HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cwblack%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Charles W. Black)
Subject: Re: Secrecy 
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:47:13 MDT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Utah

In article <1992Apr10.035702.4546@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>I think you've misunderstood me.  I don't have any opinion about
>Mormon practices.  I was simply talking about their need
>for secrecy and that this need feeds into the needs of malfeasants
>to reveal what is there, and that this should not be surprising.
>Were there no secrets, they'd be no taboo around their revelation.
>It would be a non-issue.  Right now, exaggerations and outright
>falsehoods can be used against Mormons because of this secrecy.

	Certainly, I agree with you here.  Likewise, I haven't formed
	any reasonable opinion concerning Mormon practices; however,
	I can understand their desire for privacy/secrecy.

	In a general context, I do not believe that one's participation
	in private ceremonies is sufficient justification for another
	to propagate outright falsehoods and exaggerations concerning
	those ceremonies.  So, I don't believe that speculation concerning
	temple ceremonies *can* be effectively used against Mormons.
	On the other hand, there are a plethora of debatable issues
	concerning Mormonism that are not secret.  I would venture to 
	say that most of the distinctions that Mormon doctrine assumes
	are available as public knowledge to those who inquire.
	It would seem that those who speculate on the content of the
	temple ceremonies in an effort to discredit Mormonism are
	simply taking the "cheap shots," perhaps in order to avoid
	any substantial issues.

>My feelings are that the "secrets" of Masons, fraternities and
>sororities, or the pledges to such secrecy, are silly, and the bond
>that gets created as a result of holding such secrets is illusory.  But
>that's just my opinion.  

	I would disagree that the result of holding such secrets is
	illusory.  An illusion is intentionally deceptive in some manner.
	In this case, I would argue that the information is held secret 
	for the purpose of "privilege."  Information revealed in private 
	ceremonies is only available to the privileged few that participate. 
	This does not necessarily imply that the information revealed is 
	intended for any deceptive purposes.  Rather, it may be viewed 
	as some sort of reward for the interest of the individual and
	may serve to further unite the organization its particular cause.
	Certainly, in a religious context, the benefits of uniting a people
	to their cause is quite beneficial.  However, in the specific
	case we having been discussing, it is quite clear why the temple
	ceremonies are secret (previous discussions).  I just wanted to 
	clarify my stance on the issue at large. 

	Steve, thanks for the well tempered expression of your opposing 
	viewpoint!  I was hoping that my first post to this particular
	group would not be met with hostility.

              ----------  Charles W. Black  ----------
                  ------  cwblack@asylum.utah.edu  ------
                     ---  Department of Computer Science  ---
               ---------  University of Utah  ---------
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Irony & soc.religion.mormon
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:24:18 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

I find it interesting that there are *now* a plethora of postings
regarding Mormonism *after* the proposal for soc.religion.mormon
was so overwhelmingly defeated.

Iguess irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

-- 
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:50:31 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <17382@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
writes:
> 
> Kent (ksand@apple.com) writes:
> >>Sorry to state, but this is the carrot behind Christianity. Every religion
> >>needs a cookie in order to gain followers, and the issue of eternal life
> >>through Jesus was the solution in the case of Christianity. Sorry, but
> >>personally I would never believe in such things, it's the same as the
> >>issue of free lunches, someone is paying for them anyway.
> 
> ...Kent would never believe "such" things...
> how sad a life.

No, I don't either believe in used car salesmen, politicians and lawyers.
It's all based on real personal experiences, used cars salesmen being
the worst kind. 

After I purchased a brand-new car, avoid any contacts with lawyers,
don't actively involve in either politics or religion I feel like
a free man. 

Happy, happy, joy, joy!
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Gay VS God....
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:37:50 GMT


Sorry....
	Here at YFN we've just updated our software and there are 
still a few bugs in the editors.
	The last message as it sirs is fairly complete.  Nothing of any weight has been zapped.
	Enjoy....
	Kelley L. Miller
	ae642@yfn.ysu.edu
--
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:18:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr9.201823.9577
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr9.004210.2724@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>No smiley. I'm quite serious. What the fuck are you talking about?
                                        ^^^^

See, you _do_ know after all! :-)

John M.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Quality of life
Date: 5 Apr 92 23:49:33 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

I have a short an interesting note: Yesterday I realized that my
life is really nice, I don't need to worry about the original sin,
the devil, placement in hell, wheel of karma, tabuus about women,
sexist issues, ten commandments, kosher food, worshipping of 8-legged
gods, mantras, inner voices, holy wars or following the right path.

What's the name of the religion I follow? It's is called NULL :-). I
really recommend it.

Cheers, happiness, and joy!
Kent
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:29:00 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774) writes:
>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
>> 
>Which animals fly?

>Simply the animals that do fly?

>I'm not saying that there are no religions that advance the cause of lying,
>stealing, etc.  I am saying, you are not answering the question.  My opinion
>of JW's started off neutral but it is dropping steadily as I read their posts.
>On the Lionel Tun scale, they are up to about a 6.3 and advancing towards a 10.

	The religions of the Great Babylon, The False Religion. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:04:26 GMT
	<1992Apr14.115213.26412@cs.yale.edu>
	<1992Apr14.180352.8110@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<1992Apr14.234845.4386@cs.yale.edu>
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>>If you cannot accept anything as fact then I wonder how sure you are
>>of your salvation.

>I'm not a Christian, so I am not at all sure of my salvation. What
>of it?

Neither am I.  I'm still waiting for Johnnie-boy to tell me just what
it is I need to be saved from...
--
we have watched what they will do to the bible, which they allege to hold as
sacred, should we wonder what they will do with mere secular documents like
the constitution.
	-- drieux (drieux@wetware.com)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:58:14 GMT

In article <adams.702737823@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>No...his audience was Jews.  He taught along the lines of the Covenant Law.
>That law *never* applied to Gentiles.  We were covered by the Noahide
>Covenant with it's set of seven laws.  If a Christian *wants* to follow the
>Covenant Law, there is nothing stoping them.

Not quite, Steve. For much of the Mosaic law, that's correct. For things
such as, "a gentile who observes the Sabbath like a Jew shall be put to
death," though, you begin to see the problem.

I have a friend who's engaged in the process of study preparatory to
conversion to Judaism, and she keeps most of the Sabbath laws, but is
required to deliberately do one thing against the rules each Sabbath,
so that she is not violating the law.

> -Steve

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:54:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.132046.22853@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >  If you want a good example consider Russel, the founder of JWs.  H ewas
caught
> >lying under oath.  Does that invalidate the entire religion?  No more than
if
> 
> 	No he wasn't. In fact the discussion went like this: 
> 
> 		- Do you know Greek alphabets ?
> 
> 		R: Yes. 
> 
> 		- Do you know Greek ?
> 
> 		R: No, I don't. 
> 
> 	The enemies of the truth claimed that Russel first admitted that he
> 	was able to speak Greek, then he denied it. 
> -- 
> 
> 		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
  Bad timing: I had just gotten the book for a response to E-Mail from Sonson,
so I had it right here.  The entire discussion went as follows:

  Q: Do you know the greek alphabet?
  A: (Russel) "Oh, yes."
  Q: Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?
  A: (Russel) "Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them."
  Q: Would you tell me the names of thos on the top of page 447 I have got
here?
  A: "Well, I don't know that I would be able to."
  Q: You can't tell what those letters are, lookat them and see if you know?
  A: "My way . . ."
  Q: Do you know the greek language?
  A: "No."

  The "Do you know the greek language" question was asked after it had become
clear he did not know the alphabet.

                                          - Kurt
From: carpenter@vixvax.mgi.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Rosary
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:51:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: vixvax.1992Apr17.125132.1784
Organization: Management Graphics, Inc.

I am interested in the Rosary as a form of meditative prayer,
but am put off somewhat by the strong Mary-orientation of some
of the mysteries, particularly the fourth and fifth joyous mysteries.
I believe, however, that a number of sets of alternate mysteries
have been approved by various responsibile bodies.  I would appreciate
information on this.  Thanks in advance.
============================================================================
I was going to buy a copy of _The_Power_of_Positive_Thinking_, but then I
thought, "What the hell good would that do?"
============================================================================
Dave Carpenter                                       Voice:   (612) 851-6142
Management Graphics                                    FAX:   (612) 851-6159
1401 E. 79th St.                        Internet:   carpenter@vixvax.mgi.com
Bloomington, MN   55425
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:18:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.235207.348@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.190815.18975@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>
>> The "ex-LDS for Jesus" group has been very active in the central Indiana Area.
>> You could proably take their 12 week indoctration class if you wanted to.
>> I've known many participants in this offshoot of the LDS church, most
>> of the characterations that are made would not be recognizable by active
>> LDS.
>>  
>Hi Kermit,
>
>I think you have this group confused with someone else.  Ex-Mormons
>for Jesus is based in Whittier California, and is a Christian evangelical
>group working on leading Mormons to Jesus.  They are not an offshoot
>of mormonism in any way, shape, or form.  They have a large number of
>Christians that have never been mormon on their mailing list.  To further
>encourage Christian involvement, they have recently (Feb) changed their
>name to something like Concerned Christians Evangelizing Mormonism or
>something like that.  Anyway, Ex-mormon is no longer part of their moniker.
>
>(or is Ex-LDS for Jesus something different than Ex-mormons for Jesus?)
>
>
Hi Glenn,

No I don't think I'm confusing this group with another. What ever name
that they are now using, their theology is more of a response to mormon
theology. Their set of beliefs have little in common with main stream
christianity. Most of the people in the group don't last long, either
the natural apathy takes over or they join a main stream church, thus
a tendecy to try and convert LDS.  

No they don't think of them selves as an offshoot of the mormon church,
but their doctrine can only be understood as a response to the LDS.

I'm not in Indiana at the moment, so I won't comment on the current state
of the "Concerned Christians Evangelizing Mormonism" cult.



-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:03:47 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr14.211039.6388@athena.cs.uga.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>"Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, as ye are
>unleavened. "

Good advice, I suggest you take it--starting with the 'leaven of the
Pharisees'.

--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<GOEHRING.92Apr14153119@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Apr15.000627.25549@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:06:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.000627.25549@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

   In article <GOEHRING.92Apr14153119@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
   >dams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
   >
   >>Sex simply for sex sake, outside of marriage, is fornication.  As
   >>such, it is to be avoided.
   >
   >Why?  What besides the holy text of the Christians justifies this
   >restriction on behavior?  Who is harmed by sex for sex's sake, inside
   >or outside of marriage?

   Abortion, STD's, AIDS, and emotional scarring come to mind.

Abortion is, of course, completely irrelevant for gays, for straights
using sufficient birth control, and for straights doing something
other than plain vanilla sex.  Also, by bringing it in, you suggest
that if the woman in question were to bring all her pregnancies to
term, then there would be no problem with her promiscuity.  This is,
of course, not your belief, so abortion is a red herring.

STD's are easily treated (with two exceptions).  Only one of those
exceptions is a seriously harmful disease.  But, if I practice safe
sex, that risk can be made vanishingly small.  By bringing in STD's,
you suggest that if promiscuous people take adequate measures to
protect themselves from disease, then there is no problem.  This is,
of course, not your belief, so STD's are a red herring.

Emotional scarring is so vague that it's hopeless to even try to
address it.  Suffice it to say that at least some people who are
promiscuous experience no emotional scarring as a result.  Bringing in
emotional scarring suggests that for people who would not feel any,
there is no problem.  This is, of course, not your belief, so
emotional scarring is a red herring.

Basically, it comes down to this: if I take steps to avoid pregnancy,
STD's, and emotional scarring, and none of them in fact result, does
that make sexual promiscuity OK?  If not, then you have not yet
answered the question about why it is harmful.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell    | The Lord God helps me;
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   therefore I have not been disgraced;
Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | therefore I have set my face like flint,
Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 |   and I know that I shall not be put to shame;
			  | he who vindicates me is near.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Gematrical Miracle in Quran?
Date: 13 Apr 92 06:19:07 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

comptec91065@camins.camosun.bc.ca writes:

>...  about the mathematical pattern in the Quran...

The problem is that any patterns discovered after the fact (i.e. by
examining the document) are irrelevant.  You can find an infinite
number of obscure patterns in any document.  If there were some reason
based on theology or other external argument to believe that a certain
pattern would exist, and then one examined the document and found it,
that might be significant.  But you'd have to show that you only
predicted the one pattern, without looking at the document first, and
then verified that it appeared.  You can't predict 100 different
patterns, find that only one appears, and say it is significant.  This
is a matter of basic statistics, which unfortunately is all too often
not properly taught.  (Unfortunately a lot of macroeconomic theories
have the same problem.  It's common for people to try 100 different
models, find 5 of them that are significant at the 0.05 level, and
report them as if it means something.  Of course this is exactly what
you expect by chance.  Unfortunately the idiots that make computer
tools have programs that are designed specifically to do this kind of
thing.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:08:33 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <17401@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
writes:
> Is it?  Is it sad to have a life with *so much* to LIVE for?
> On the contrary, I think it would be inspirational.  IMHO, a 
> life *any less* to LIVE for is sad.  Moreover, a life *never*
> to have more than little to live for is truly sad.  A life
> abundant is often a life free from angst, a life free to grow,
> and a life that cannot be taken away--just ask some of these
> former Vietnam POWs that came through with flying colors.

I don't see the difference with the life I live for full
not containing any religious elements, and lives full of 'em.
Life as life.

> My advice:  avoid the opponents of this like E. Hemingway,
> F. Nietzche, etc.  Going crazy, putting a shotgun to your
> own skull are not my idea of evidence for a life abundant.

Yes, going crazy with either suicidal or fanatical religious
emotions is not a good solution.

Cheers!
Kent
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Mormon temple ceremonies are secret
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:56:05 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>When I first heard of the secret temple ceremonies of the LDS church,
>I thought, ``Gee, that sounds like the gnostics.''  Now I'm sure.  

Recall the discussion we had about six months ago about this.  The
first charge levelled by Christianity against the gnostics was not
that they had secret knowledge at all, but that they had the WRONG
secret knowledge.

Briefly, it has been suggested for some time that there were once two
forms of Judaism, a "horizontal" Judaism and a "vertical" Judaism,
which emphasized direct revelation from God, and various other
"mystical" aspects.  This "vertical" Judaism died out under pressure
from its horizontal counterpart, which emphasized the outward ritual.

Now it has also been suggested for some time that there was a
horizontal and vertical Christianity.  Similarly, under pressure from
the horizontal Christianity the vertical Christianity was done away
with.

If you're patient I can supply references, but I'm a bit swamped right
now.

So yes, it does sound like gnosticism, but that ignores the
supportable statement that there was a true Christian gnosis which was
lost.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<BROWN.92Mar3222120@galoob.cs.utk.edu> <adams.699721207@spssig>
	<21303@goofy.Apple.COM> <adams.700321630@spssig>
	<21725@goofy.Apple.COM> <adams.701193927@spssig>
	<22277@goofy.Apple.COM> <adams.702136513@spssig>
	<22913@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:11:19 GMT

In article <22913@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

   Something that many modern Christians don't realize is the strict
   adherence to the law of Moses that the original church with James
   and Peter adhered strongly to. For instance Christians attended
   the Sabbatical temple ceremonies every week.

But, once again, you presume knowledge about the origins of
Christianity that is simply not there.  How much of the Law did the
early Jerusalem Church follow?  Nobody knows.  We have only three
pieces of evidence that address the issue:

  1) The writings of Paul,
  2) The book of Acts, and
  3) The later Christian tradition

Now, Paul's writings seem to say that Peter followed the law, but gave
in, explicitly, to the concept that Gentiles need not become Jews in
order to be Christians, and that Peter endorsed Paul's ministry and
teaching.  Acts postdates the apostolic period by a fair amount, so
what we see is some history mixed in with Luke's conclusions and
creations (some of them probably out of whole-cloth).  But if any
credence is to be given to Acts, it can only confirm that the
Jerusalem Christians kept the law, agreed with Paul, and didn't
enforce the law upon Gentiles.  Further, Luke tells us that
table-fellowship with Gentile Christians was more important than
preserving the Law.

   See my long document about Paul, the Acts and the real beginning
   of Christianity, posted real soon now.

Now, my question is, where is your source?  Are you just adding on
guesses on guesses?  Robert Scheaffer's book fails miserably because
he didn't bother (apparently) to read the primary sources with much
depth, preferring to quote and re-categorize secondary and tertiary
sources.  This isn't history; it isn't scholarship; it's guesswork.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | Blessed is the King
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   who comes in the name of the Lord!
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | Peace in heaven,
			  |   and glory in the highest heaven!