HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Summary: Straw Poll for a Mormon Specific Newsgroup
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:19:16 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Here is a summary of the results of the straw poll for a Mormon
specific newsgroup.

For Newsgroup:              16
Against Newsgroup:           2

For Moderation:              6
Against Moderation:          7

Newsgroup Name
--------------
soc.religion.mormon          7
talk.religion.mormon         3
talk.religion.lds            2
soc.religion.lds             1
soc.religion.christian.lds   1
soc.religion.mormonism       1
talk.religion.mormonism      1
alt.flame.mormon             1

It seems that there is definitely a desire for a Mormon specific
newsgroup.

It seems that the most preferable name for the newsgroup is
soc.religion.mormon

They only area that needs to be resolved is the matter of
whether or not to moderate.

One person threatened to vote against the group if is was
moderated, and one person threatened to vote against the group if
it was not moderated.

The major points for moderation seem to be:
- To avoid repetition
- To avoid flames and mindless attacks (which can still be posted
  to talk.religion.misc or alt.flame
- They will not honor [LDS] beliefs.
- They have implicitly accepted the argument (based on their
  recent behavior) that specific [temple] endowment issues should 
  be restricted to t[alk].r[eligion].m[isc].

The major point against moderation seem to be:
- Fear of censorship.
- A better flow of ideas and comments come from non-moderated groups.
- If "outsiders" tried to venture into taboo territory such as
  the temple ceremony or garments, faithful members are not going
  to talk about these things anyway, and the subjects should die
  for lack of responses.


Having said this, since there is enough interest, I think it is
time to move this into a formal discussion on news.groups.  I
will post an RFD to news.groups, talk.religion.misc, and
soc.religion.christian, with followups set to news.groups.  It
seems fairly clear that the newsgroup should be called
soc.religion.mormon regardless of whether or not it is moderated,
so look for the subject line: 

RFD: soc.religion.mormon -- to moderate or not

I will also pull out (what I consider to be) relevant quotes from
the straw poll to get the discussion started.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:19:00 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan12.204537.27952@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes...

>Yes, this has been a recurrent question that I've been asked several times and
>I do admit that I've had to seriously consider it too.  After much consultation
>with some of my Christian brothers and sisters and the Bible, I've come to a
>few observations and conclusions.  Follow me if you will: 

>1 > God is omnipotent.  God is omniscient.  All knowing, all powerful.
>2 > God can see into the past, present and future.

>Therefore, God knows the future of any person that He creates.  He knows
>whether or not that person will be saved.  The question then becomes, why
>bother creating this person if he is only going to rebel in the end anyways? 

This is a good summary of my objection.  

>If a father knows that his son will grow up to rebel against him, will that
>father cease to give his son life?  I think not.  A father would do anything to
>save his son, even if it meant sacrificing his own life for his.  Because God
>loves us so much, He will not deny us the gift of life.  

Right.  I understand the notion that god gave us a "way out" through Jesus.
However, there's an important caveat in this story.  To get the "way out," 
one must accept Jesus as lord and savior.  For this to be tenable, the
existence of the deitys must be clear.  I submit that this is not the case.

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Proof That GUI is SATANIC!!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:12:44 GMT


Anyone up to discuss the meaning of 'graven images'
and the fact that this proves that GraphicalUserInterfaces
are CLEARLY the Work of the GREAT SATAN.

Who Else but the HellSpawned would come up with an
idea like a gif?

ciao
drieux

ps: ever wonder how folks deal with having photo ID's.....

HUM.... More Proof of the Evil SATANIC KULT RITUALISM
running rampant in the Government!!!!!


swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
] In article <1993Jan1.091825.16976@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
] >That is what some sects teach - certainly. However, even the KJ version
] >of the Bible is misinterpreted. An example: One of the 10 commandments
] >is "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Now, may sects believe that
] >this says that you will only worship "God". They refuse to read what is
] >actually there - it does not say that. It only says that "God" will be
] >your primary deity - nothing more. It does not, in any way, prohibit the
] >worship of other deities.
] 
] Exodus 20: 3-5
] you shall have no other gods before me.
]   You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything
] that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or is in the 
] water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
] for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity
] of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me.
] 
] Exodus 34:14
] for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous,
] is a jealous God.
] 
] (From The New Oxford Annotated Bible)
] I dunno, seems pretty straightforward to me. Other gods are right out.
] 
] 
] 
] 
] -- 
] Mike Swaim            | "101 Dalmations? Yeah I saw that."
] swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | "You Did! REALLY? The same film?
] Disclamer: I lie      | Let's stop driving! We must get out and jump
] up and down and up and down and dance around and around!" Matt and Delerium


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 
Just because you are a homicidal maniac
doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor.
		- Barry Sadler
From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Brainwashing & Free Will (was: Torture etc.)
Reply-To: starpath@bard.mit.edu
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:15:00 GMT

	Over a week, and no response.  Why?  I think it is because the  
questions are unanswerable, at least without resorting to the same tactics  
used to explain pain befalling the innocent, for example.  "In my vain  
life I have seen everything; there are righteous people who perish in  
their righteousness, and there are wicked people who prolong their life in  
their evil-doing."  Ecc 7:15

--
David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I rebuke Satan in the name of Jesus and I bind that demon that has
you so lost.  My brother, the Lord is going to deliver you from pride
and haughtness.
	-- Roderick Moten to Eric Sieferman on talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: 1/6/93   God's Promise in Psalm 18:30
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:53:29 GMT

In article <C0Ev4E.Awt@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
}
}	As for God, his way is perfect:

You mean his way of creating universes?  EVen when he said "it is good",
the workmanship turned out so bad that he was tempted to destroy it
and start over, and it has gone through a few patches, and STILL
some vaporware patvhes are promised!


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 1/6/93   God's Promise in Psalm 18:30
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:40:54 GMT

psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>	As for God, his way is perfect:
>	the word of the LORD is tried:
>	he is a buckler
>	to all those that trust in him.
>
>	Psalm 18:30


	Ah, yes, the Lord's way is perfect.
	If you prosper, it's because he wants you to.
	if you suffer, it's because he wants you to.
	Anything you see can be explained away in terms of him.
	Anything you do can be rationalized
	if you read the Bible enough.
	Why is it you can't even _conceive_
	of existence without a deity behind it?
	What would it take to make you even _consider_
	that your god is not perfect, or not even real?

-- 
_/_/_/  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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:29:57 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1993Jan12.161852.8450@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>>I THINK CHRISTIANITY IS BAD FOR A PERSON'S MENTAL HEALTH.
>It seems reasonable to ask Ms. Hausmann to demonstrate that
>Christianity is bad for a person's mental health.  (She says more in
>her post, but the demonstration is not complete.  I'd like to respond
>to the argument in its full form.)
I agree with Mr. Skinner. Sounds like bullshit to me.
Ms. Mausmann could start by showing that there was a higher rate
of mental illness among Christians.

-Ekr
(I finally gave up on getting a feed at work and reconstructed
my old news system.)

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: 1/7/93   God's Promise in Romans 8:34
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:20:55 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <C0GrB4.DC4@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>	Who is he that condemneth?
>	It is Christ that died,
>	yea rather,
>	that is risen again,
>	who is even at the right hand of God,
>	who also maketh intercession for us.
>
>	Romans 8:34

Thanks for straightening this out.  There have been a number
of messages in t.r.m and a.a lately which claim that we sinners
are condemning ourselves because of our sin.  Now we know who
the real culprit is.

-- 
---  Overheard on soc.religion.christian:
By our sin, you and I and Wesley Allen Dodd are guilty of killing
the Son of God, Jesus Christ; THAT IS worse than killing and raping children.
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: An End to All Arguments
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:01:41 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan6.134204.12312@hsr.no> barclay@hpa.rf.no (Barclay Stevenson) writes:
>			 An End to All Arguments
>			 -----------------------
>
>God is a good God, God is righteous and God is just. This is the basic
>nature of God (God is love).
>If you do not agree, then your God is just a god.

Que?

>It is because of the earthly limitations of our brains (and thence pride
>in our hearts) that we can start to argue if God is unjust,
>or doesn't care.

Consider that your belief in a god, and your willingness to
believe that this master manipulator is good and just despite
all evidence to the contrary, is based in the limitations
of YOUR brain.

>Jesus said that we cannot even understand earthly things, how then could
>he start to explain heavenly things for us.
>
>Paul explains it like seeing through a glass darkly.
>Don't critisize the view when it's your eyesight that's the problem

How did Jesus, Paul, and (now) you know that what we are
seeing is actually a distortion?  Maybe some people
actually do perceive the situation accurately.

>Reading some articles here in this group shows that some talk from their
>intellectual understanding of God without knowing him in person.
>Like in this natural world, it's only when you live with a person that
>you really get to know them. So it is when you have the Spirit of Christ
>in you, it's then that you understand and experience that God is good,
>loving, and not willing that any should perish.
>
>But, this can be like explaining what colour is to a blind man.

No, it's like trying to explain reason to a theist.

>The Bible says "Lean not to your own understanding"

This is the motto of all con-artists.
"Trust me!  Trust me!  Pay no attention to
that man behind the curtain!"

>There is a great chasm between Christians filled with the Holy Spirit and
>unbelievers that cannot be crossed by the bridge of intellect, reasoning, or
>consensus. There is only one bridge, the one already supplied by The Lord and
>Saviour Jesus Christ accomplished through his sacrifice on the cross, and by
>faith you cross it.
>
>The fact remains that the Bible is not for arguments, but is Truth that
>can set you free by accepting it whether you are Jew or heathen, pagan,
>Witch or witch, or reject it and remain under Satans' dominion.

Let's say for a moment that I accept this contention that
only by "accepting" this Truth and getting into the
"spirit" of belief can I recognize the Truth.  A christian
says this about Christianity; a muslim says the same thing
about Islam.  If I abandon "intellectual understanding",
how am I to decide which of many alternatives is the
correct path to Truth?

(another outbreak of scripture, mercifully deleted)
-- 
---  Overheard on soc.religion.christian:
By our sin, you and I and Wesley Allen Dodd are guilty of killing
the Son of God, Jesus Christ; THAT IS worse than killing and raping children.
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: 1/11/93   God's Promise in Psalm 37:25
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:05:32 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <C0o59y.A26@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>	I have been young, and now am old;
>	yet I have not seen
>	the righteous forsaken,
>	nor his seed begging bread.
>
>	Psalm 37:25

I have been young, and now am ... uh, middle aged;
and I see the righteous get shafted all the time.

The author of this psalm must have lived a very
sheltered life, or he was not very observant.
-- 
---  Overheard on soc.religion.christian:
By our sin, you and I and Wesley Allen Dodd are guilty of killing
the Son of God, Jesus Christ; THAT IS worse than killing and raping children.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:25:38 GMT


In article <1993Jan9.194333.4024@athena.mit.edu>, starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan8.183413.15280@ra.royalroads.ca>  
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> > 
|> > Create only those who would choose Him?  That's what the angels are,
|> > more or less, servants created to do His will unquestioningly.
|> > The angels were given one chance to choose and a third of them
|> > followed Satan.
|> 	So Satan had free will?  Hmm, if this IS the case, then that means  
|> the most powerful creature with free will ever created chose to reject  
|> God.  Interesting model.  If not, well, then God created Satan to be evil.   
|> Either way, God allows Satan to exist.  Why, pray tell, does this need to  
|> happen if we _really_ have free will, and don't just fall under Satan's  
|> spell?  (Or something like that...)
|> 
I'm afraid that many of us have fallen under Satan's spell.  I speak as one who
used to be swayed by Satan's lies.  We don't recognize the subtle ways that Satan
influences us because it has become so ingrained into our society's way of
thinking.  Society says that we should be independant and viruently rebuff any
attempts by anyone to revoke our personal rights, whatever they may be.  Satan
preaches rebellion against God and He has learned that subtlety is one of the
best ways to do it.  God is love.  Satan is hate.  And Satan hates you because he
knows that you and everyone else has the potential of inheriting the kingdom of
God, something that he will never have again.

Thank you for your response.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 21:25:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.172957.18493@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.161852.8450@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>>>I THINK CHRISTIANITY IS BAD FOR A PERSON'S MENTAL HEALTH.
>>
>>It seems reasonable to ask Ms. Hausmann to demonstrate that
>>Christianity is bad for a person's mental health.  (She says more in
>>her post, but the demonstration is not complete.  I'd like to respond
>>to the argument in its full form.)
>
>I agree with Mr. Skinner. Sounds like bullshit to me.
>Ms. Mausmann could start by showing that there was a higher rate
>of mental illness among Christians.

Does anybody around here actually bother to read and think
about some of the more interesting articles posted here?
Like, for example, Stephen Doe's _THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER_
series, from which this thread's title originated?  I mean, is it
really necessary to go back to square one with every damn article?
I suppose that since this is Usenet, the answer is probably yes.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: how do you deal with the issue of pain?
Date: 10 Jan 93 08:19:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Song I'm listening to...

   Like it or not
   Life is ours for the living

We're here.  I don't see us (the individuals posting/reading) 
going somewhere else soon. 

It seems in talk.religion.misc that there's a lot of
discussion over how "if there is a God, he's responsible
for all the sick stuff in this world, and I don't like
that". Without debating the fine points of this, I'd like
to point something out...

What *difference* is it going to make if you don't like the fact
that there is pain and suffering happening???  It's going to
*happen* anyway.  With or *without* your permission.
You're just not going to have one person to hang all the blame on.

ANY worldview that sez pain & suffering don't happen is lying.
Most, in my experience, try to either explain it away,  or to
say that it's all for good in the end,  or to say yep, that's
the way it is, grow up & get tough. 

    So you've been broke, and then you've been hurt.
    Show me somebody who ain't.

BTW...if you disagree with how you perceive Christianity deals
with pain & suffering, what worldview do you prefer?


-jen
 
Song lyric refs: 
 Stepping in Your Shoes, from Amy Grant's "Unguarded" (not
    sure of the lyricist).
 Human Touch, title cut, written & performed by Bruce Springsteen.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 1/6/93   God's Promise in Psalm 18:30
Date: 6 Jan 93 02:35:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	As for God, his way is perfect:
	the word of the LORD is tried:
	he is a buckler
	to all those that trust in him.

	Psalm 18:30
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Daily verse BG 1.20
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 02:34:04 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

                                TEXT 20

                       atha vyavasthitan drstva
                       dhartarastran kapi-dhvajah
                        pravrtte sastra-sampate
                         dhanur udyamya pandavah
                         hrsikesam tada vakyam
                           idam aha mahi-pate

  
atha--thereupon; vyavasthitan--situated; drstva--looking upon;
dhartarastran--the sons of Dhrtarastra; kapi-dhvajah--he whose flag was
marked with Hanuman; pravrtte--while about to engage;
sastra-sampate--in releasing his arrows; dhanuh--bow; udyamya--taking
up; pandavah--the son of Pandu (Arjuna); hrsikesam--unto Lord Krsna;
tada--at that time; vakyam--words; idam--these; aha--said; mahi-pate--O
King.

    
                              TRANSLATION

	At that time Arjuna, the son of Pandu, seated in the chariot
bearing the flag marked with Hanuman, took up his bow and prepared to
shoot his arrows. O King, after looking at the sons of Dhrtarastra
drawn in military array, Arjuna then spoke to Lord Krsna these words.

  
                                PURPORT

	The battle was just about to begin. It is understood from the
above statement that the sons of Dhrtarastra were more or less
disheartened by the unexpected arrangement of military force by the
Pandavas, who were guided by the direct instructions of Lord Krsna on
the battlefield. The emblem of Hanuman on the flag of Arjuna is another
sign of victory because Hanuman cooperated with Lord Rama in the battle
between Rama and Ravana, and Lord Rama emerged victorious. Now both
Rama and Hanuman were present on the chariot of Arjuna to help him.
Lord Krsna is Rama Himself, and wherever Lord Rama is, His eternal
servitor Hanuman and His eternal consort Sita, the goddess of fortune,
are present. Therefore, Arjuna had no cause to fear any enemies
whatsoever. And above all, the Lord of the senses, Lord Krsna, was
personally present to give him direction. Thus, all good counsel was
available to Arjuna in the matter of executing the battle. In such
auspicious conditions, arranged by the Lord for His eternal devotee,
lay the signs of assured victory.

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish