HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheffiel@bobcat.lmc.edu (Susie Sheffield )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Flat earth?
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:10:34 GMT
Organization: Lees-McRae College, Banner Elk, NC

In article <1992Oct9.121020.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>Can anyone point to Biblical verses that prove that the earth is flat?  I've
>heard some, but I've found that they make a mockery of God and the Bible.  Case
>in point: In Isaiah we are told that the earth is a flat disk, but other
>references say that the earth has four corners.
>--Ray Cote
In the Bible Isaiah 40:22 states" There is One who is dwelling above the 
circle of the earth," also Job 26:10 "He has described a circle upon the 
face of the waters,"

My reference is to the New World Translation but other references should
be similiar.  I believe the Bible clearly points to the Earth being
round.
**************************************************
Susie Sheffield
Business Administration
Lees-McRae College         sheffiel@bobcat.lmc.edu
**************************************************
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "Mr. Gomes, I've Re-Read My Bible"
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:32:08 GMT
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <adams.719072503@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>One important point:
>
>  Sinful != Criminal.

You tell 'em Steve. Hey guess what? I'm at the Div School.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 10:42:05 GMT

In article <1f3J02pY26aM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>I mean this honestly, not antagonistic, okay?  Can you explain how you
>*know* that it was God?  And the same about the burning in the bosom
>testimony that every Mormon bears on me, how do you *know* that it was the
>Holy Ghost that did this?  I don't question that it happens, I just
>wonder how you guys know?  I mean, even the LDS church believes that God
>is not the only supernatural power in the universe, so it seems to me that
>you are taking a 50-50 chance on it's source.
>
>I know it bothers you to think about this, and I am not trying to pin you
>down and persecute you, but I think this is something that you should
>think about, and if you have an answer, I'd like to know.

You KNOW (!!??) it *bothers* me to think about this? How absolutely arrogant!
I doubt that you know very much about me, what I believe in, or why I believe
in it.

Oh, I get it. You are suppose to be revealing to me what only God and I
would suppose to know, and that fact that you are suppose to know this too
is suppose to show me that you have access to God. Sorry Tony. You're wrong!

My knowledge that God appeared many times to Joseph Smith, and that God was
the source of Joseph Smith's revelations is based on a three part formula:
Spiritual confirmation (many, many times), Mental exertion (of both spiritual
and secular sources), and Practical confirmation.

No, my spiritual confirmation is not the hack-eyed "burning in the bosum" a
phrase that Anti-Mormons have misunderstood and lead time and time again in
yet another example of strawman arguments. No, my spiritual confirmation
included an overwhelming sense of peace and love, with a *knowledge* that my
sins had been forgiven. And when my continual pleadings for direction are
answered, I know that they have come from my Father in Heaven because my mind
and soul are at rest. The 50-50 proposal that *you* suggest that I act on is
purely balony.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
From: IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Any Protestant Religions similar to LDS?
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:07:41 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

I was wondering if there were any Protestant religions that
run their services like an LDS church, i.e., a meeting where the
gospel is preached for an hour, then a bible study/sunday school
afterword.  What I am looking for is:

1.  The Bread and Water/Juice/whatever are blessed and distributed.
2.  No real organized clergy who gives a sermon...just different
    people in the congregation give a talk each week...a very informal
    atmosphere.
3.  Tithing.
4.  Various church activities to get involved with during the week,
    such as Bible studies, community outreach projects, picnics,
    helping the homeless, etc.
5.  Nobody cares if you show up in a t-shirt and jeans.
6.  Everyone is warm friendly and loving.


Info.  greatly appreciated.....thanks!!!   Andie.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Jesus's bloodline mystery and two different Jesus's was (I'm God.)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:02:08 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy,alt.atheism

In article <1992Oct14.175552.13136@digi.lonestar.org>,
gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) wrote:
> >Hello again, should we take this one as a good example where the myth
> >is false, or not? Or are the two different genealogies, just, a myth???

> Consider the possibility that with the incarnation of Christ,
> not only the prophecies of the Jews but also the archetypal
> myths of the rest of humanity were fulfilled.  C. S. Lewis
> noticed this and it led ultimately to his conversion from
> skepticism to Christianity.

I would agree that this supposedly fulfilled the archetypal
myths of Judaism and ultimately the Western Society, but in no
means it fulfilled all the possible cultures' myths that existed
and exists today. For instance, how well did it fulfill the
way aborginies look at the world?

As for CS Lewis, "Liar or God" is the most simplistic logical
proof of concept I've ever encountered. Sort of how 8 year old
children think.

Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:03:41 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct14.214552.25142@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.190632.21593@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>>From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
>>> IMHO, at a distance from which the people in the BoM claim to be
>>> getting to within 6 miles of the center of Jerusalem, I think is
>>> pretty darn good. Couple that with the description of his mother
>>> and the way that she concieved, you'r proably right there were
>>> two of 'em born at the same time.
>>
>>The LDS 'description of his mother and the way she conceived' is
>>not the Bible description.  The LDS historically have taught that
>>the 'virgin birth' was merely God the father, an exalted man with
>>a body of flesh and bones, having sex with Mary.  LDS leaders
>>have stated this repeatedly, their is nothing figurative in their
>>language.  Jesus was the son of the Father in a literal way, begot
>>in the same manner we beget children.
>>
>
>  Mark, Mark, Mark, you gotta keep your critisisms straight
>
>  Either your are arguing that Bethlehem is near Jerusalem in one
>  post or you are arguing that some Mormon's speculation about
>  the method of Christ's conception isn't kosher.
>
>  Keep your arguement is one thread or the other.  Which one are
>  you going for now, or can't you make up your mind.
>
>  This thread is about why Mormons worship another Christ (ie
>  the one born at the same time but in a different place) Sheesh... ;-)
>
>  Refering to the other thread that you haven't yet followed up on,
>  have you yet figured out why it is important that Mary has a special
>  child without the normal assistance. Would you like to explain
>  why you seem to foam at the mouth on the subject of virgin birth implies
>  free from Sin. You haven't yet show _this_ to be a biblical doctrine.

Does this mean that you are in agreement with what the LDS church does
indeed teach regarding the birth?  Sounds like it!  If that is the case,
then we can move on.

>  Your more than welcome to explain this heresy without using any
>  Augistinian or Post-Augistine Literature.
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
>Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
>   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:42:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>>
>In Mormon theology, salvation is not the same as exaltation.
>Exaltation, obviously, will require an understanding of God.
>But since exaltation is a process, not an event, such understanding
>does not have to come at once, or even in this life.
>I hope this clears it up for you.

	Does this mean that I will go Celestial if I do not go to the 
Temple with my marriage?




=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Usenet Forum
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:39:12 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <Bw2E87.y0@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes...

>In article <1992Oct13.054255.21734@macc.wisc.edu>, bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes...
>>Ok, it's time for a show of hands.  How many of you who voted against
>>putting the LDS discussion into a unique USENET forum now regret it?
> 
>have a different forum here. The LDS forum was to have been moderated. 
>I think that it is safe to say that many of the posts that have been 
>seen here would never have been approved. And so, in all likelihood, 
>this newsgroup would not have changed.

I know and I agree.  I was merely having a little fun at the expense
of all the t.r.m. readers who must hope every day that the current 
Mormon-this & Mormon-that threads would die.

With about 1 out of every 60 Americans now listed on the roles of the LDS 
Church, I can understand the great degree of interest on both sides of
the issue.

Just think, when George Gallup & crew call up 1000 adults to get their
opinions on the debate tonight, they will most likely contact 16-17
Mormons.  This should help Quayle's ratings a bit.

:-)

Dana
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Sorry, will be gone
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:57:39 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

I will attend/work at OOPSLA and spend some time in Vancouver, so apologies
if I'm suddenly stopping any conversation in any of the current
threads I'm involved in. It's fun talking about Paul chased by
the Jews, whether Idaho potatoes are real or not, if negational
logic implies that searching for God provides free food and shelter,
and much more. But sometimes you have to work for food and shelter
as well!

Depending on my work load I might start reading all the stuff by
the end of this month.

And most of all, have fun!
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Was Jesus God or man? was (Is it Christian values or chavinism?)
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:40:02 GMT
	<1992Oct13.042917.3382@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: rap is not pop if you call it that then stop

In article <1992Oct13.042917.3382@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <Ds1JsB5w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> 
darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>>>... Apparently the only answer is that Jesus was sometimes a 
>>>man, when that was convenient and sometimes a God when that was 
>>>convenient and sometimes a Son of God when that was convenient. 
>>>Few Christians care to discuss this problem because there is no 
>>>valid solution. 
>>Apparently, light is sometimes a particle when that is convenient 
>>and sometimes it is a wave when that is convenient. 
>>Is there "no valid solution" and light therefore does not exist? 
>Light has some of the properties of a wave and some of the properties of a
>particle.  If you were to say "Jesus is something like a God and something
>like a man, but not completely either one", there'd be a lot fewer complaints.
>If I were to say "light is fully a particle and fully a wave", I would be
>speaking nonsense.

Exactly! Sometimes light has the properties of a particle and sometimes
it has the properties of a wave, but light is neither particle nor wave, it
is of course light and we are only modeling it when we say it has the
properties of particles and waves. So now the big question. Can the same be
said of Jesus? Is Jesus neither man nor God, only Jesus, I am that I am?
Again few Christians care to discuss these types of issues because they
like the illusion that Christianity answers all the questions. In fact it
presents many more than it answers, but your average Christian can't be
bothered with that sort of truth. Of what value is the truth if you count
on getting in on someone else's coat-tails? Lie and go to Heaven in Jesus
name, what a concept. Does explain most of Christian history though. The
strength of ignorance in the disguise of seeking the truth. Truth is not
found when one relies on the strength of ignorance.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Idaho
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:06:52 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>I already handled the objection about flight schedules prepared by believers.
>In one sense, this evidence "comes from believers".  But it doesn't "come from
>believers" in the same way that biblical "evidence" does, since you don't have
>to be a believer to examine it.

I'm unclear as to the difference here.  In what way do you have to be
a believer to examine what the Bible says about Jesus?
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen)
Subject: Re: Two kinds of judging
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 08:18:24 GMT

In article <29205@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>It seems to me that the Bible talks about two kinds of judging.
>
>There's one kind, where the purpose is to be judge, jury and executioner
>(particularly executioner). In this kind of judging the motive in the
>judge is to put someone else down as opposed to helping them.
>
>The other kind of judging is that of making an appraisal. If the appraisal
>finds someone or something in a negative position, the motive in the judge
>is to help and restore. I forget the reference and which translation but it
>goes something like, "The spiritual man judges all things." Other translations
>use appraise instead of the word judge. 
>
<...skip...>
>
>The issue in judging is a matter of heart. When you find the desire to 
>harm or put down in your judgement, scripure teaches that that is a sign
>to look within. Judge not, for in that you judge, you judge yourself for
>you do the very same thing.

With regard to judging see the following verses and their context.
Paul has some good things to say.
   1 Cor 5:3-4,12-13;6:1-8

Summary: Christians are not supposed to judge those outside the way,
       except on the fact that since they are not inside they won't
       get eternal life.  

          But, Paul was rebuking them FOR NOT JUDGING ENOUGH inside the
       church.

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Wayne VanWeerthuizen    205 Scott Hall     Pullman, WA  99163
           wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu      (509) 335-1835 (voice)   
 ---------- Only YHVH is God.  Jesus is the Messiah, Son of YHVH. ----------
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:57:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Richard Pitts has on several occasions refused to answer the question of
whether he would support the OCA initiative presently being put before the
voters in Oregon.  He has based his non-answer on ignorance. 

	"The govt cannot facilitate and must discourage homosexual and other
	behavior.  All of government may not use their moneys or property
	to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism
	or masochism.

	All of government, including the education system must assist in 
	setting a standard for youth which recognizes that these behaviors 
	are 'abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse,' and are to be 
	discouraged and avoided.  The State may not recognize the conduct 
	under 'sexual orientation' or 'preference' labels, or through 
	quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or similar concepts. 

Wishing to know the answer to that question, I called the OCA and got them to
read a transcript to me of the changes they wish to make to the state
constitution.  Now as this was dictated over a phone it may not be an exact
quote of their position, but it is as close as I could make it, and I do not
know of any errors.  The voters pamphlet will be out soon though, and I will 
make a public correction to any mistakes.  

Now Richard, since you can now see what the OCA is proposing, could you please
answer the statement of whether you support the above stated position? After
all, Richard it would empower you to fire a person, or avoid hiring them
solely on the basis of sexual orientation.  So, to put the question more
clearly Richard, if you were a voter in Oregon, would you vote for this
initiative?
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Nothing dies so hard, or rallies so often, as intolerance.
				Henry Ward Beecher
				American Clergyman
				as recorded by George Seldes
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bring On the Cases....
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:32:32 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-151092185131@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|In article <71237@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|Pitts) wrote:
|> In article <1992Oct14.141304.18904@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> |ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> |] > rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> |] > >Depends on the situation - I can see why one would not want a homosexual
|> |] > >representing one's company.
|> |
|> |Please Do feel Free to Clarify this point at any time Richard.
|> 
|> I don't think a homosexual should be representing a group that 
|> sees homosexuality as wrong (e.g., boy scouts) - a group that 
|> teaches ethics to youth.
|
|For your information, I don't want to boast about our company,
|but we have extremely high requirements concerning ethics in business.

ETHICS IN BUSINESS != MORAL ETHICS

|I read the requirements concerning ethics, and we have really few
|internal rules (because we thrive on flexibility), but most of 
|the internal laws are defined based on ethical business rules.

I most likely would agree with these business ethics.

|In addition we have had for a long time the rule not to discriminate
|homosexuals as part of these high business ethics. In order words

Are the ethics in place to avoid a financial loss, becuase you 
deal a lot with homosexuals?

|your statement is not true, one could teach and strive for
|high ethical rules. Even worse, discrimination of other people 

I assume you mean one could teach and strive for high ethical rules
and not discriminate against homosexuals, correct?  

Some peoples ethics affect a little more (might I say a lot more)
of their life than their pocketbook - these principles are not
just financial, but moral, including actions and intents.

|are against any ethical rules, unless the rules are originating
|from ancient nomadic tribe rules. 

Oh - I see the ethics of the Bible have now been superceded by some
new found understanding of life.  What is that??????

Jesus told us to love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind and
to love our neighbor as ourself.  He told us that not only is it
not right to commit adultery and murder, but it reaches deeper than
that - it is not right to lust for another or hate our brother.

Ethics goes farther than actions and the pocketbook.  A holy God
has set before us the ethics of conduct and of the heart that are
to set apart his people from the world.  Jesus told us that we would
be in the world, but we should not be of the world.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:4666 alt.alien.visitors:7341 alt.religion.kibology:4171
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:33:48 EDT
From: Joe Carlson <JKC3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Bigfootf spaceman?
Distribution: world
 <67455@cup.portal.com> <67475@cup.portal.com>

In article <67475@cup.portal.com>, John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com says:

>Dear Little Foot People: It's saturday morning. Hold on tight because
>we're just getting started in this subject.
>John Winston.

SO tell me....does your computer have padding like your cell??

Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage