HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:15:30 GMT
Summary: LDS scriptures(all of them)contain error?

In article <1992Oct14.105234.59695@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.132825.10889@macc.wisc.edu>,
>  bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
> > press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes...
> > 
> >>Ok, I'll keep that handy. When another comes along saying their(lds)
> >>scriptures are inerrant, I'll point out that Jason says No.
> > 
> > Tell them Joseph Smith said no too while you're at it.  Perhaps
> > this will carry a bit more weight than Jason's name (sorry,
> > Jason).  
> 
> On the contrary, thank you Dana, for the corroborating support.
> 
I'm still not clear on this('cause I haven't gotten a clear answer).
All LDS scripture contains errors(I hope I don't mean typos).
Doctrinal errors? What kind of errors?

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Obviously an appeal for Drug Control...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:22:51 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
] In article <1992Oct14.143344.19043@wetware.com> 
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >Modern Day Problems:
] >In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
] >Chimo
] >Bob.
] 
] Yo, I get the BoB part, but what's a Chimo? Is that street lingo for chimera
] or Qui-mo as in Qui-mo sabe? How's 'bout a little 411 for a change, know
] what I'm sayin'?


Children,

This is what happens to people who have been 
suffering from Years of Hard Drug Abuse....

Don't Let Your Brain Turn out to be just
another Side order of HashBrowns and Bacon
next to Eggs Sunny Side up....

ciao
drieux

ps: the Clue is a Small Island off the Coast of the PRC,
name the combatants, the Year, and Why it is Significant
for a Special Bonus Prize....

pps: and why didn't he crosspost it to alt.hip.hop.hip.hop.bunny.rabbit?



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: "Evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:07:42 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 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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: Idaho (criticism that "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:40:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.141527.29049@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
|> In response to my partenthetical comment,
|> 
|> > (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 [that the
|> > "evidence" for "Jesus" comes only from believers] is pathetic.)
|> 
|> Charles Board wrote,
|> 
|> >There is one CRUCIAL difference. A disbeliever in "Idaho exists" can
|> >independently verify that the statement is true (by going there) - he
|> >does not HAVE to rely on the testimony of the believers.
|> 
|> This is a different criticism, one of the "valid criticisms" I already
|> mentioned, and one which I am not addressing.
|> 
|> My only point has been that the fallacy of the criticism that
|> "evidence" for "Jesus" comes to light when the parallel criticism is
|> applied to "evidence" for "Idaho."  The response above does not
|> counter that point (perhaps it was not intended to do so).
|> --
|> Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
|> 


No..YOU missed my point. Where evidence comes from is IN ITSELF not important.
but it must be taken into account when evaluating it's CREDIBILITY and the 
weight to give it.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Idaho
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:44:23 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct13.210701.1982@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> >Concerning Columbus, we have objective evidence showing that
> >he actually landed in America.
> 
> I simply note that all the "objective" testimonial evidence described
> (Caribs, historians in Europe) comes straight from people who believed
> that Columbus made the voyage and is therefore subject to the same
> criticism.

Well, we have even archeological evidence showing the Spaniard presence
on the island, as well as material Columbus picked from the new world
back to Spain. Thus an objective person, let say an alien being, would
logically make a conclusion that Columbus really did the trip.

> >Which is a separate issue because as all sane people do know we have
> >plenty of objective evidence that the Holocaust actually happened,
> >including *eye witnesses* and official Nazi documents.
> 
> Again, all of this is from sources that believe the holocaust
> occurred. 

Sigh, it's more than belief and faith, we have even eye witnesses
to the Holocaust....

> >Ok, Greg, let's compare these issues. I could buy a ticket today and
> >fly over to Idaho to verify that the place exists. Give me the 
> >same simple 'ticket' so I could verify that Christianity is real.
> 
> Well, Ken, Christianity is not without its concrete claims.  One that
> comes immediately to my mind is Jesus' promise that those who seek
> first the Kingdom of God and its righteousness will find their needs
> for food and clothing satisfied.

So buy me the ticket to Christianity so I could verify it's real. 
The burden of evidence is on your side, I could buy you a ticket
to Idaho if you do the same favour concerning Christianity. Is this
a deal?

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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: LDS are not EV Christians
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:51:30 GMT

    This is getting longish so I'll delete stuff not relevent to my
    Responses OK?

In article <1992Oct9.075445.13122@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.161635.14116@infonode.ingr.com>, tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct6.114200.13090@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> If you reject the virgin birth, you are rejecting a SINLESS saviour. To reject
>>>Jesus as sinless, you are rejecting His ability to be a perfect sacrifice
>>>without blemish.
>>> 
>> 
>> As I understand this common fallicy, all who are born via the mechnism of
>> sex are born guilty and thus seperated from God at Birth. This fallicy
>> requires that Jesus to be born with out Sin so that He could be a Perfect
>> Sacrifice?. 



> 
>  It is only a falicy if you are a non-Christian. Of course, the Catholic idea
>of immaculate conception is un-Biblical 
>and not really relevant to the virgin birth of Christ. Any
>orthodox Christian teaching says that Jesus needed to be born of a virgin to
>remain sinless (i.e. free from original sin). You may argue all you like about
>the validity of this, but the whole point of this (original) post is to show
>that Mormons are not Christian and do not follow the basic tenets of
>Christianity. This is just another example 
>

  Original Sin is a Post Biblical and Post Apostolic Heresy. LDS do not belive
  in Original Sin. They and others belive that Christ and all others born are
  free from Original Sin. The results of Adam's being Cast Out is that we
  die.  Christ provides the way that we can live again through the resurection.

  Do you as an Evangelical "Christian" believe in the Orthodox Christian
  doctrine of the Resurrection? Do you belive that Christ died so that all
  can and will be resurrected?  

  If you do not believe in the basic tenents of Christianity, perhaps
  we should be discussing why EV's have abandanded Christianity for
  another God.

>
>> 
>> Mormons have a simpler solution to the overall problem: Children are
>> born without sin. Children who die with out baptism before they are
>> accountable are believe to return to the presence of God.
>> 
> 
>  Christians too, believe that children are not accountable until "a certain
>age" - whatever that may be, we don't however, say they are born sinless! And
>we don't believe that you need baptism to be saved as it is just as much a
>"work" as any other act. Baptism is of course very important and every believer
>should be baptised.

	You don't belive that baptism is a requirment. why is this?

>
>
>> -- 
>>          Kermit Tensmeyer                        

>lbarrass@phillip.edu.au


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:29:55 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <BvqBt1.956@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes...
>In article <1992Oct6.190910.6964@unislc.uucp>, mls@unislc.uucp (Michael Simons) writes...
>[...]
> 
>>I think you'll find that if you use the Fundamentalist Muckraker definition
>>of Christianity that pretty much everyone but them are excluded.  Mr. Rose
>>should tell us if he includes Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic,
>>Church of England, Presbyterian, Unitarian, etc, in his definition of
>>Christianity.
> 
>	This is called equivocation.
>	Address the issue please.............
>	and let the unitarians rest in peace.

It has some merit in this discussion.  I believe that nearly all readers
of this thread are ready to conclude that Mormons are not Evangelical 
Christians.  The ECs readily state this and I believe the Mormons would
accept it without question.  What Mike is pointing out is that the majority
of people in the world today who believe themselves to be Christians are 
also excluded by the EC definitions.  So the Mormon posters here really 
have little to take issue with in this thread.  It boils down to LDS <> EC .

Since Mormons do not want to be ECs, then there is no reason for them to
take offense at this.  LDS sensitivities are aroused when multiple 
Christian groups begin denying them the title, however the LDS need to realize
these groups deny each other the title too.  The LDS should learn to shrug
these charges off and realize they are far from alone in the dreary world of
being non-EC Christians.

Dana Bunner
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Those Darn Burning Bosoms
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct14.072005.1824@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes...
> 
> 
>Based on some offline discussions, Kermit has decided I am a JW, and
>nothing is going to change his mind.  I get the impression he has
>asked God for a sign and received a burning bosom -- so he just knows
>its true. <sigh>
> 
>So, as Kermit continues to refer to me as a JW, I would like
>everyone to know that I am not, nor have I ever been, a JW.
> 

	Mark,

		Kermit's testimony was that you `claimed to be a full 
fledged JW.' I have never seen this claim from you. Is Kermit bearing 
false testimony?

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:23:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

> 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.

Our company actually has a rule that it is illegal to discriminate
based on sexual preferences. Actually this rule is now law in California.
It's another great step towards equality amongst humans. I don't see
*any* cases where homosexuals should not represent a company, with the
exception of prejudice (which is not allowed anyway by the new laws,
haha!).

Cheers,
Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Historical/traditional answer to geneology of Christ
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:40:44 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.

Publius writes:

>(Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>>
>>According to this account, which can be found in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical
>>History ...

>As a matter of methodology, I don't think it is proper for us
>evangelicals to try to resolve the alleged Biblical inconsistencies
>based on the sources outside the Bible itself.  For this particular
>example - the alleged inconsistency between Jesus' geneology in Matthew
>and that in Luke, if we really dig into the Scripture, we would find
>that not only there is no inconsistency here, but also that this
>difference between the record in Matthew and that in Luke unfolds to
>us the brilliant beauty of the Scripture as it testifies concerning
>our Lord.

[Interpretive exposition deleted]

This is a valid approach, to stick to the Bible itself. But is your own
exposition not also extra-biblical?  You offer explanatory material to show
that the gospel accounts are not contrived or inconsistent, e.g. about the
son-in-law sometimes referring to the son.  This is exactly the kind of thing
Eusebius was doing. I think all three of us (or four - Paul Hudson may speak 
for himself) agree that the gospels are neither in error or (worse) convenient 
fabrications. 

Our extra-biblical words are an attempt to reconcile apparent inconsistencies
with the rest of our (or someone else's) thinking and experience.  Otherwise we
would not need to say or write anything, just read the text and nothing more.

One extra-biblical statement you make (see also my previous post) is to identify
"the" purpose of the gospel of Matthew.  Matthew nowhere states that that
is his purpose. The purpose of validating Jesus's claim as the true heir
to the throne of David certainly makes sense, but that is still your addition.
I suggest that his purpose, or rather God's purpose in inspring and commis-
sioning him to write his part of the Gospel, was that and much much more.
The revelation of the purpose of scripture is an ongoing process that takes
a lifetime - and more - and only stops if you stop reading the Bible or 
keep reading it and assume that you already know all of its purpose.

By the way, your observation about the curse on Jechoniah is interesting
and worth exploring.  I'm not quite sure about the distinction between
the "legal heir" and "blood descendant", but there is an interesting 
resolution in terms of the approach I've been expounding about the two
children. Thanks for pointing it out.

Not just evangelicals, but others, even skeptics, would do well to always
return to the scripture as written, again and again.  Whether or not you 
subscribe to inerrancy, it is just so bedrock reliable that it is worth
while and immeasurably valuable to do so.

All the best,
Gerry Palo
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not EV Christians
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:05:34 GMT

    << Stuff deleted for readability >>
In article <1992Oct15.041629.16978@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:

>I dont think I have a problem with the above, although God gave us his
>name as YHWH.  Whether you want to call it a title or a name is little
>importance to me, as long as we remember that the LDS doctrine is that
>these 2 name-titles are not interchangeble.  In the LDS, Jesus is
>Jehovah, who was birthed in the supposed pre-existance by an exalted
>man known as 'Elohim'.

  Since when did the scholary discussion of scriptural term become a commonly
  held doctrine of the LDS church.  I can well believe that individuals 
  may have wished that that it _become_ doctrine. But it isn't yet doctrine.

  Mormons and LDS have a lot of restance to being told what to belive.

  Take for example, in the last conference there were three references to
  a talk given 12 years ago that suggestted that Member stop living
  on "borrowed light" and start living on their own (eigen) testimony.


>
>>   Just as side note:  McConkie and other LDS "leaders" don't or haven't
>>   written _any_ books that establish LDS doctrine, What (IMHO) their
>>   intention is to persuade Lds and Non_Lds of various points.
>>   Sometimes it is just as instructive to watch the discussion after
>>   a given book is published and so who really objects..
>
>It was a 'Doctrinal Exposition' by the First Presidency, of which
>McConkie defined it quite well.  Did you read the qoute from
>Benson praising McConkie for his doctrinal understanding?
>
  Yes I read numrous notes where Bensen praised McConkies (Bruce and
  Joesph F) for doctrinal scholarship and other notes where they didn
  agree on doctrine. LDS in general are not locked in step on doctine
  belief or practise.

  Some of their leaders wish that they were locked in step. Some wish
  that every LDS would recieve inspiration directly from the Lord. 

  But hey, the church is here to help individuals at every level, in
  the individuals need to return to God.



-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18419 alt.politics.homosexuality:6460 alt.sex:33077 soc.singles:27875
From: thatcha@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Alexander Thatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Campaign for a Hate Free Oregon
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:48:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: CS.1992Oct15.194825.206
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept

In article <jhansen.719165826@convex.convex.com> jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen) writes:
>Alexander Thatcher writes:
>
>>Whoa, that article was not only big but was chock full of information
>>Yet, it was also inflated, overbearing, and in parts wildly exagerated.
>
>I'm not so sure about that.
>
>[Prop 9 deleted]
>
>>That's all folks.
>
>If you think the religious right is going to be satisfied by simply
>passing this amendment and is going to rest on its laurels, you're
>sadly mistaken.  I don't doubt it for a second that the Oregon economy
>will suffer if this ammendment is passed.
>
>--
>James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen

Actually, I agree with you.  it probably will hurt the economy in Oregon.
My point was, however, that there is enough fiction being prese3nted
as fact on both sides, and that as of YET there haven't really been
any fascist attacks using the newly gained power of the Oregon Citizens
Alliance.  In fact, I'm from Springfield where a similar measure is
already in effect, and the library was never "stormed" as the original
post for this subject states, but in fact was donated a gay-oriented
childrens book. Other than that there have been a lot of gay-rights
marches and nothing else.

I don't support measure 9, but I refuse to take part in false propoganda
and scare tactics to see it defeated.  That tends to be the OCA's method
of getting things done.


Alex
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP ME!  I need your advice!  Help me keep this love alive!
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:36:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <TOWFIQ.92Oct12190541@justice.UUCP>, towfiq@justice.UUCP (Mark
Towfiq) wrote:
> cm> Perhaps you could consider a Baha'i approach.  Baha'is frequently
> cm> run into similar dilemas, as the Baha'i teachings specifically
> cm> encourage the fostering of world unity through interracial
> cm> marriage.
> 
> ks> I would recommend common sense and private thinking.  They are
> ks> free, and don't mess up with your life.  Best of all, they don't
> ks> cost anything!
> 
>   How is this a beneficial recommendation?  If this were all that were
> required, Mr. Webb would not have made such an emphatic plea to the
> net!  Obviously he has done quite a bit of "common sense and private
> thinking", and still needs a solution.

Well, it does not cost anything! And you are not bound to any
obligations to any religion. Anyway, personal relationship problems
are best solved when the two parts talk with each other. You don't
need to mix in any religious elements exactly, it could actually
just backfire.

> ks> Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to
> ks> investigate.--F.M. Knowles
> 
>   I find it strange that you seem to be discouraging Mr. Webb from
> perform the very investigation Mr. Knowles was speaking about.

He's free to do whatever he thinks is right, that's the main point.
No religion should start messing around with his own personal life
and problems. If he wants to use Bahai ideas to solve a personal
problem - that's fine. I don't mind whatever he uses. I just wanted
to point out that why do people always have a need to push for a 
push-button solution with personal problems, when common sense,
talking with the other part, and doing a little bit thinking usually
helps quite a lot. Speaking from my own experience...

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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc