HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Mormonism is not Christian should be the title, not Mormons.
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:54:54 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

The problem with this original discussion was the fact that someone asked
if Mormons were Christians.  This is an unanswerable question, since
whether someone is a Christian or not is dependant on that individual.

Therefore, we cannot ask if a whole body of members of an organization are
Christians or not.  Because there could be some Christians and some that
are not Christians in all organizations (Baptist, Methodist, LDS, etc..)
But what we can do is ask about that organization's theology, and judge if
the theology is Christian theology or not.  This should have been the
orginal question that was asked.  It would have saved a lot of wasted
arguments.  The answer to this question can be described below:

***********************************************************************
*                       MORMONISM NOT CHRISTIAN                       *
*                                                                     *
* It is possible to prove that the LDS church is not Christian by     *
* using some of it's own basic assumptions.  Let me put it this way,  *
* simply stating these assumptions as Mormons believe them:           *
*        1. Christian churches are apostate.                          *
*        2. But the LDS church is Christian.                          *
*        3. Therefore the LDS church is apostate.                     *
*                                                                     *
* But that conclusion is not acceptable to Mormons, so let's try      *
* again:                                                              *
*        1. Christian churches are apostate.                          *
*        2. But the LDS church is not apostate.                       *
*        3. Therefore the LDS church is not Chrisitan.                *
*                                                                     *
* But Mormons don't accept this conclusion either. What is the        *
* problem? Very simply, it is found in Mormonism's basic assumptions. *
* Mormonism assumes that the LDS church is Christian, while at the    *
* same time assuming that Christianity is apostate. The only way out  *
* of this dilemma is for Mormonism to either discard the untenable    *
* theory of a total apostacy, or cease to claim to be Christian.      *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Idaho (criticism that "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers)
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 21:07:48 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>If we use this kind of mental argumentation, we might even wonder if
>United States exist, because we rely on the testimony of Americans
>and people that have either visited the place, or live here. In other
>words this becomes just an absurd reasoning model.

I see that you have grasped my point.

--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:50:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.162029.26042@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>_This_ reasoning suggests a Christian who is not homosexual may judge a
>homosexual wrong and send him/her to jail....

Yes, that is true.  If anyone--Christian or non-Christian--can get a law passed
making something illegal, that's their right.  My problem was with Mr.
Albrecht's comment that any Christian who opposed the OCA initiative needed
to look at Biblical Law honestly, implying that anyone who did would realize
that we must support the initiative.  But, to look honestly at the Law is
to realize that we all break it and therefore cannot impose its judgements
and condemnations in our civil law.  If a Christian out there truly supports the
OCA initiative, that's his/her decision.  But you need to be careful how you
support your position remembering the balance that Jesus showed with the
adulterous woman.  I don't personally see how anyone could support the 
initiative but that's just my opinion.  "Let all that you do be done in 
love." [1 Cor 16:14 (NASB)]

My example of capital punishment dealt with this.  No one is qualified to 
carry out the Biblical call for such punishment for murder.  That has nothing
to do with carrying out civil law punishment such as imprisonment for 
murder.  Civil law and Biblical law are and should be different.

I've never claimed to be the most articulate person on the net but I hope this
makes some sense.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: non-witness witnesses
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:22:50 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct9.175301.21659@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James
Meritt) wrote:
> Example:  That a multitude saw Jesus after the resurrection is suppose to be
> proof of the resurrection, yet none of them seemed to think that it was
> important enough to write home about.  Non-witness witnesses.

Yes, maybe the witnesses witnessed something they didn't dare to officially
state later. I've seen this happening many times, people see their lost
relatives (spiritual sessions, ghosts, signs in nature...).

Wishful thinking is a very powerful force. That's why people still see
Elvis.

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: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:01:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <ksand-081092122142@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>According to the theist doctrines we are created in the image of God.
>Think about this...

  Please, when conversing with Christians, do not lump all theist into 
the same pot as Christians. Think about this...



	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:01:27 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct13.140737.6815@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <b0k002Ot25jB01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>eric states
>>>>No, that is FAR from what I am saying.  But Mormons LOVE to twist what I
>>>>am saying to make it sound like what you are saying I am saying.
>>>I'm not a mormon, sir.
>>>I am merely trying to get you to clarify your words. So, how is what
>>>you said different from what I said. Or, if you prefer, how is the
>>>statement that "Anyone who does not believe in the right Christology
>>>is damned." incorrect. One must presume that you believe in the right
>>>Christology.
>>I am not being evasive eric, but I have explained this the best I know
>>how, and when it is repeated by you, it is not the same as I said.
>It is PRECISELY the same as what you said, as far as I can tell.
>
>I repeat my question:
>What is wrong with the statement:

>"Anyone who does not believe in the right Christology is damned."

Anyone who does not follow the right Jesus Christ is damned.
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:48:56 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <1992Oct9.112534.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> In article <ksand-270992130726@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> > Let me give you a simple logical hole, Jesus was born by a *virgin*,
|> > yet it was important to list out his ancestory line from his *father*
|> > (twice, and they are even different :-) ).
|> > 
|> > Is this a logical problem, or slight misunderstanding?
|> > 
|> > Cheers,
|> > Kent
|> 
|> There is a slight misunderstanding.  Mary's lineage was given to show that Jesus
|> was biologically a descendant of David.  Joseph's lineage was given to show
|> that Joseph (Jesus' legal father) was a descendant of David.  Are these two
|> lineages the one's that are suppossedly different?  The reason is, that they are
|> different, i.e. Mary and Joseph were not sister and brother. This is typical of
|> the Biblical contradictions that are always spewed out.  In the final analysis
|> we find that no contradictions exist.
|> --Ray Cote

No, the contradiction is there (Matthew: "Jacob the father of Joseph"; Luke: "Joseph,the son
of Heli"). Plain English and (I'm told) plain Greek. 

Very typical of Biblical contradictions. In the final analysis the believer will rationalize,
invent,fantasize and lie to avoid the word of the Bible.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Usenet Forum
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:00:50 GMT
	<13OCT199201033305@acad3.alaska.edu>
Organization: Jah! Ras TafarI!

In article <13OCT199201033305@acad3.alaska.edu> 
ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) 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?
>I would like a newsgroup specifically for Mormon related discussion.  I would
>like even better a place where Mormons could meet on Usenet and meet with each
>other rather than spend most of their time defending themselves from vicious
>attacks.  Some of these Mormon bashers are reminiscent of the hate mongers that
>stirred up the mob that shot the Prophet.  It's a good thing they are scattered 
>around the country on computer terminals.  If they ever got into the same room,
>things could get ugly.
>I vote yea.

Looks like two groups are needed; t.r.mormon.love t.r.mormon.hate or maybe
there should be a newsgroup called t.r.christian.cat.fights or t.r.c.NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: All you need is SLACK! was Stop thinking? was Why I am an atheist
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<92284.022710U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:03:37 GMT

In article <92284.022710U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> 
David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>  See, the point is to come up with your own interesting jargon and
>rhetoric.  NOT to copy stuff word-for-word from the book.  Remember
>reading something about every member being different?  Well, if we all
>recite passages from the book non-stop we'd just be a bunch of pathetic
>losers instead of the future world rulers we are.  You need to do
>lots more 'frop.
>Reverand Cockroach

Hey, most of my posts have my own interesting jargon and rhetoric, just ask
Kent and Eric. ::::B^} But every now and then I find I have to resort to
quoting scripture, I don't see what's wrong with that. I'm not trying to
convert anyone, I'm only providing some small pieces of the TRUTH for
THEIR interest, perhaps THEY may even buy the BOOK and learn the
complete TRUTH and gain SLACK by themselves. Sure interesting jargon and
rhetoric is good, but some TRUTH is also useful on occasion, don't you
think? Surely the TRUTH of the BOOK is too valuable to be kept as a
secret amongst US. Besides, it was my understanding that we are in
fact a bunch of pathetic losers and future world rulers at the same
time. Don't you get it? That's even better than a twelve-step program I
used to be a member of: Diuretics Anon. OK, so I know this wasn't one of
my better posts, but that's OK. Why is it that I have this sudden
impulse to do sushi and not pay?
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:26:40 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct6.190910.6964@unislc.uucp> mls@unislc.uucp (Michael Simons) writes:
>From article <1992Oct6.020716.26998@cs.yale.edu>, by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
>> In article <cfhR02OR24a101@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>>If you get on the wrong plane you will arrive in the wrong city!  If you
>>>sincerely believe in the wrong Christ, you will end up in the wrong
>>>eternity.
>> How far does this go, Mr. Rose?
>> Your statement implies that anyone who deviates in the slightest from
>> correct doctrine(or at least correct Christology) is damned. Is this
>> correct?
>> -Ekr
>> 
>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.
>
>Mike Simons
>Unisys -- Salt Lake

We are not discussing these religions Mike, we can if you want to later,
we are curently discussing the Mormons.  Pleas quit smokescreening
because you don't want to fac the issues.

-t
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:06:58 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> In article <522N02oj26zi01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Ant
> >In article <Bw4tDz.2uu@mail.boi.hp.com> jhays@boi.hp.com (John_D. Hays) write
> >
> >You never read Doctrine of Salvation Vol.1 Pg. 18-19 have you?  You
> >ought to, you might find out how silly you sound saying this.  These are
> >the words of the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith.  Are you saying that he
> >was wrong?  Is what you think on this subject better than his?  Maybe
> >you ought to be Prophet then.
>
>  LDS doctrine : Jesus conceived by the Holy Spirit.

        I had to pick myself up off the floor when I saw this
major falsehood.  Let's just examine a few qoutes from Mormon
leaders to see if Kermit is being comletely honest.  I even asked
a Mormon friend about this, and he agreed that the following
represents typical Mormon teachings:

   'When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had
   begotten him in his likeness.  HE WAS NOT BEGOTTEN BY THE HOLY
   GHOST.' (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.50)

   'THE FATHER CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN,...and begat the Saviour'.
   (ibid, vol.1, p.238)

   '...the Holy Ghost gave her strength to abide the presence of the
   Father without being consumed; but it was the personage of the
   Father who begat the body of Jesus' (Orson Pratt, the Seer, p.158)

   'The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of
   our children; it was the result of natural action.  He patook
   of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were
   begotten of our fathers.' (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses,
   8:115)

   'Christ was begotten of God.  He was not born without the aid
   of Man, and that Man was God!' (Joseph Fielding Smith,
   Doctrines of Salvation, 1:18)

   '....the mission of the Holy Ghost...not to beget the Son of
   God, that was the business of the Father.'
   (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:128)

   'the Holy Ghost is not the Father of Jesus Christ.'
   (ibid, 5:126)


Mark
<standard disclaimer>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Idaho
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:19:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.214218.5920@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>>  In what way do you have to be
>>>a believer to examine what the Bible says about Jesus?
>>If "what the Bible says about Jesus" means that he rose from the dead, etc.,
>>you need to be a believer to believe that that actually means he rose from the
>>dead.  Otherwise it's a line in a book.
>I see.  If one is not a believer then one cannot examine the testimony
>in the Bible.  It's just lines in a book.  Or, if I may apply this to
>another historical figure, to one who has not learned that "Columbus
>sailed the ocean blue...", any writing about his "voyage" is just
>lines in a book.

You don't have to be a believer to examine words in the Bible...  but you do
have to be a believer to take the words as "evidence" in the sense that Bible-
believers mean when they call the Bible "evidence".  Obviously, for
nonbelievers it's _some_ kind of evidence, but it's hardly the kind of
evidence the believers make it out to be.
--
"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: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:49:54 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

Tom Albrecht really believes that the posters that he mentions
constitute death threats against Christians.

Hey Tom, what colour is the sky in *your* reality?
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Claim of the rapture on October 28, 1992
Date: 14 Oct 1992 20:29:47 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

I've seen some posters plastered on immobile objects claiming that the
Rapture will take place on October 28, 1992.  Does anyone know which sect
is claiming this?  I'm curious.

(Apologies if this has already been discussed: I haven't been following this
group closely lately.)

Mike Huben

"... believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere
terrified flattery calling Him 'good' and worshipping him is a still greater
danger... The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of
God or that of the inerrancy of scripture is to prevail when they conflict.
I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two.
Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even
permissable."
C. S. Lewis, in letter to John Beversluis
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:45:15 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Oct12.234626.1983@gacvx2.gac.edu> bthomas@nim.gac.edu (Barbara L Thomas) writes:
[replying to me -- ID]
>> Remember, we're talking of a person who could walk on water, eat
>> nothing for forty days, heal all kind of diseases and raise the dead,
>> drown pigs and murder fig trees by only saying a word.  He could feel
>> "power going out of him" when someone touched his garment from behind.
>> Are you telling me that this same person was unable to arrange not to
>> suffer when seated on a cross for a few hours in an uncomfortable
>> position?
>
>There was something in what you said that interested me.  Are you saying  
>that (If Jesus could/did control his own physical pain) he could control  
>the mental anguish?

Come to think of that, if Jesus was what he is claimed to have been,
then yes, he must have been able to control his mental anguish to a
much higher degree than anyone else.  This doesn't necessarily have
any connexion to what I said about physical pain.

Consider that a child is much more easily distressed than an adult, or
a fool much more easily than a wise man.  I'm often inclined to dismiss
things that I remember used to upset me a lot five or ten years ago.
I attribute this to maturity and experience.  Surely Jesus would know
even better?

>It seems to me that the Bible clearly refers to  
>emotional suffering several times.  Just off the top of my head: he wept  
>for the city of Jerusalem, he sweated blood in the garden of G.,

All of which, to my mind, is incompatible with the idea of him being God.

Emotional suffering is caused by things not going the way you would
have them, whereby what you want
(1) may be inherently impossible (you want a square circle) -- doesn't
   apply unless you are foolish (which we all are sometimes, but a
   god, one hopes, wouldn't be);
(2) may be possible but not within your control -- doesn't apply if
   you are omnipotent;
(3) one of the above, but you don't know which -- doesn't apply if you
   are omniscient.

>and on  
>the cross, he cried to God because he was alone and that communion with  
>God was broken for the first time in his life.

Er, wait a moment.  The communion with the god was broken?  Why?  Did
that have anything to do with what was happening to his physical body?

>I believe that Christ was fully capable of suffering mental pain.

Capable, yes.  But why would he?  Why did he cry for Jerusalem, anyway?
Because men were exercising the free will that his dad had given them?
This sounds like an extremely silly thing to cry over.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:21:59 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <13715@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>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?

Yes.  

Have you forgot to mention the threats the opposition have made
to those who support the bill?  I've read and heard a little more
since the last postings.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts 
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |