HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus for President
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:36:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

This whole thread leaves some interesting thoughts in my head:

1. Who would be His Running Mate?  

2. Would he wind up marrying for political gain?  If so, would the First Lady
be chosen from non-christians to "round out the ticket"?

3. I could just hear the Presidential Debates years after He leaves office 
(two terms, or maybe an impeachment by a new Pontius Pilate?): "Jesus Christ 
was a friend of mine.  You, sir, are no Jesus Christ."

4. I could imagine the attack ads:  "His father killed millions because they
did not worship him.  Do you really want a chip off the old block for four
years?  Anton LaVey - Tough on criminals."

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Can LDS be Saved?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:54:35 MDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Utah State University

In article <ef9H02nM23.w01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
> DEAR LDS FRIEND, THAT DEEP DOWN AWARENESS THAT SOMETHING IS MISSING IN
> YOUR LIFE IS A NEED TO KNOW JESUS CHRIST IN A VERY PERSONAL WAY. 

This presupposes that:

1. I have "deep down awareness that something is missing in
   [my] life" because:

2. I do not "know Jesus Christ in a very personal way".

How can you make such generalized statements about a whole group
of people that you don't even know, and whose teachings you do
not understand as they do, and thus keep mis-reprsenting?

Why do you imply that you know more about what LDS *really*
belive, and what they *really* teach, and how they *really*
interprete scripture and the words of their leaders, better that
practicing LDS do?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:18:53 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Sep29.164931.27666@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|In article <68750@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|}For I believe - that's why.  Simple, but that's my reason - there maybe
|}a lot of reasons why I believe, but the fact that I do is my reason.
|
|Good reasoning there, Richard.  You come up with two tests for me, and it
|turns out that Jesus can't pass either of them, either.  So you fall

You asked me to prove you godness - Jesus did not.  Much less you 
conviently forgot my final response - TIME WILL TELL - I've made my
decision to follow Christ - you've made yours to not follow Him.

|back on the "I believe - that's why".  Thank you for the abbreviated
|summary of the emptyness of your understandings. 

I claim very little knowledge.  I am not that well read, but I guess
your knowledge is so great that you can't say that OR is that your pride?

|                                                 Clear, concise, not
|uncommon, and a stupid thing to base a matter of life or death on.

Believing in Jesus the Christ, God's Son, Creator of ALL that exists,
is far better than believing in one's own understanding (that is putting
your trust in your own ability to know everything.)  What can you
do about your the extension of your own life or can you even make yourself
grow taller.  I preach Jesus as Lord - who or what do you say is lord of
your life????????

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: SPIRTUAL HEALING
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 02:04:41 GMT

Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
: 
: ---- In response to a letter by Jeff Young:  Steve.Gross writes
: 
: 
: In article <1992Sep23.143451.27306@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
: 
: ---- I feel it important to note that spiritual healing in any form is of
: a purely secondary nature.  You say that you woule "sign up"  if it were
: true.  It really makes no difference if it is or not.  If you are not a
: christian, it is likely that you will never see a miraculous healing. 
: Unless of course, you witness it at a ralley or something.  In which case,
: you won't be able to believe it since like I said, it is subjective.

What does it mean when you say it is subjective?  That it *can't*
be objectively examined?  Why?  How can something with physical
consequences like healing be merely subjective?  You said in an earlier
response you would like to see scientific studies done on this effect.
If it is strictly subjective, what is the point?

: 
: The more important issue here is your christianity, or lack of it.  It
: would be hard for me to believe in anything supernatural if I was not a
: christian, and had not experienced the most important supernatural act
: there is,   Salvation.  After having experienced that, it is easy to not
: only believe in supernatural healings, as one has just occured.  The
: healing of your spirit from death to life.  But, it is also easy to
: discern which ones are true and which ones are false.
: 
: You should probably be more concerned with your slavation than with
: spiritual healing.  In fact, I can say that you SHOULD be more concerned.

Miraculous healing would be powerful evidence if it could be verified.  
I can't believe in God without evidence.  Telling me that I SHOULD
believe is pissing in the wind.  You have made a claim that evidence 
exists that I would find convincing.  Don't be so quick to play it 
off as an inconsequential parlor trick that God does for the sole 
benefit of the converted.

-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:15:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1470@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
wrote:
> In article <ksand-250992171439@wintermute.apple.com>
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >I agree that the non-Christian notion of God not being omnipotent
> >will change the rules. However, it will also downsize the issue
> >of God to a level of a scientist with very powerful tools to create
> >universes. In other words, if our grand-grand-grand children are
> >able to create quantum bubble offspring universes, are they Gods
> >or not?

> Why not?  Perhaps God will show us how if we return to His presence.
> That seems to me like a good reason to find out if God exists.  He may
> have some prerequisits for that course of study.

Yes, Science and Logical thinking 101. 

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 2
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:41:01 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <c0c202DN234D01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
> To further stress the point.  The dates are really insignificant if you
> ask me.  Does the fact that he was not an Apostle when he wrote it mean
> that he was evil when he did and that the book is all wrong? Was he not
> educated enough before he became an Apostle?  And if any of these things
> are so, why didn't he correct his "mistakes" when he became Apostle?

No, he didn't correct his mistakes because he wanted people to
see that he was as human as the rest of them.  I heard a qoutes
made to this effect to his son Joseph Fielding McConkie, but have
had trouble finding the source, since is was some years ago.

In all of his publications, McConkie *clearly* states that *he*
alone is responsible for what is contained in them.  If you want
to take issue with his statements, you'll have to ask him to
defend them, not anyone else.

> Looks like since the Church continued to publish it without change
> after he became  Apostle, that it tas approved as Apostle quality
> writing.  

_Mormon Doctrine_ to date has *never* been an official
publication of the LDS Church.  That it has been published by
church owned companies doesn't make it LDS scripture any more
than the cookbooks and novels the same companies publish are LDS
scripture.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan,sci.sceptic
From: dhw@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us (David West)
Subject: list of former gods?
Organization: Plex-1, Michigan's Public Access Usenet Gateway  (Ann Arbor).
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:22:54 GMT

Somewhere I saw an extensive list of gods which were once considered
influential, but which are now obscure or ignored.  Can anyone give
me a pointer to this list (or an electronic copy)?   The version I saw
was attributed to H. L. Mencken, but it doesn't seem to appear in the
multi-volume collection of Mencken's works at the local public library,
though that collection doesn't, I think, claim completeness.

-- 
-David West            dhw@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

"Ce n'e'tait pas un empire comme il faut, mais nous nous sommes diablement
bien amuse's."  -Col. Fleury, aide-de-camp of Napoleon III
From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: LDS Syllogism? ( was Re: Arrogance (was Family values defined))
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:20:22 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

In article <1992Oct01.184422.38915@watson.ibm.com>  
jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:
> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts):
> > No problem.  I don't preach myself - rejection of me is rejection of  
the
> > Lord, for I preach Jesus as Lord and me his servant.
> 
> let's rearrange: "i preach jesus as lord and me his
> servant.  therefore, rejection of me is rejection of
> the lord."  sounds like unmitigated arrogance.
> -- 

     Uh oh. Next thing you know, the LDS are going to be using the above  
syllogisms as follows:

     "Joseph Smith didn't preach himself - rejection of Joseph Smith is  
rejection of the Lord, for Joseph Smith preached Jesus as Lord and him His  
servant."

and
 
     "Joseph Smith preached Jesus as Lord and him as His servant.  
Therefore, rejection of Joseph Smith is rejection of the Lord."


     Sorry, but I just couldn't resist. :-) :-)

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner" -- the Jesus  
Prayer
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS Syllogism? ( was Re: Arrogance (was Family values defined))
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:01:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <70000@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> I (Pitts) responded with the words of the Lord where he told us that
> this rejection would happen.  For rejection of the message, is the
> rejection of Jesus who gave us the message and rejection of Jesus
> is the rejection of the Father. Jesus also said the world would hate us, 
> for it hated him.  

Isn't this really the core issue with Christianity, the case of 
martyr wannabes? It seems people that want to be crucified for their 
beliefs are prime Christians. Unfortunately, we live in times
where anyone is allowed to have their own opinion, thanks to
the French and American revolutions, and not the Christian church.
The times where people will die due to their beliefs are soon over,
hopefully.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:17:54 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <215u02T824GD01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
>>> As I stated before, According to the preface to the Journal of Discourses
>>> Volume 8, the Journel of Discourses IS considered doctrinial scripture.
>>
>>No, it was a journal -- what we might call a magazine or
>>periodical, today.  The publishers were trying to sell
>>subscriptions for the same reason that all magazine publishers
>>want to sell subscriptions.  If you look at LDS practice,
>>_Journal of Discourse_ is not and never has been accepted as LDS
>>canon.  This relegates the statement you quoted in it as a
>>marketing stategy.
> 
> Then please explain the preface to Vol. 8 of the JoD which says that the
> enclosed text IS CONSIDERED AUTHORITATIVE BY THE CHURCH and that EVERY
> Mormon should welcome each volume with eagerness.

I just did.
It was a marketing stategy.
The publishers were trying to *sell* *subscriptions* to the journal.

Why would they wait until volume eight to include such a
statement?  

(Oh, by the way, this journal is scripture, and you will be bound
by every word it contains ... and it can be yours for 5 cents an
issue.  That's 60% off the cover price, but only if you act now ...)

[...]
> Are you finally agreeing with me that Brigham was a false prophet?  By
> these quotes here,you are saying that Brigham was "not of God" when he
> taught these things.

No.  
Mormons do *not* believe in infallible scripture.
Mormons do *not* believe in infallible prophets.

Both can make mistakes and still be of God.

Your mileage may vary; 
Batteries not included; 
Void where prohibited or restricted; 
Some assembly required;
.
.
.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus For President
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:45:33 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


In article <1992Sep26.021050.21952@emr1.emr.ca> davidson@ccrs.emr.ca (David Davidson) writes:
>Imagine Jesus entering the current Presidential race..
>
>... he is sagging in the polls after an initial strong start and we catch
>up with Him in a meeting with his political handlers in a crisis meeting...
>
>Consultant #1. "Can I be frank with you Jesus? Your stump speech sucks
>                megadick."
>
>Consultant #2. "Joe Sixpack doesn't want to hear a lot of kindergarden crap
>                about lambs and lions and camels and asses."
>
>Consultant #3. "Watch this business with the arms. Holding your palms out
>                makes you look like a pussy."
>
>Consultant #1. "And will someone please tell me what the fuck a Pharisee
>                is??"
>
>dAVID. 

Can we say Blasphemy?

"You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will
 not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name."
                                                    Exodus 20:7

God will not be mocked!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP ME!  I need your advice!  Help me keep this love alive!
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:00:19 GMT


In a previous article, daw@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Dave Webb) says:

[Mr Webb's heart-wrenching, but all too familiar, story deleted]

Unfortunately, this is just another example of something which should bring
such happiness (religion) bringing misery.

You have a serious delema on your hands.  If you ask her to stay against
her parents wishes, she may loose her parents.  If, on the other hand, you
succumb to her parents wishes, you loose her, and still don't guarantee
her happiness.

Let me relate to you a story.

Before I came out (I'm gay), I was involved with a girl, who I loved.  The
problem was that I was protestant, and she was catholic.  My parents were
happy that I had found someone, but her parents were quite vocal about their
disapproval, both on the grounds of my religion, and the fact that my family
did not have a great deal of social prominence (dad made good money, but he
did it by getting his hands dirty--he was a service director for a car dealer).

We were together from my junior year in HS until my junior year in college, 
when her parents gave her an ultimatum:it was either them or me...

Well, she choose me, and we married, and a year later she left me.  She could
not take the stress of being separated from her family.  They went to the
church and had our wedding analled, and a year later she married a nice
catholic boy, and has lived happily ever after...

So, in the long run, I got hurt worse by holding onto her then I would have
by letting her go...

I can only suggest the following:

Don't underestimate the ability of parents to lay guilt-trips on children,
especially where religion is concerned.

Make sure that, if you decide together to defy her parents, that she is 
willing and able to live with the consequences.

And if you are both convinced she can, then go for it, and the best of luck..
You'll need it...



>
>			Thanx in advance,
>					Dave Webb
>

>        You're quite welcome...

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep30.224428.20515@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:26:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.224428.20515@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>The metaphor is therefore meaningless.
>If it doesn't tell us anything about whether Kent types fast
>or not, what meaning does it have?

You are looking for hard facts where they can not be found! The meaning
of metaphor is metaphoric. That's why there is an English word for
metaphor. If it has meaning to you, then it has meaning. If it has no
meaning to you, then it has no meaning. Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. What is the meaning of a rose, or a rock? Is it not, "I am
that I am"? What is the meaning of the Mona Lisa? What does it mean to
you? That is the meaning of art. What does it mean TO YOU!

>You STILL didn't answer my question.
>All those words, but not an answer.

You STILL don't get my answer! Who is to blame?

>>One foo is not always the same as another foo.
>>The foo that can be named is not the true foo. 

>More babble.

When in Rome, one should act like the Romans. Know what I'm sayin'?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17179 alt.atheism:18033
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:37:34 GMT

From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
> In article <1992Oct2.203636.29896@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.
> >> From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
> >> I'm afraid you missed the point.  Unlike you and the Pharisees,
> >> Jesus didn't care doodly squat about what the theological nature
> >> of the God the Samaritans worshiped was.
> >
> >        Apparently, Gorden, you do not understand the implications of
> >worshipping a conterfiet Samaritan god; or the parallel to worshipping
> >a counterfeit Mormon god.  Do you beleive Mormons are right in claiming
> >to be the only church where salvation is possible -- while at the same
> >time leading people to a false god and false Jesus?
>
> 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.

> 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.
The LDS beleive there is no salvation without a proper understanding
of God -- and they are the only ones with this understanding.

> >        The Bible warns us of 'another Jesus':
> >
> >  2Co  11:4 For if indeed he that comes preaches another Jesus,
> >  whom we have not preached, or ye get a different Spirit, which ye
> >  have not got, or a different glad tidings, which ye have not
> >  received, ye might well bear with [it].
> >
> >        And goes on to tell us who would present it:
> >
> >  2Co  11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers,
> >  transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
> >
> Well, I'm not sure what the historical context of that was.
> Paul was trying to warn the Corinthians about some impostor
> apostles I would suspect.  The idea that he is talking about
> the Mormons is ludicrous.

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)

Mark
<standard disclaimer>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc