at all clear Suetonius refers to Christ
by name since he is more likely to mean "christos" - The Anointed One -
Greek translation of the Hebrew "messias".  There is a good chance that
the Jews were not rioting over Jesus (Christians don't picture early
believers as rioters!) but more likely involved in the early parts of
the rebellion that led eventually to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70
AD.  The first emperor we can be sure knew anything about Christians is
Nero (emperor from 54-68 AD).  However, this does not mean he knew
anything about Jesus!

>So, I assert that his affect on people was incredible, and
>news about him spread like wildfire.  But why?  Either he actually did do
>miracles or he was an excellent magician/con-man/cult leader.

I'm inclined to think con-man/cult leader considering there have
been hundreds of successful examples of these who have each developed
extraordinary followings.  I don't consider the success of a religion
at gaining followers quickly to be much of a barometer of truth!

-- Steve

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: Re: QUESTION
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 11:45:13 GMT
Summary: Extract from FBI's Uniform Crime Report
Keywords: Typical Anti-Mormon Misuse of Social Statistics

In article <ebQR02tw25pK01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
|In article <1992Oct13.112556.7628@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
|>
|>I am not exactly sure where Mr Rose got his particular social statistics
|>(though he doesn't actually show us any numbers), but they are not unlike
|
|>As for the murder rate. Perhaps Mr Rose will be so kind as to provide the
|>actual statistics with comparisons to the national averages and some sources
|>to follow up on.
|>-- 
|>
|>              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
|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|                   (You might!!)
|
|
|I'll look at my references and post my results.  My stats came from a
|secular source.
|
|subject pending.......


Well, Mr Rose perhaps I can help you.

Based on the 1990 Uniform Crime Report issued from the FBI the following
statistics are available:

	(per 100,000)

Crime		Nat'l Rate	Utah Rate
~~~~~		~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~~~
Murder		    9.4		  3.0
Rape		   41.2		 37.8
Robbery		  257.0		 56.9
Aggrav Assult	  424.1		186.3
Burglary	1,235.9		880.6

The overall statistic for violent crime is 731.8 per 100,000 Nationally
and only 283.9 in the state of Utah.

Now what was that about lunch?
-- 

              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: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Method of Christ's conception
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:26:49 GMT

In article <4csG02Pv26R301@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> In article <1992Oct15.154240.59748@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct14.190632.21593@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
> > ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
> >[...]
> >> The LDS 'description of his mother and the way she conceived' is
> >> not the Bible description.  The LDS historically have taught that
> >> the 'virgin birth' was merely God the father, an exalted man with
> >> a body of flesh and bones, having sex with Mary.  
> >
> >"... [Mary] was found with child of the Holy Ghost." (Matt.1:18.)
> >[NIV, renders it "through the Holy Ghost"]
> >
> 
> Who knows, but she was a virgin, and she had a baby! And this is the act
> that describes how it happened.  I figure God has a reason for not
> explaining to us "the how's" involved here.  He just wants us to know it
> happened!  Any comments?

The problem comes from the lds prophets reinventing scripture by spurious
means(claimed revelation)to displace orthodox scripture. when the orthodox
point out the means as being flawed, some lds cry, Bashing.
The lds prophets claim the father did it, not the scriptural holy spirit.
The o.christians say that is impossible, the father is spirit and doesn't
have a body. the lds say he does(by revelation), and your scriptures are
wrong, the father did it. The o.christians say the father doesn't have a
body, the lds say you are reading and interpreting wrong 'cause you have no
light, see? anyone see a problem here?

barry--
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: "Evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 21:44:52 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>By making that claim, you are also making the _implicit_ claim that searching
>for God makes a _difference_ in whether or not you get food and clothes.
>This implicit clam is _false_, and all the counterexamples proposed, such as
>a billion Chinese, certainly _do_ serve to disprove it.

Hardly.  A claim, even a conversational one, does not implicitly
include its inverse.  I will offer a simple proof to counter this
mistaken notion.

Let us suppose every conversational claim implicitly includes its
inverse.  Then the truth of the conversational premise:

   Anyone who cheats on the final exam fails the course.

implies the truth of the following:

   Anyone who does not cheat on the final exam passes the course.

The latter is obviously not true.  Therefore our supposition is false.
It follows that a claim does not include its inverse.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Idaho
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:17:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct12.154305.914@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu
(Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> I agree that one must decide to believe the Bible before it becomes
> testimonial evidence for Jesus.
 
> In the same way, however, one must believe flight schedules before
> "plane flights" can be any good as evidence for Idaho.  And flight
> schedules that include Idaho are prepared by believers....

Ok, Greg, let's compare these issues. I could buy a ticket today and
fly over to Idaho to verify that the place exists. Give me the 
same simple 'ticket' so I could verify that Christianity is real.

Note, in the case of Idaho I don't need to be an "Idaho-believer" to find
out if the place is real. Neither do I need any faith in Idaho, or
faith in the existance of tickets, or flights, or airplanes. If these
items don't exist I could always walk to Idaho!

Regards,
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.
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:00:01 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <2bSm02yH262e01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes...

>In article <1992Oct14.172616.20228@macc.wisc.edu> bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.103514.59693@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>>>Barry, Tony, Mark,
>>>If you ever succeed if persuading me to leave the LDS Church, I
>>>would become an atheist before affiliating myself with
>>>"Christians" like you.
>>> 
>>>You might win the battle and still lose the war.
>>
>Dana:
> 
>I don't think you understand.  This is not an arguement between you and
>us!  We don't want to argue with you, we want to help you.

Sorry, wrong addressee.  The quotes proceeded by >>> above are from Jason
Hunsaker, not me.  You're just going to have to pay more attention to 
the sequence.

And *I* do realize that you are trying to *help* me.  That is why I have
continued to post that I am tolerant of your positions and actions.  I 
will to try to address in a later post as to why if *I* choose to ever
leave the LDS religion, why it would not be to join Evangelical Christianity.

Dana
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:57:24 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct13.053713.21413@macc.wisc.edu> bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
>In article <b6Yb02Ji25UU01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes...
>
>I just have a couple of questions.
>
>>No one is picking on you!  Joseph Smith said about the Christian churches,
>>that they were ALL wrong, ALL their creeds were an abomination, and every
>>one who professes that faith were corrupt (PGP, JS 1:19).  He started
>>all this.  We didn't.
>
>Is it your contention that none of the various denominations which were
>blanketing western New York during the 1800-1850 period with revivals, ever
>regarded the other religions as being wrong?

That is correct.  They did not disagree on the foundations of Christian
faith.   While denominations disagree on secondary issues, the issues
of Christ, his resurrection, method of salvation, and importance were
never in disagreement.

This is not the only thing that Joseph Smith got wrong.  A guy by the
name of Walter Wesley researched all the denominations history, and came
up with the historical fact that there was no revival in the area of New
York that Joseph claimed in 1820.  Such a revival did not take place
until 1823.  Not that this fact is of utmost importanct, but it shows that
he was incorrect at least in one area.  How many others was he incorrect
in?

Also, after such a great encounter with God the Father and Jesus the Son,
who instructed him to "not join any of the denominations"  (PGP JS 1:19),
did he in fact join the Methodist church?

The fact that he did become a Methodist, is not a debateable issue, it is
history and is in the records.  The question is, if God the Father and
Jesus the Son actually came to him and told him not to join any of them,
why did he?

>What do you think of other religions which fail your Christian test?
>
>Dana

We judge doctrine and doctrine that fails the test is then, not Christian.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18566 talk.abortion:43174 alt.politics.homosexuality:6478
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Coming Attractions on Mormonism
Keywords: criteria doctrine christian
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:29:14 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct9.001255.21635@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>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--


It doesn't matter Barry, either way, if you use Willard's works to refute
the LDS doctrine (which shouldn't be hard) he himself will certainly turn
around and make the claim you have just mentioned about his own works.

I can hear him saying, "oh, that is not church cannon, just my opinions".
This will be his "scape goat" so he won't have to answer to the issues.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: Coming Attractions on Mormonism
Keywords: criteria doctrine christian
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:42:56 GMT

In article <39210@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.001255.21635@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>>
>>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--
>
>Hi, 
>
>Here is a message that no doubt would receive the endorsement of the
>first presidency.
>
>
>
>Born of God
>
>President Ezra Taft Benson
>President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
>


Let me see if I got this straight.  THIS [deleted article] is OK,
but when Ezra's 14 points from his BYU speach are cited, they get
written off because he was NOT the prophet at the time?  Why should
we even consider this [deleted] article?  What is so different in 
-- 
=============================================================================
= 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: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Heresy was (Re: Mormons are not Christians)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:13:00 GMT

In article <75WH025l25aj01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>
>>
>> LDS: All who become accountable have chosen sin, except for Jesus who
>>      did not sin.
>>
>> Rose and other Evag. "Christians":  Even little children are inheirently
>>      Sinfull. It is their nature, because of a sexual act on th part of 
>>      their parents.
>
>I nor anyone else here ever said that we were born into sin bacause of
>the sexual act of our parents!  You added that part friend.  I said that
>we were born into sin.  I said nothing about marital sex, or parental sex.

>Where did you get that?  You are misrepresenting ME!

 Your arguement was that if Jesus had be born of Mary and any phyical act of
 God (including your fanciful claim of LDS - God had Sex with Mary) then
 Jesus would have been as Sinful as the rest of us.

 That was _your_ claim wasn't it?

>> The bible clearly teaches that man chooses to sin. It does not teach that
>> man can not choose to do good.
>
>You must have missed this part then:
>
>     "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who
>      understands, no one who seeks God.  ALL have turned away, they
>      have together become worthless; there is NO ONE who does good,
>      not even ONE."   Romans 3:10-12
>
>     "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God."
>                       Romans 3:23

 Gee this sounds like All have choosen to Sin, that no one does good,
 Are you quoting this scriptures in support of my argument or because
 you can support you own.  [ I really think it's because you have
 heard or understood -any- thing I've said.


>
>     "For I have the desire to do good, but I cannot carry it out.
>      For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil
>      I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is
>      sin living in me that does it"
>                       Romans 7:18:20
>
>     "If we say we are sinless we make him out to be a liar and his
>      word has no plave in our lives"   1 John 1:10

It is we who choose to follow Christ, it is we who choose to live a 
Christ filled life. We do do this of ourselves, we do so because of
the light of Christ within each of us. If we attempt to live a Sinless
life with out Christ in it, we will fail. When we falter, with Christ
in our lifes, then when we repent and come to him, he will forgive our
sin.





-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED Former LDS,...)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:48:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.145327.1014@yvax.byu.edu> mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>> 
>> 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

 Don't worry about it, Mark Fuller has never claimed that he was a Christian
 except by inuendo. He claims to to be a full fledge JW. and since every
 execept the JW's wont except them as christians, he thinks it's fair game
 to play the same deception games with us that the JW central headquarters
 plays with them. Deception is something that ok to teach if it's for a 
 good cause. "After all the ends justify the means..."




-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,politics.homosexuality