HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bring On the Cases....
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:06:15 GMT
	<71366@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Organization: HATErs of "Christians" who follow Luke14:26 and other HATE mongers

In article <71366@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>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?????????

Sure, different strokes for different folx, there is a white one who doesn't
like the yellow one who doesn't like the brown one who doesn't like the black
one and so on and so on and scuby duby duby. Richard, we got to live together.
Don't try to force your concept of ethics on others. This is not a melting
pot where non-Anglo Male Europeans can sometimes pass as Anglo Male Europeans,
this is a multi-cultural society and you're gonna have to learn how to deal
with that. You are free to go your own way and do your own thing, give others
that same "democratic" courtesy or the outcome can only be revolution and we
will all lose. Peace, but not without equal rights and justice.

>Are you not teaching the same thing by saying we are wrong?? 

I'm not up on the teachings of homosexuals, perhaps you know better of this,
but it's not my understanding that homosexuals teach that heterosexuals are
"wrong". I certainly have never heard of an initiative like the OCA being
forwarded by "homosexuals". And I still don't understand what you have against
homosexuals. What have homosexuals done to you? Are you sure you are not
being used as a pawn to advance someone's HATE agenda?

>Where do you get the justification for saying we are wrong to teach
>homosexuality is wrong??

Teach that to your own children if you must.

>Are fornication, pedophilia, or other sexual themes wrong?

Fornication? Do you mean like masturbation or premarital sex or divorced
sex or non-Missionary sex or oral sex or anal sex? What "sexual themes"
are wrong under your ethics? Which ones are right?

>-- 
>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
>Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
>                        -|-  |  -|-
>                         |   |   |

Mosaic Law is calling you Richard, check the part about pagan idolatry.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct6.184759.7428@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 05:26:16 GMT

In article <fTzhqJa@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Before I put words in your mouth, perhaps you'd care to explain why one
>would not want a homosexual representing one's company? What is wrong
>with a homosexual representing one's company?

In article <1992Oct6.184759.7428@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>I can think of at least one reason. There is a lot of prejudice in
>the universe. It may well be(not saying that it is) true that say
>using a homosexual in one's advertising campaign might not be good
>for sales.

And this prejudice, is this a good thing? How would one make it so that
this prejudice did not exist? Where do we draw the line? Is it OK to
discriminate against women or non-Europeans? Or just OK to discriminate
agaist homosexuals? Should we also discriminate against single people on
the grounds of poor family values? Should we discriminate against
divorced people on the same grounds? Should we discriminate against
people who have had premarital sex? Should we discriminate against
people who are not Christian? What's behind all this hatred? What
justifies the fear?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:47:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.020716.26998@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes...
>In article <cfhR02OR24a101@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>If you get on the wrong plane you will arrive in the wrong city!  If you
>>sincerely believe in the wrong Christ, you will end up in the wrong
>>eternity.
>How far does this go, Mr. Rose?
>Your statement implies that anyone who deviates in the slightest from
>correct doctrine(or at least correct Christology) is damned. Is this
>correct?
>-Ekr
> 

If I get on a wrong plane, I get on the right plane later. <grin>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Pagans
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:02:27 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct13.114931.8085@lut.ac.uk>, A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk (Alan 
Robinson) writes:
> 
> Can someone tell me what Paganism is ?

Paganism is the set of religions which are not based on Monotheistic YHVH
worship.  It can be subdivided into two broad categories, Paleopaganism and
Neopagansim.

Peleopaganism are those pagan religions whose direct beginnings are the original
pagan worshippers themselves.  This includes "dead" religions such as the
Babylonian, Sumerian, Greek, Roman, etc. religions, and "living" religions such
as Voudoun, Yoruba, Santeria, and various other tribal and folk religions.

Neopaganism are those pagan religions which are revivals and reconstructions of
religions which are generally thought to have "died" at one point, leaving
their marks in the folk customs and legends of the people who used to practise
them.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:16:15 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Oct6.183846.2107@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:

>> And, I neither believe that the Mormons are right in claiming to be the
>> only church where salvation is possible (nor do I believe they
>> claim that) ...
>
>   You need to read the First Vision account as it is recorded in
>LDS scripture.  Also look in _Mormon Doctrine_ under 'Salvation'.
>This theme is basic to the LDS.  You can play word games with
>the different 'salvations' the LDS talk about, but the LDS beleive
>'salvation without exaltation is damnation'.  The only salvation
>the LDS speak of is exaltation, and this is only available in
>the LDS.
>
Your understanding of Mormon theology is faulty.  Salvation
is universal except for the Sons of Perdition.  There is
no requirement that anyone be a member of the LDS Church
to gain exaltation either.  

>> nor that they are leading people to a false God and
>> false Jesus.  As I said to someone else, I think that none
>> of us fully comprehends God or Jesus, and thus we all are worshipers
>> of our own concept of Him, and all worship false Gods.
>
>You really ought to run that last comment by your Stake President.

We'll have a good laugh about it tomorrow night when we get
together to play basketball.  But if he disagrees, does that
mean I have to change my mind?

>The LDS beleive there is no salvation without a proper understanding
>of God -- and they are the only ones with this understanding.
>
In Mormon theology, salvation is not the same as exaltation.
Exaltation, obviously, will require an understanding of God.
But since exaltation is a process, not an event, such understanding
does not have to come at once, or even in this life.
I hope this clears it up for you.

>
>Bernard P. Brockbank, of the First Quorum of the Seventy,
>admitted in the May 1977 issue of The Ensign, a Mormon publication, that
>the Mormon Jesus is different from the Christian Jesus. He stated that
>"it is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different
>Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus
>Christ of Latter-day Saints." (p. 26)
>

I don't know what the context is, but I would say he is right.  Everyone
worships their own idea of Jesus.  But their idea may be based on
the same person, Jesus Christ, however imperfect their understanding.





-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Jesus was a man, was Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:46:44 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <Bw2xzv.CFA@inews.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> Then Jesus was a man. He lived and died like a man. Gods can simulate the
> life of man, but they can't BE it. That's the difference between God and man.
> If Jesus was God then all of the pain was simulated. If Jesus was man then
> His life is truly miraculous since He did live the pain of man. If Jesus
> was demi-god, half God, half man, then all of this was only a simulation. So,
> was Jesus God or man?

What I've read from the Bible Jesus was a man until Paul made him
a God :-).

Happy happy, joy, joy,
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,talk.philosophy,alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Jesus's bloodline mystery and two different Jesus's was (I'm God.)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:57:49 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct14.175552.13136@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>
> 		 "Just a myth"
>
>Kent Sandvik writes:
>
>>Hello again, should we take this one as a good example where the myth
>>is false, or not? Or are the two different genealogies, just, a myth???
>
>
>Consider the possibility that with the incarnation of Christ,
>not only the prophecies of the Jews but also the archetypal
>myths of the rest of humanity were fulfilled.  C. S. Lewis
>noticed this and it led ultimately to his conversion from
>skepticism to Christianity.
>
>Thanks for keeping us on our toes.
>
>Regards,
>Gerry Palo  

 Um, just because the story of Jesus is a particularly well-told story
does not make it true...

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:01:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

>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."

"...And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors,
till he should pay all that was due unto him.  So likewise shall my
heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not
every one his brother their trespasses." (see Matt. 18:23-35)

Unless we "wrest" the scriptures, it is evident that if
we don't forgive our fellowmen their trespasses, we will not receive
a forgiveness of sins and we will be delivered over to Satan when it
comes time for judgement.

Now, Barry, do you think that forgiving others is a "work"?  Was
Jesus saying the truth when he said that forgiving others was a
neccesary condition for one to receive salvation from their sins?

By their works you shall know if they have a true "saving" faith or
just a "professed" faith. 

Robert
From: news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jehovahs Witnesses, Information
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:04:42 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <rshelswe.718558328@syzygy>, rshelswe@socs.uts.edu.au (92089248 r   shelswell) writes...
> 
>Can someone please help me with an assignment on comparative
>religion of mine, on Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
>The assignment is mainly concerned with doctrines and practices
>of the faith, especially as conflicts with other faiths,
>and Governmental stances on issues such as Birth Control,
>Health Care and so on.
> 
>Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------+
>|   Ryan Shelswell            |  School Of Computing Sciences,  |
>|   rshelswe@socs.uts.edu.au  |  University Of Technology       |
>|   "I said TAKE HER DOWN!"   |  Sydney, Australia.             |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------+
> 
    As a point of information, since I am a Witness, I have sent Ryan an
    e-mail reply to this posting.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Jesus was a man, was Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:50:18 GMT
Organization: but you're gonna be large!

In article <1992Oct12.234626.1983@gacvx2.gac.edu> 
bthomas@nim.gac.edu (Barbara L Thomas) writes:
>There was something in what you said that interested me.  Are you saying  
>that (If Jesus could/did control his own physical pain) he could control  
>the mental anguish?  It seems to me that the Bible clearly refers to  
>emotional suffering several times.  Just off the top of my head: he wept  
>for the city of Jerusalem, he sweated blood in the garden of G., and on  
>the cross, he cried to God because he was alone and that communion with  
>God was broken for the first time in his life.  Granted, the Bible never  
>states in so many words that he suffered physical pain.  And I suppose,  
>going back to your previous reference to simulated pain, he could have  
>been faking it so the general public would have a good show, but somehow I  
>doubt it.  I believe that Christ was fully capable of suffering mental  
>pain.  And at other points in the Gospel, he did not dispel these feelings  
>on his own.  After the temptation by Satan, he was comforted by Angels.   
>Looking at the situation, no matter how much they put him through  
>physically, the crusifixtion was a much more painful process for Jesus to  
>go through emotionally.  I don't think that this is something that was  
>"simulated."

Then Jesus was a man. He lived and died like a man. Gods can simulate the
life of man, but they can't BE it. That's the difference between God and man.
If Jesus was God then all of the pain was simulated. If Jesus was man then
His life is truly miraculous since He did live the pain of man. If Jesus
was demi-god, half God, half man, then all of this was only a simulation. So,
was Jesus God or man?
From: slh1y@cc.usu.edu (Jay Cliburn)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: A Mormon lurker speaks!!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:59:01 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

I've lurked around in this newsgroup for some three years now, rarely posting,
but avidly reading.  It is truly amazing to see anti-Mormon crusaders come
and go, with their database dumpings, flaming keyboards, non-canonical
references, and "spittle on the chin" (I *loved* that phrase from our friend 
in Alaska) vehemence.  It has grown especially strident in the last month or
so.  I just wanted to say a little something before I begin sending all 
messages from Messrs. Fuller, Rose, Clapp (you've quieted down of late, 
Glenn, but I notice that you're heating up again with these insanely long 
things which I haven't read, nor will I), and a few others to the great bit-
bucket in the sky.

I converted to the LDS faith from the Southern Baptist denomination nine years
ago at the age of 27.  I found at that time what I had been missing in 
religion before.  I have come to enjoy a personal relationship with my God, 
through His son, Jesus Christ (I know Tony... you're spouting, "*which* 
Christ?"... sit back down now and let me finish).  I have witnessed the power 
of God at work in my own family and have from time to time been filled - 
almost overwhelmed - with the quiet dignity and reverence that arises from 
the individual, sincere, and faithful worship and consideration of diety. 
I have felt numerous times what I consider to be the Holy Spirit; guiding
my life, confirming the course I've set therein.  In short, I have found all
that I need to be spiritually filled.

As for those who wish to "prove" that the LDS religion is "false," you will 
not succeed.  There are simply too many ordinary folks like me who have 
chosen the LDS faith as our religion who live ordinary lives of thoughtful 
contemplation in ordinary homes with ordinary families, but who have 
extraordinary spiritual experiences - each one of which further binding us to 
our faith and to our conviction that we are on the "strait and narrow path."

I am happy for Tony, Mark, Glenn, and others who have obviously found solace
and comfort in their respective religious endeavors.  I will never attempt
by word or deed to take you from your chosen faith nor "prove" that it is
untrue.  It would be hopeless.  What converts people from one (or no) religion 
to another is not rancorous debate, but a feeling of absence of some aspect
of spirituality in the heart, which leads to searching.  Some end their
search in Islam; others in Buddhism; still others in Roman Catholicism.
You get the idea...  My search ended when I found the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints.

For those intrepid Latter-Day Saint stalwarts who defend our faith here in
t.r.m, my heart goes out to you.  Dana, Robert, Jason, Kermit, Willard, and
Gordon:  Keep up the good work.  I learn from every single post you write.  
I apologize for not joining in the "fun," but I'm afraid I wouldn't be
nearly as good at it as you guys are.
--

Jay Cliburn
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:20:02 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <24LM02pw25ca01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>You are adding words that I am not saying!  What I am saying is that if
>you believe and trust in all your heart in the wrong thing, then you are
>wrong.  You can be right in every area of theology, but if you are wrong
>on the area of who God is and who Jesus is, then you are wrong enough to
>lose you soul for eternity.  Other doctines are periphal.  That is what
>I am saying.

  Than ALL souls are damned for all eternity. For there is not a single
person who can ever be totally correct on the area of who God is and
who Jesus us. The mental capacity of man just can not take it all in.




	Love is the life force breathed
	into the Heart/Mind flower center
	of harmonious human relationships.
			Al Huang

	David Hatcher
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: QUESTION
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:37:10 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <92283.160218IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> 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?

There are approx 8 Million Mormons worldwide.  There are over 600 million
Musilums.  Numbers are really unimportant to Truth.

     "Enter through the NARROW gate, for wide is the gate that leads
      to destruction, and many enter through it,  but narrow is the
      gate that leads to life, and only a FEW find it!"
                                           Matt 7:23-14

>2) Why are 99.9% of Mormons successful/prosperous?

Spiritual deception has nothing to do with intellectual smartness.  I know
many Momrons who are VERY smart people.  But they are still deceved
spiritually.  And not 99.9% of Mormons ARE successful!  If you believe
this, then someone is lying to you.

>   (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)?

Utah has the hightest, suicude rate, the highest teen pregnacy rate, a
very high drug rate, a very high murder rate.  Mormons are normal people
just like everyone else.  They are sinful just like everyone else as
well.  If we look at the numbers, we need to look at them all!

And 2% unemployment is inaccurate as well.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.075445.13122@phillip.edu.au>
 
>  lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay
>> Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
>>
>> Mormons have a simpler solution to the overall problem: Children are
>> born without sin. Children who die with out baptism before they are
>> accountable are believe to return to the presence of God.
>>
>
>  Christians too, believe that children are not accountable until "a certain
>age" - whatever that may be, we don't however, say they are born sinless! And
>we don't believe that you need baptism to be saved as it is just as much a
>"work" as any other act. Baptism is of course very important and every believer
>should be baptised.
 
A baby can not be expected to walk.  And it is only after certain developemental
steps, that they can.  Now because you can walk, what are you going to do,
leave the baby or carry it.  Of course! You wouldn't be a good parent.  Apply th
to God.  Developing the skill to walk, although not too hard, does take time
and the receipt of several pains; but once to a walking stage, the child
can be expected to walk!  Now which is the greater sin, expecting a baby to
walk, or carrying one who can?   Now apply this to religion.
 
And how can one be said to be a believer, if they are not accountable?  How
can one be come accountable without experience?
 
 
--A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land.