HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose; ANSWERING ------> Willard
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:37:15 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec14.134023.3332@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>
> No Tony, the issue here IS you. I've tried conversing with you in e-mail
> and you _have_ recieved my mail, you just don't respond.

Kermit, I quit responding to you because you started cursing me.  And I
have told you over and over, that I refuse to discuss the Truth of God
with someone who is going to curse at me. It is alright for us to
disagree, but when we are discussing God, for me cursing is out.  I guess
for you it isn't.

> You have posted quotes from other's books and post and passed it off as
> your own. It's fairly evident when you misquote passages with the
> same errors has found in those books. Your detailed "analyis" follows
> the arguments in those books fairly closely, errors, pontifications and
> all.
>
> Yes, I have your post saved.......

Kermit, what you say here is absolutely false and you know it.  Thus I
will say, you are lying about me quoting things and claiming they are
mine.  If you have my post saved, and you are certain I have quoted
something from somewhere and claimed it is mine, I challenge you to post
where I did such a thing.  Since you recognize such detail in my post
that you can say I follow the specific errors and everything, it should
be no problem for you to forward my words and give the reference I have
quoted.

Of course, I know you won't do this.  Number one reason I know this is
because I have _never_ done such a thing.  And the number two reason is
because I challenged you to post my words before when you accused me of
doing something outlandish like this, and of course, you didn't.  Such
actions Kermit, show your heart, and such words show your lies.

> And yes, I heard from several of your mormon "friends", and sorry tosay
> I proably have a higher opinion of you than they do. Obviously, to know
> you, is _not_ to love you. You, do seem, to alienate everyone, an
> equal opportunity offender.

What Mormon friend of mine have you talked with who has found Christ as
a result of this newsgroup?  Those were the ones I was talking about. I
am sure that plenty of Mormons are unpleased with the way I have exposed
the church on trm.  I can certainly see your testimony unraveling.  But
even though you attack me personally like this instead of addressing the
issues you cannot answer, I still love and pray for you every day.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mormon Church suppresses evidence in murder trial (SLCM1192-intro)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:11:56 GMT

In article <BzFGtE.I23@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:

>Once again, it is a pleasure to present another issue of the Salt
>Lake City Messenger.  This is the newsletter produced by Jerald and
>Sandra Tanner, and it is loaded with information.  For those of you who
>have expressed your gratitude for this service, once again, you're
>very welcome.  I am glad that you find the information helpful and
>informative.

How interesting, how do we cancel one of our subscriptions? Apparently
barry and glenn have both decided to subscribe the same issues of the
SLCM to the net.

Maybe I am suppose to compare the two issues and see if there is any
difference. What would that mean? Maybe it would indicate an important
Mormon conspiracy to distort the net (or maybe an anti-Mormon conspiracy
to distort the net).

I suppose the most disappointing thing about these postings is that the
posters are generally acknowledging their inability to condense,
summarize and otherwise used their god-given brain. That wouldn't
surprise me too much since I usual find the Tanners' writing style
incomprehensible. They fly off on tangents. They never stick to a single
line of arguments. It's a journalistic form of spagetti code.

How about it Glenn, do you think that it would be possible to condense a
2000+ line posting into a 100 line summary that YOU would be willing to
defend on the net? Or do you intend to continue hiding behind the Tanners'
ditribes.
-- 

              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,alt.atheism,alt.pagan
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: God etc
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:03:47 CST

In article <liqdkiINNi5v@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <uX4qVB1w165w@momad.li.ny.us> siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:
>>torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>
>>    Then enlighten us, O sage, what precisely is relgion about?
>
>I've been thinking on this question for some time, and my conclusion
>is that all religions provide philosophical systems that the adherents
>of the religion use to establish a relationship between themselves
>and the world around them. These relationships are as varied as the
>religions: some have primary focuses on social interaction, some focus
>on on other systems (such as the relationship of man and nature);
>some are theistic while others are athiestic.
>
>Anyone else have any thoughts on this subject?
>
I always have taken the stance that religion is about answering the questions
that nothing else can answer at the time.  The purpose of religion, IMHO,
has always been to solve all those little mysteries with some answer that
may or may not be the right one, but it does give us some peace of mind.
That is why it is the worst thing for a religion to happen if you start
questioning the answers religion gives, because then you are rejecting what
the religion seeks to provide, and it seizes to hold value or meaning.
:)M^2


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Kermit's "Christlike" example for the non-Mormons
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:52:26 GMT


 Nope, doesn't look like a forgery, must have been me. I don't remember
 posting that <tastless> post. If anyone who read it, was offended, I'll
 still apoligize.


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: A deep bit of flame bait
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:32:48 GMT

I see where you're coming from, but a lot of us are just frustrated
with Christians, I guess.  Look at what you yourself say:

arron@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>
>Christianity is real life, not textbook life, and you have to give it a go
>before you can really experience it. I don't want to make anyone a Christian,
>because that could make me proud. I want everyone to look for Christianity
>themselves, then the Holy Spirit (who Christ left to support the Church) can do
>the work of revealing to you all the truth of Christianity. And I am looking
>forward to meeting all of you who seek earnestly for him, in heaven at the end
>of these days.

Most of us atheists _have_ given it a go, and have become
disillusioned when it became apparent to us that there simply ain't
anybody out there, so to speak, and when Christian arguments for the
existence of their god began to sound more and more like a child's
arguments for the existence of his or her imaginary friend.

What really hurts, though, is how Christians repeatedly tell me "well,
obviously you didn't try hard enough, you didn't truly _want_ to find
God, you were just fooling yourself, you have to believe even though
it may go against what you feel is correct right now."  To tell me
that I didn't try enough is to insult me -- when I first began
doubting my Christian faith, I clung to it desperately in the hopes
that I'd find some plausible explanation of my doubts that would
restore my faith.  But I never did.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What would you have said?
Date: 11 Dec 92 15:24:24 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Dec9.220614.14876@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
|> pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White) writes:
|> : In the first century, a Christian stood before a Roman ruler.
|> 
|> I wasn't aware that Christians were persecuted in this way during
|> the 1st century.  Is this example an actual documented case, or 
|> are you simply expressing hyperbole?

Wow! You shocked me with this one.
Christians were fed to the lions with great regularity. Many were
crucified and sawn in two and killed in other ways.

However, the church continued to grow.
|> 
|> : He was on trial for his faith and being requested to recant.
|> : RR: I will kill you if you don't recant.
|> : C: You cannot, because my life is hidden with Christ in God.
|> : 
|> : RR: I will destroy all of your possessions.
|> : C: You cannot, because I have a treasure in heaven which you cannot touch.
|> : 
|> : RR: I will kill all of your friends.
|> : C: You cannot, because I have an Unseen Friend whom you cannot touch.
|> 
|> Sound to me like both sides are being unreasonably absolute in their
|> points of view.  Is there a point to this post?
Yes.
|> 
|> -- 
|> > Jeff Young <
|> > Personal   <               I'm not lost, I'm exploring.
|> > opinions   <

-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Why do people give Mormons a hard time?
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:15:40 GMT

From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
..
>It is only when you or others try to start narrowing down the
>scope of what being a "Christian" means, that you begin to
>exclude us, and others.  I  highly doubt that any Mormon
>definitions of Christianity would exclude you or very many other
>denominations that claim to be Christian.

Yes, that is quite generous.  But then, we dont have scritptures
with a detailed drawing of the phalluc god "Min" showing off his
errect penis to the Mormons.  And Joseph Smith called it 'God
sitting on the throne'.  If I followed a man who palmed off such
fantastic fairy tales, I would hope someone would 'give me a hard
time'.  I envite all Mormons to investigate the BoA and decide if
Mormonsism is true or false.  The Mormon leaders have always made
bold statements about Joseph's story being either 100% true, or
100% false -- asking for someone to point out the errors.  I
investigated it, and determined it was 100% false.  The God of
Bible created time -- while time created the god of Mormonism.

Mark
<standard disclaimer>

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:44:15 GMT

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>No, many people think they have an idea what the word means. Your example
>above shows that many people actually have little, or no clue.
Yes, true.  My point ios the same, however.  Albeit for the wrong reasons, the
term misleads.
>: 
>: No.  But they invented a few.  A fe that sound silly and pompous when they use
>: them.  Pagan is such a word.  Almost comical in connotation.  I don't mean to
>: insult you....I don't know what I mean to do.  Yeargh.
>So, why do you insist on applying labels to everything?
I don't.  Pagans apparently do, which is why they gave themselves one.
'
>Why do you feel that
>people must fit your definition of what that label means? The term "Pagan",
>was not invented by Christians. It was in use, long before Christianity
>existed.
I understand that now.  Terribly sorry to be Christiocentric.  Societal 
programming at work.

>Bill
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Reply-To: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:26:19 GMT

In article <10932@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.054012.10468@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>Answer 1:
>>
>>There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
>>is empty.
>
>  Take Bill Cosby's advice then and put a bandaid over it to keep the
>  air in.
>
>  I have, however, had some clearly mystical experiences whilst on
>  the shitter.  Is that the hole you were referring to?  If so, what
>  do you suggest exactly that I fill it with?  

I suggest you Xpost (*shudder*) to soc.motss.  SHIRLEY (connie ?) someone
THERE has ideas for fill.  But she might feel kind of left out.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Latin verse for the day.
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec16.055355.25905@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 1992 19:45:42 UTC

In article <1992Dec16.055355.25905@midway.uchicago.edu> 
dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <1gj54dINNlk2@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> Bill writes:
>>>"Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life."  
>>>Proverbs 4:23
>>>In Christs Love,
>>>Bryan
>>This is kind of interesting, JPS (ISBN:0-8276-0252-9) has:
>>More than all that you guard, guard your mind, for it is the source of
>>life.
>>Something to think about I guess.
>>In Vino Veritas,
>>Paul Harvey, - good day!
>Well, wine is fine, but I prefer:
>Amore vincit omnia, et nos cedamus amori
>Dano
>(Love conquers all, and let us yield to it - Virgil)

"If it don't come from the heart *and* the mind, stop throwing the peace
sign!"		- Mista Tongue Twista

Of course, if we're talking love, say up at chakra six or so, the
ultimate quote has got to be:

"Roma backwards is amor."	- unknown 12th century French heretic

Quite a subversive statement if you think about it.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: <None>
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:35:07 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <fWIvyn9@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> In article <1992Dec16.180711.9630@ac.dal.ca> 
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In fact, there is no way to know whether or not you are dreaming at this
>>moment. (sound familiar? :) 
>>I have spoken! :)
> 
> If one finds oneself in a dream, how would one WAKE UP?

Awakening is realizing that yes, in fact, you are dreaming. As a friend of
mine puts it: Freedom is recognizing what controls you. Not in a political
sense or a metaphysical sense, but in an experiential sense. Freedom is
realizing that the dream that you thought was the absolute state of
affairs is in fact just a daydream...and that you don't have to live as if
it were absolute if you don't want to.  

(note: This isn't what I was getting at in the quoted post...if in fact
all perception is the dream of some unknown being, who is dreaming that it
is you, then the dream I mention in this post is kind of a dream-within-
the-dream)

Speaking of Zarathustra (I'm a Zarathustra boosta!), he said the exact same
thing as the above in Nietzsche's book:

"Man is something to be overcome! What have you done to overcome him?"
 
Z is getting at two birds with one stone, though - 1. "Man" is really
just an idea, a concept in your head which you have overlaid on
your experience of yourself and your fellows. 2. Since you have identified
yourself with that concept, in part, "man" is _you_, and what have you
done to overcome your own greatest limitation, your infatuation with
concepts?

Sean Hartigan 
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Dream delivers us unto dream; and there is no end to illusion. (Emerson)
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:43:15 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>|>...because hot looking Chirstian babes will have sex with you.
>|
>|Thinking about it (I am the original poster), it worked for me.
>If sex is your god, then I guess this makes sense.
Oh, man......

>|She did, we stopped being Christians, and got married (in a register 
>|office [civil ceremony]).
>If sex is your god, then I guess this makes sense.
Oh, geeeeeze......

>|Maybe we were blinded by our sin (pre-marital sex [GOSH] but what 
>|is worse, guiltless lovemaking or Christian 'were not doing it
>|honest guv' substitutes including everything your granny 
>|never did ?)
>Is it wise to forsake God for any sin?  God is always there
>waiting for you - remember the prodigal son parable.  The young
>man left his father and spent his fortune and morals, but the
>father welcomed him home with open arms and had a party for him.
Yeah.  So leave them alone.

>There is rejoicing in heaven, when one sinner repents.

>|Maybe we wised up and got on with our lives.
>|Alan.

>I pray you do seek wisdom and turn back to God, who loves you
>and gave himself for you.  Sex is not some cure-all, much less
>do either of you thing it is worth losing eternity with God
>so that you can have 'guiltless' sex, if you really do.
I pray that you stop preaching a very narrow image of God and what It wants,
thus turning more and more intelligent people away from It.

>Worship the Creator and not the created thing (i.e., each other.)

>For Christ and His Kingdom,
>Richard Pitts

Yeargh,
Matt I.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Subject: Re: In response to Jack Carroll on Hinduism?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 20:36:41 GMT

In article <fWs7Gmg@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.064046.1446@s1.gov> 
> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> >	And what is the Hindu Hell? I thought you get reincarnated a
> >lot. :-)
> 
> Hindu Hell is reincarnation as a Hare Krishna. Talk about BAD karma.

:-)

RKP
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24233 alt.pagan:14411
From: key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 19 Dec 1992 02:24:40 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <BzH1xL.GAv@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 
     ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key) writes:
>>not every pagan fits nicely into a cubbyhole.  there are many pagans that
>>follow new age, neo-paganism, druidism, wicca, astaru, or any other named 
>>path.  but there are also pagans who follow path that are eclectic and
>>draw from many different paths.  these pagans, like myself, follow paths 
>>with no names.  i feel pagan is sufficient.
>I'm sorry, but I feel that, just like Christians, you're making things hard on
>yourselves by refusing to identify that people 'out there' have a notion of
>what that word means.  I dunno, I think of pagan and picture hairy men 
>breaking open bones and drinking the marrow.  I know that isn't the whole 
>story (or perhaps any of it), but come on...

where shall you take us?  what do you suggest i call myself?
perhaps the reason i like using the word pagan to describe myself is
because i wish to destroy the stereotypes associated with 'pagan'.
one stererotype you just mentioned.  most pagans i know aren't hairy men.
and one does not usually drink marrow one typically sucks it out, and
pagans do not have sole claim to that delicacy.  my parents who are
'good' christians enough bone marrow.

a word is a word.  and its meaning can change.  perhaps i am that
arrogant fool who thinks he can change the conotationns associated
with 'pagan'.  at the very least i want to try.  

>....I don't know what I mean to do.  Yeargh.
>
>Matt I.

perhaps you should give it more thought.

peter li'ir key, just this queer mystic, you know?
key@soda.berkeley.edu

ps 'queer' is/was a derogatory term for homosexuals.  the homosexual
	community has adopted it and reclaimed the word, and
	now 'queer' is used as a word of empowerment
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: McLellin Collection Suppressed
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:40:13 GMT
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute

In article <1992Dec17.031249.16914@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>  
press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>
> [long sequence of postings deleted]
>

This strikes me a mighty elephant laboring and bringing forth a mouse. :-)  I  
refer to the Tanners' breathless innuendo, based largely on two works of  
dubious quality (_The Mormon Murders_ and _A Gathering of Saints_) and their  
own requirements as to what Msrs. Oaks, Pinnock and Hinckley should have done  
and said (e.g., typical strawman fallacy). However, they did pass up a golden  
opportunity by never using the phrase, "What did Dallin Oaks know, and when did  
he know it?"  ;-))) ..bruce..

Bruce F. Webster (bwebster@pages.com)

"DISPENSATION OF THE FULNESS OF TIMES  The dispensation we live in now.  
Eventually, every bit of the gospel that was ever taught will be practiced by  
the Saints. We already have tithing and the Ten Commandments; eventually, we'll  
get around to consecration, and kindness to deer in Utah."
	-- _Saintspeak_, Orson Scott Card
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 06:14:41 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   11 Dec 92 18:53:26 GMT
>FROM:   Roderick Moten <rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu>
>
>In article <1g4pcbINN7ur@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Christopher Fenton) writes:
>|> 
>|> fab doo's...mindless self-inflicted guilt...and all the fab 
>|> glories of polyester... 
>|> 
>
>When was the last time you read Romans 8 and Galatians 5. 

My sports section doesn't carry these teams, but I know the Galatians
almost always beat the spread.

-jim tims

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: an3219@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Re: A Sharp Contrast to the Song of Solomon
X-Anonymously-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:47:10 GMT

Someone wrote:
>Does anyone out there actually believe that there is an iota of
>religious significance in the Song of Solomon?  It's exactly what it
>sounds like: an erotic love poem.

Is there anything wrong with an erotic love poem in the Bible?
God invented sex as an integral part of people and he is perfectly
entitled to put an erotic love poem in His book!

..Marty.!
[far out in the Far East]	<pauley@tai.jkj.sii.co.jp>







-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Please note you _don't_ have to have an anon id to receive anonymous mail!
To see how your anonymized message would appear, mail it to test@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc