HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:42:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.180127.59639@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.222009.2428@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
>  press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> [...]
> > the lds says(like Jason), do you presume to know the
> > interpretations better than the lds? 
> 
> No, what we are saying is: "Do you presume to know the *LDS*
> interpretations better than the LDS?"

I think not. Joseph Smith Jr. displaced the christians with His
interpretations and said in effect, these interpretations are
correct, yours are skewed, corrupted, abominations, etc. You
wish to ignore this historical displacement?

> 
> [...]
> > When the typical lds defender is cornered on certain opinions
> > they have about their beliefs, the fall back is, it's not cannon.
> 
> That's because most, if not all, the areas you try to pin us down
> on are fringe areas, quasi-doctrine, and very controversial; and
> there is wide spread opinion even among Mormons about them.
> 
> So a typical tactic is to pick one of these areas, and then find
> a church leader of some sort that has made *any* kind of statement
> about this area in *any* kind of Mormon-related publication. 

If there were only one or two renegade apostles throughout the history
of this new phenomena of the lds church you would have a more valid 
point. Too many "prophets and apostles" have made outrageous statements
which throws the entire idea of a "modern living prophet church" into
serious doubt(from christians who are outside and not acclimated to
this church, or culture).

> They then try to pass this off as "Official Mormon Doctrine", and
> then can't understand why Mormons protest or respond that such
> statements are the persons own opinions/speculations and are not
> part of the LDS canon of scripture.

Yes, it is rather confusing to most christians and non-christians who
are accustomed to certain absolutes within the christian culture.
> 
> Mormons are not inerrantists.

The lds cannon scriptures contain errors?

> Mormons do not believe in infallable prophets or leaders.

Your inspired prophets babble on in unispired rhetoric?

> Mormons do not believe in infallable scripture.

Mormons have no infallible scripture?

Do the magical undergarments really protect one from the devil?
Are the undergarments infallible? Are devil repellent undergarments
mentioned anywhere in the christian scriptures. Were these undergarments
part of the "secrets of the kingdom" that were lost with the twelve
apostles?
You will no doubt be tempted to defuse these questions, but they are
serious. These garments are also part of the restored gospel I presume?

barry--
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (The only thing God didn't do to Job was give him a computer.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:45:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.012937.4726@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.125841.9048@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (The only thing God didn't do to Job was give him a computer.) writes:

>>this is not to say there's no objective reality to UFO's, ghosts or
>>God which you might bump into without believing, but belief is life's
>>most important door, i think.
> 
> I suppose that depends on what you want out of life.  If you want to
> go through it believing in ghosts simply because you want to, then
> I suppose your advice is sound.  On the other hand, if you prefer
> reality over fantasy, you won't commit yourself to believing something
> until you see evidence for it.  

reality over fantasy? but do any of us have a totally "objective"
view of reality that ISN'T built upon a lifelong network of unexamined,
sometimes subconscious, faiths and assumptions? I think mind is such
and integral ingredient of reality that the very term "objective
reality" is simply another shakey object of faith.

>>how do you have faith without proof? Neat trick, but most people 
>>manage it every day. 
> 
> It isn't a neat trick.  It's a very destructive trick.

well, it certainly CAN be very destructive. On the other hand faith
exists because it can provide purpose, motivation and emotional content 
that isn't being provided by our up-bringing or by our society.

   ando.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:54:59 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <70498@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
<In article <ksand-071092185018@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
<|In article <70319@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
<|Pitts) wrote:
<|> The communication age is more recent than the time of Christ.
<|
<|So you frankly believe people were not that keen to listen and hear
<|on gossip and fantastic events 2000 years ago?
<
<Agreed.  And we have Christianity spread thoughout the world.  It spread 
<from Jerusalem out rather quickly.

If it was so, then this shows that there were many people throughout
the area who were prepared to believe the claims of Christianity.  It
doesn't say anything about the truth of those claims.

<What is the volume of books we call the Bible that predicts and
<confirms this one man Jesus the Christ as he was to come, was here,
<and will come again?  I understand that's not enough.  

No, it isn't, for two reasons: (1) those books belong first and
foremost to Judaism, and it denies that they have anything to do with
Jesus of Nazareth -- and Jews ought to know, it's _their_ scripture;
and (2) those books are so full of wild claims and odd contradictions
that they are best dismissed altogether.

<|> Again, Jesus rose from the grave and never died again.
<|
<|Well, Osiris rose from the dead, Mitras died weekly
<
<Where are their bodies today?

I don't know about Mitras, but Osiris is in his kingdom, judging the dead.
Your soul will be munched by a crocodile deity when you get there,
that I can tell you.

<Jesus never died again - he is alive.

Where is his body, then?

<|Buddha didn't die.
<
<I think Budda's body is spread across the region and there are temples
<built over parts of his body - I think he did die.

Yes, of course he did die, and he wasn't reborn -- he achieved nirvana.
Surely that is a greater feat than rising again in this transitory world,
and walking around in a body deformed by marks of nails and spears.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
From: bthomas@nim.gac.edu (Barbara L Thomas)
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:46:25 -0600

> I'm playing several games at once, you see.  I'm saying that, no
> matter how much similarity there was between Jesus of Nazareth (on
> whose very existence I wouldn't put a farthing) and gods such as
> Horus, I doubt that he suffered on that cross.  There may have been
> different reasons as to why not.  He might have been made in such a
> way that he wouldn't feel pain at all, or he might have used his
> peculiar powers (which he demonstrated on more than one occasion) to
> suppress the pain.
> 
> Remember, we're talking of a person who could walk on water, eat
> nothing for forty days, heal all kind of diseases and raise the dead,
> drown pigs and murder fig trees by only saying a word.  He could feel
> "power going out of him" when someone touched his garment from behind.
> Are you telling me that this same person was unable to arrange not to
> suffer when seated on a cross for a few hours in an uncomfortable
> position?
> 
> Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
> * Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,   
UK
> * Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD,  
UK

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."
--
Barbara L. Thomas
"The World may never know."
bthomas@nic.gac.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:07:37 GMT

In article <b0k002Ot25jB01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>eric states
>>>No, that is FAR from what I am saying.  But Mormons LOVE to twist what I
>>>am saying to make it sound like what you are saying I am saying.
>>I'm not a mormon, sir.
>>I am merely trying to get you to clarify your words. So, how is what
>>you said different from what I said. Or, if you prefer, how is the
>>statement that "Anyone who does not believe in the right Christology
>>is damned." incorrect. One must presume that you believe in the right
>>Christology.
>I am not being evasive eric, but I have explained this the best I know
>how, and when it is repeated by you, it is not the same as I said.
It is PRECISELY the same as what you said, as far as I can tell.

I repeat my question:
What is wrong with the statement:
"Anyone who does not believe in the right Christology is damned."

For specificity.
X represents "right Christology"

(P):(!Believes(P,X))->(Damned(P))
Where (P) is all persons.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED Former LDS,...)
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:21:00 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
>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, where do you get the idea I am a Jehovah's Witness?  This
indicates to me you form decisions without fully investigating the
facts.

I am not, nor have I ever been a Jehovah's Witness.  I can point you
to a 'full fledge JW' who will verify this for you.

Mark
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians?
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:40:25 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <aeWC02QP256s01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
>>tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>
>>> 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
[...]
> Mark:
> 
> Are you in fact a JW?  Or have we caught Kermit in yet another
> bold faced lie?

Kermit assumed that Mark was a JW, just like you assumed that
Eric was a Mormon.

Now did both of you jump to conclusions and make a mistake or are
both of you telling "bold faced lies"?

C'mon.  Relax.  Take a chill.  Give a guy a little slack.

Why just the other day I confused Robert Weiss with Robert
O'Barr -- not a good thing to do. 

That's why the best way is to "love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
despitefully use you and persecute you".

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:38:37 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <1992Oct06.124159.591@brtph560.bnr.ca>, ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
> In article <cfhR02OR24a101@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> |> In article <16773@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
> |> >In article <1992Oct1.121630.13063@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
> |> >
> |> >>1. Before examining LDS theology, I feel that it is important to define 
> |> >>orthodox Christian beliefs that would be considered the "Fundamentals" of the
> |> >>faith, and not those doctrines unnecesary to salvation. The list that follows
> |> >>is terse and is not supposed to be a theological treatise.
> |> >>
> |> >>        a) There is only one God, who created the heavens and the earth.  
> |> >>        b) Jesus is God incarnate, born of the virgin Mary. In saying that Mary
> |> >>           was a virgin, I mean that she had never had sexual relations with a 
> |> >>           man or (as LDS theology says) with God. Jesus being God incarnate 
> |> >>           means that Jesus is God.
> |> >>        c) God exists as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Separate but indiv-
> |> >>           sible, otherwise known as the Trinity. This is important in recog-
> |> >>           nising who Jesus is. To reject Jesus as God is to reject God.
> |> >
> |> >So you are saying that anyone who rejects the virgin birth, for example,
> |> >rejects God and therefore, despite any other profession of
> |> >faith in Jesus (even as God) and throwing one's self on His mercy,
> |> >is invalid, and that person is not a Christian?
> |> >
> |> 
> |> 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.
> 
> Wow...a Christian who believes Paul is going to hell. Now I've seen everything!

    Please tell us why you think this means that Paul is going to hell (I
assume you mean Paul the Apostle.)





-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christians are not Christians.a
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:30:55 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <6OCT199222095738@acad3.alaska.edu> ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.155152.11249@waikato.ac.nz>, sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes...
>>In article <5OCT199214542776@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>>> To all foaming-at-the-mouth Mormon haters (You know who you are):
>>>
>
>You cannot love a man by attacking his religion only by showing him something
>better.  If fundamentalists and evangelicals could show me something better, I
>would still be a Baptist.

It doesn't matter how good man may represent something.  What matters is
if it is true or not!

>Besides I am in a better position to judge between mainstream Protestantism
>and Mormonism than you are.  I know both positions from the inside.  All or
>most of what you know has been learned by reading pamphlets written by Mormon
>haters or attending their filthy seminars, not a very objective source of
>information.

Once again, it doesn't matter WHO says WHAT!  What matters is if they are
true or not.  Makes no difference who is saying them.

>As for those scriptures about following false prophets, I could find you dozens
>of scriptures warning against failing to follow true ones.  Remember, there
>were many who refused to follow Moses.  I imagine they supposed him to be a
>false prophet.  Nothing can be proven from the Bible or any other scripture
>because it is all incomplete.  That goes for the Book of Mormon as well.

Yes!  There is a test for prophets in the Bible!  (Deut 13:1-5 and
Deut 18:20).  God gave us this test for a reason.  We should use it and
find out IF people ARE indeed true prophets.  Have you put Joseph to the
test?  If he is a true prophet then he should be able to pass the test.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg M. Skinner)
Subject: Re: Idaho
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:28:39 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.150649.24255@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu
>(Gregg M. Skinner) wrote:
>> >I guess it was a naive attempt to map this Idaho joke to those
>> >who don't believe Jesus was a God.
>> 
>> It's not necessary to guess.  I stated that the post relates to the
>> criticism that most "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers.
>> 
>> Nothing more, nothing less.

>And the criticism is actually valid.

In the spirit of the parody, then, we can levy a like criticism
against those who tell us that Idaho is a state.  Most (if not all)
the "evidence" we have seen for "Idaho" comes from believers.

(There are, of course, vast differences between the claim that Idaho
exists and the various claims about Jesus.  Valid criticisms can be
made of the latter.  But this particular criticism is pathetic.)
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:02:10 GMT

In article <70560@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.201955.25396@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>|I don't BELIEVE Acts? Why should I? If I did, I would be Christian.
>
>I'm glad you recognize the events as potentially life changing, if
>one would believe.
Huh?
If I believed Acts, I would believe that Jesus existed and did approximately
what you say he did. In my book, that would make me a Christian--by
definition.

>|>Where are their bodies today?   Jesus never died again - he is alive.
>|So you say. I could say similar things about Mitras.
>|With exactly the same sort of evidence.
>
>I'm not sure what you are asking or offering.
>
>I looked up these two groups today.  The Mitras movement was said to
>never have a historical founder.  The Osiris movement centered around
>Osiris (who was said to be the god of the dead).  It seemed Osiris
>was tricked into getting into a coffin and I guess died. (?)   A
>lady went and found him and collected his obviously scattered body
>parts and conceived his son, who avenged his fathers death.  It didn't
>have anything about Osiris rising from the dead.
I don't know much about these movements. I could say similar things
about BoB(Church of the SubG) as you're saying about Jesus. With
precisely the same evidence--it says so in this book.
-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."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: "Evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:06:19 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct16.130020.25102@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> Kent still insists I must give him evidence for Jesus.  Amazing!

What? I'm merely asking why you used the "Idaho parody" that is 
not suitable for the evidence of Jesus case, logically speaking?

You started to compare the issue of verifying that Idaho is real
with religion, and we answered by providing more evidence that
this is the case. If you can't shake out it, then we assume 
that you were on thin ice all the time...
 
> >Just don't send another "Idaho parody", thanks, that's
> >not evidence...
> 
> Thanks for pointing that out, Kent.  Of course, no one ever suggested
> that the Idaho parody was evidence for Jesus.

Neither was it evidence that those who are critical about 
historical miracle evidence of Jesus are crying wolf, or barking
on the wrong tree.

> By the way, Kent, a claim and its inverse are not equivalent (check a
> math or rhetoric book for confirmation*).  As I noted, your "Chineese
> [sic] people" example relies on the inverse of Jesus' claim.
> *I recomment Morash, BRIDGE TO ABSTRACT MATHEMATICS.

I recommend to verify once again what you stated about food and 
shelter for non-believers. Either you believe this is the case,
even if the common sense tell you it's not, or then I'm extremely
stunned that you can't figure out that your example doesn't work
in real life. Maybe that math book will help you?

Kent

-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: references (was Re: I'm God.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:25:33 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

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

Was this the official former Russian Communist Encyclopedia of the world?
Maybe
you are aware that all kinds of political/religous forces are involved
in Encyclopedia designs. I would *never* trust something based on
one single source, I'm not that stupid.

Cheers,
Kenrt
	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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sheffiel@bobcat.lmc.edu (Susie Sheffield )
Subject: JW's
Organization: Lees-McRae College, Banner Elk, NC
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:04:23 GMT


Are there any JW's out on the network who would like to
communicate.  I am in Blue Ridge Mountains.

**************************************************
Susie Sheffield
Business Administration
Lees-McRae College         sheffiel@bobcat.lmc.edu
**************************************************