HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: First LDS now Evolutionists, Who's Next?
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:52:08 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <cb4m02gc24pD01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes...

>In article <16771@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:

>>>>the Adam and Eve story or rejected the idea that all life except
>>>>two of each type of animal Noah had on the Ark became extinct
>>>>at the time of a global flood in 3000BC, they aren't a Christian?
>>>
>>>Absolutely irrelavent to the current discussions
>>
>>'Tis not!  In many of these discussions there is the charge that
>>since the Mormons don't believe every word of the Bible
>>then they aren't Christian.  Are you saying that you now are dropping
>>the Bible as an issue?
>>
>Certianly is.  To answer the above question:  If someone claims to be
>Christian and subscribes to the evolution theory, I have to wonder what
>else they deny about the Bible?  Why would God lie to us about Creation
>if evolution was true?  If you gonna doubt one part, what else do you
>doubt?  
>How does this help our other discussions?

Basically I'd say it helps because it starts to give everyone who's reading
along a better idea of just how narrow a definition you apply to being a
"Christian".  During the course of these dialogues you have denied the 
status of Christianhood to dozens of faiths.  Now we learn that even those
who entertain the idea of evolution become suspect.  I, and probably 98% of
all humans living on the earth, am hopeful that the God you describe does
not exist.  It is hard to conceptualize a God who proclaims that he loves 
us and offers us a "free gift" of salvation, yet defines the criteria for
salvation so narrowly that it guarantees nearly everyone on the earth
will fail.  Pity all the poor physical scientists who doom themselves by
merely choosing the wrong occupation. Also your statements above look like 
they came right out of Bruce McConkie's _Mormon Doctrine_.  From the looks
of them, you may be a better defender of _Mormon Doctrine_ than either 
Gordon or me.

Also that God is quite a trickster to create a world with so much evidence
that evolution did take place but if anyone buys into it, then off to hell
with them ... with the rest of the non-Christians.

Dana
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:46:44 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Sep23.210318.23380@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:

>	If you have a copy of the book, you might want to read the rest
>	of the paragraph in context. McConkie was comment of a quote
>	that "Joseph Smith has done more for the Salvaation of Mankind,
>	than anyother save Jesus Christ."  His comment in _Mormon Doctrine_
>	(also a misnomer) points out the mormon belief, that the
>	Early Church underwent a generilized apostasy between the 
>	death of the apostles and the reformation. In MHO, the comment
>	and general belief is that the primary message of Smith has
>	to do with the divine nature of Jesus Christ. If Smith was a
>	prophet, then his message must be of the Father and His Son
>	Jesus Christ. 

This reminds me of an excellent example of the dishonesty in
the tactics of some "Christians" with respect to Mormons.  The
statement of McConkie's is a requotation of a statement of Brigham Young.
In the anti-Mormon film "The Godmakers" they close with that
quote, but they altered one word, making it say "Joseph Smith
has done more for the salvation of mankind than any other, *including*
Jesus Christ."  Obviously such an alteration serves to reinforce
the notion that Mormons aren't Christian, since they hold Joseph
Smith higher than Jesus.  But what kind of morality is it that
lets someone alter a quote like that to serve their end?  Not
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17481 alt.atheism:18252
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:26:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <BvEprK.rD@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>The meaning of "absolute truth" to me is such that if a statement X is only
>>true under condition Y, then the combined statement "statement X is true under
>>condition Y" is absolutely true.
>>For instance, the statement "1+1=0" is not absolutely true, but it is true for
>>mod2 arithmetic.  This means, however, that the combined statement "1+1=0
>>under mod2 arithmetic" is _absolutely_ true, under my definition.
>>Since you imply that I cannot produce examples of absolute truth, you must
>>obviously be using some different definition, one which I do not know.
>An absolute truth is true regardless of reference. You have fabricated some
>absolute truths by controlling the frame of reference, which is kinda
cheating.

Kinda cheating?  Say what?

There is a subtle distinction here.

1) "1+1=0" is absolutely true under mod2 arithmetic.
2) "'1+1=0 is absolutely true under mod2 arithmetic'" is absolutely true both
under and not under mod2 arithmetic.

These two are not the same, and you seem to think I'm using the first, while
I'm actually using the second.

>>You seem to think I don't understand your definition.  I do.  I don't
>>understand the _usefulness_ of the definition.
>If I had no faith in my car starting, I would call the tow truck everytime,
>just in case. So my faith in my car starting saves me a great deal of money,
>even though, sometimes I have to bit the bullet and call. Is that _useful_?

I'm not asking the usefulness of faith, I'm asking the usefulness of the
definition.  That's not the same thing.  If you "had no faith in your car
starting", I could just as well say that this means that you "had faith in
your car not starting".  This seems to indicate that either way, it'd be
something that is called faith.  A definition that calls it faith no matter
what you do seems fairly useless.

>>Why should the possibility be slightly disturbing?  Is there some kind of law
>>of disturbingness which requires that it must disturb me unless there's some
>>special reason otherwise?
>When you fly in a plane, does the possibility of crash disturb you?

You seem to claim _everything_ which might fail must disturb me.  I probably
would worry about a plane crash, so you have given one example.  But one
example does not prove a general claim.  You cannot show that every possibility
is disturbing just by using an example of one possibility that's disturbing.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS Doctrine
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:45:52 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <Bv5yqA.7ry@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
> [...]
> I wrote:
> 
>>> Quite a few times I have read Jason responding in this same 
>>> fashion: "Yes, our prophets/leaders may have said that, but it is not 
>>> in the lds canon." 
> 
> Jason disagreed with that and responded that:
> 
>>I accepted the principles taught in the LDS canon as binding upon
>>me when I became a member of the LDS Church.  I accepted the
>>principles taught in the LDS temple ceremonies as binding upon me
>>of my own free will and choice when I went through the temple.
> 
> So here Jason is saying that the Temple Ceremonies are 
> binding, even though they are not in the `standard works.'

Yes, because *I* accepted them as *personally* binding upon *me*.

> We then have Jason disagreeing with some statement from the 
> _Journal of Discourses_, because it is not part of the `standard 
> works,' but then he accepts the Temple Ceremonies as binding, but they 
> are not part of the `standard works.'

Yes, because *I* have *not* accepted the *entire* JoD as binding
upon *me*.  I doubt many other Mormons have either. 
Anti-Mormons, however, want to make *their* quotations from JoD
and interptretations thereof binding upon *every* Mormon whether
they accept it or not.

> Jason is contradicting himself. 

I am?

> A doctrine does not have to be 
> part of the `standard works' to be authoritative, as the binding 
> Temple Ceremonies show. 

Only because I have *consented* to have the standard works and the
Temple ceriemonies be binding upon me.  I have *not* consented to
be bound be *everything* that is contained in the JoD.

> For Jason to initially assert so is to create 
> a smokescreen to hide behind.

No, only a smokescreen to hide your strawman behind.

> Also, the question of polygamy in the early lds organization 
> was deleted. I will ask again: Was Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy 
> doctrinally correct? It wasn't in the standard works. It did not pass 
> the muster of common consent. In fact the standard works condemned it.
> Was polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith doctrinally correct?

I won't answer this, because, well frankly... go read Alma 37:11
for my reason.  I'll let others tackle this question that are
more capable than I.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:48:39 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <4fkw02RA247e01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <16673@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>>In article <Sep.23.04.10.56.1992.3815@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>>
>>In any event, the Church makes a great effort now not to
>>criticise other religions.
>
>I was at Temple Square two weeks ago, and there is a statue of Joseph
>Smith there, and on that statue are the words:
>
>     "I was answered that I must join none of them for they were all
>      wrong. The Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds
>      were an abomination in his sight, that those professors were
>      all corrupt...."
>

Gosh, you mean they haven't melted down that statue yet?

>it.  To tell me that I am "outright wrong", I am an abomination in the
>eyes of God, and so are my creeds, is to tell me that you think there is
>no hope for me unless I become a Mormon.  This is criticizing other
>religions.  I know there have been lots of discussions on this and some
>one will write in and say, "we have discussed this.......", but that
>doesn't change the fact that this is the beleifs of the LDS church.

I see no problem in telling you that you are wrong.  Saying a
creed is an abomination is pretty strong, but not the same
as saying that you are an abomination.  The concept of "no
hope" is an orthodox one, not a Mormon one.  In Mormon theology,
non-Mormons don't go to hell, but to the Terrestrial Kingdom (good men
of the earth) or Telestial Kingdom (liars, thieves, etc.).
Joseph Smith wrote of a vision of the Telestial Kingdom
in which he did not wish to return to earth from such a
paradise.  Of course, this is unBiblical, so you'll be sharpening
your knife, but you might as well object to the actual Mormon
heresy rather than make up beliefs for the Mormons that they
don't really have. Mormons actually believe in almost a
universal salvation rather than the damnable universal damnation
that most of your type of "Christian" churches teach.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:05:26 GMT

In article <BvGpp7.79G@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Eric, I thought of another metaphorical verse for you:
>...
>Now, tell me, are these metaphors true or false? Or are they foo or bar?

There is a difference between "some" and "all".  "This here other metaphorical
verse I thought for you is not 'foo' or 'bar' or 'true' or 'false'" is rather
different from "no metaphor can be 'foo' or 'bar' or 'true' or 'false'".  You
can't prove a universal statement with one example, and to show that one
metaphor cannot be true or false does not prove the same about all metaphors.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Online Bible v6  Help wanted
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:48:12 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <1992Sep30.133105.13059@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>
>Has anybody tried installing the ONLINE BIBLE version 6???
>
>Whenever I type INSTALL, it creates the relevent directories in the BIBLE
>directory, asks me if I have a colour monitor, and then after I type 
>Y (or N, I've tried both!) it dumps some register status' and give me an
>error message - something to do with running out of free space. I should
>have written it down!! ...

I had the same problem.  Apparently you MUST create floppy disks and install
from those floppies!  This worked for me.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:25:50 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>In article <adams.717460675@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>[...]
>
>>>You are condemned to use your noodle, Steve. A tough row to hoe for 
>>>somwone in your position...but I think you'll come through okay if you
>>>keep on keepin' on, as Bobby Dylan would say.
>>I'll be ok...but what about the rest of the world?
>
>>>> Paul talk about 'milk' for the young, because they are not ready for food.
>>>> Hmm...where is my copy of the Gospel of Thomas? ;-)
>>>
>>>Growing some teeth, eh? :)
>>
>>Perhaps, perhaps...you may drag me kicking and screaming someplace I never
>>planned to go...but it wouldn't be the first time.
>
>Am I really seeing what I think I'm seeing?

I dunno...what are you seeing?

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus For President
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:19:01 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <b04Q02vE23EG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE) writes:
[humor deleted]
>Can we say Blasphemy?

Can we say humor :-)

>"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!

I'd love to see Jesus run for president. I can just imagine the reaction
from all the "Christians" to a bleeding heart liberal who hangs out with
sinners in preference to TV preachers. 

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wiggins@lilac.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<4dsC02zI24Lt01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <16771@pitt.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:49:05 GMT


Even Christians can be messed up (for awhile) in their thinking.  They are
still saved, but aren't really doing right or what God wants.  Eventually, I
believe He'll straighten 'em out.  But no one knows really if a person is a
Christian or not, except the person and God, right?  And, there are a great
many cults in the world that tend to warp/pervert the true message of Christ
as we are taught in the *BIBLE*.  (Yes, I'm implying that little extras tacked
on, whether extra writings, or saying a thought's there when it ain't, are not
the true, relevant message.)
 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17431 talk.philosophy.misc:1844
From: bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Dogbert on brain research
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:29:52 GMT
Organization: ARL Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of
	Arizona

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

   In <1992Sep19.134636.7629@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
   >> Does anybody know anything about the research Dogbert is
   >> referring to, or did the creator of "Dilbert"  (whose name, BTW,
   >> is S. Adams!) just make that up?  Any info that could help me
   >> out would be welcome.  

   > Besides the two-liner I gave you above, all I can say is, don't
   > hold your breath.

The research he's talking about was done by Benjamin Libet.  Dogbert
gives a pretty fair description of the results, at least as Libet
interprets them.  Daniel Dennett discusses these experiments in
"Consciousness Explained"; they are also discussed extensively in an
article by Dennett and Kinsbourne that appeared a couple of months ago
in Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

	-- Bill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are LDS Christians?
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:34:27 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1fn102fg24hA01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>
>In testifiying about the Book of Mormon, the Mormons are glad to share
>with you the testimonies of these men.  Of course, they don't share all
>of the testimonies with you!
>
>This is reprinted from the Mormon Church section of the Deseret News,
>Salt Lake Citym Utah.  September 20,1969

Sounds like you got this "testimony" from the Mormons!  Don't they
own the Deseret News?  The testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses
were specially made for the Book of Mormon.  Obviously, at the
end of Whitmer's life, he will have said much else.  Should everything
he ever wrote about it be printed up and inserted into the front
of the book just to make sure his testimony is complete?

>IF A MORMON TAKES THE PEEP-STONE OUT OF MR. WHITMER'S TESTIMONY, THEN HE
>IS SAYING THAT WHITMER'S TESTIMONY IS FALSE.  If a Mormon says Mr.
>Whitmer's testimony is true, then he is endorsing the occult.
>

What is the occult?

>Peep-stone gazing is a form of divination practiced by fortune tellers.
>They would place a stone in a hat and place the hat over their face to
>exclude the all light.  Then they would "peep" into the stone to "see"
>lost items, or in this case, a lost language into English.
>

Where do we find this account of fortune tellers doing this with the
stone and the hat?  (Some work not written about Mormons, I hope).
I thought they used a crystal ball.  I never heard of the stone and hat.

>translation of the Book Of Mormon. Does God give his revelations through
>a stone in a hat?
>

Are you presuming to limit God's options?






-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17340 alt.atheism:18142
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:46:35 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <fTaev7S@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>1 and 2, as well as addition, are abstractions.  1+1=2 is true because it was
>>defined to be true.  We could come up with a system where 1+1 is not 2, just
>>by defining these things to be something else, so no I have no faith that
>>1+1=2.
>First off, 1+1=2 was not defined true. And if you have no faith that
>1+1=2, how do you balance your checkbook?

Since I have not figured out any way to balance my checkbook without defining
2 as 1+1, I do so first.

>>>>"MATH" is not a proposition.  "MATH" does not have a truth-value.
>>>Why not? I accept it as true because I have faith that mathematicians know
>>>more about Math than I.
>>If you accept "math" as true, you don't know what you are doing.
>What, no faith in mathematicians?

You got it.

>Are you saying that the math that can
>be known is not the true math?

I'm not sure what you mean by "known".  If you mean what I think you mean, I
deny there is any math which is known.  Furthermore, even if there is, you are
mixing up two different usages of "true".  One usage of true is to say a
statement is true or false.  Math, not being a statement, cannot be true or
false in this sense.

>>Because one can do things without being absolutely certain they will work.
>Really? But, aren't you afraid that they may not work? How do you cope
>with this possibility of failure?

I don't understand what you mean by "cope with this possibility of failure".
If you mean "what do I do to make the possibility of failure even lower", the
answer is "nothing".  If you mean "how do I keep from being emotionally
disturbed by the possibility the laws of physics will change so my alarm clock
doesn't work", the answer is "Is there some reason you expect every
uncertainty to be emotionally upsetting to begin with?"

>>"Proper", in this context, means "widely used".
>Widely used? Is that not authority? Should I have faith in the authority
>of "widely used"?

You are free to use any definition you want.  I have no intention to use
authority to tell you to only use one definition.  Of course, I'm also free to
refuse to listen.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)