HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:35:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

Says Mark:
>        As for me, I will stick to:
>
>  'I am Jehovah, and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim] beside
>   me.' Isa. 45:5.
>  'before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.'
>   Isa 43:10.

As for me, I will stick to:

   'But to us there is but one God the Father, *of* whom are all
   things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, *by* whom are all
   things, and we by him.' 1 Cor. 8:6

   'We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus
   Christ...'  Col. 1:3.

   'We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus
   Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.' Article of Faith 1

   'The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect
   form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame,
   even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought...and be
   arraigned before the bar of *Christ the Son, and God the Father, and
   the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God*, to be judged according to
   their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.' Alma
   11:43-44

   It amazes me that even trinitarians have difficulty understanding
how The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ONE GOD yet three individual
persons.

Robert 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:49:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.180444.711@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Mormon Archeology:
>
>    Wheat:    Book of Mormon, Mosiah 9:9
>
>
>The Maya and their Neighbors:
>
>    by Ralph Linton, Ph.D.  Professor of Anthropology
>    Columbia University.
>
>    " . . . the introduction of wheat and of
>European methods of cultivation have opened to
>agricultural settlements thousands of square
>miles in North America which were not available
>to Indian groups raising maize by aboriginal methods."
>

	I'm not a South American Historian but isn't the BoM
	discussin South and Central America, what does the
	Agricultral habits of North America have to do with this
	discussion?


>-----
>
>Mormons, I have about 100-200 pages of stuff of hard
>documentation from secular as well as Mormon sources
>that will upset you.  I want it to upset you.  I want
>the real Holy Spirit to talk to you and convince you
>that you are on the wrong track.  We all make mistakes.
>Please reevaluate and test the Mormon doctines to see
>if their true.  At least test the ones I am showing
>you on this net.  Do not cling to false doctrine. 
>Stick to what is true.  Test everything.  Seek and cling
>to the real Jesus Christ.  He will open the door when 
>you knock on it.


	When you find out what _you_ are talking about, I suggest
	that you post your information in this forum, and eveybody
	will be glad to make fun of you.  

	Since you can not seem to understand that Wheat is not a Mormon
	Doctrine, testing the doctrine of Wheat by the Holy Ghost
	doesn't seem to be advice I can listen or follow....



>
>Brian Ceccarelli
>     


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:33:03 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <39507@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes:
>>
>>>Well I guess I have my answer.  If I may ask, Is the Pope Christian?
>>
>>As I stated long ago and many times, whether an individual is a Christian
>>or not depends on that individual an God.  God can see the heart and man
>>cannot.  The best man can do is look at the theology of an individual.
>
>Well, nice way to dodge the question Tony.  When the same point was
>made for the Mormons (that whether they were christians was a matter
>between them and God and neither you Tony nor Nuzzout nor anyone else had
>the right to answer that, you then changed your tune and put your
>emphasis on the "doctrine" being taught by (and believed) by the Mormons
>as being un-christian.)

What are you talking about?  I was the one who posted that letter stating
that!  Please get your facts straight if you are going to attack me
personally.  At least attack me with facts!

I didn't avoid the issue.  I don't know where you have been friend, but
this is exactly the position I stated way back when everyone was saying
that Mormons are not Christians.  I stood up for you and said that they
could not say that, because there very well could be Christians in the
Mormons church.  In fact, I still have a letter from Roger thanking me for
honestly saying that.

And what I said was very valid Robert.  I can't see you heart to tell if
you are a Christian.  But I can look at your theology to se if it is in
accordance with Historical Orthodox Christian doctrine.  That is a very
valid test.  It is the same test the Bereans placed on Paul when he was
preaching to them, and because of it they were considered "more noble".
(See Acts 17:11)

There is no way you can accuse me of dodging the question.  I jumped on it
and drove it home.  You are the one that deleted it out of the letter!
Why is it that everytime I post a letter that states facts that you can't
reconcile and deal with, you cut it all out and respond with a personal
accusation?

>Perhaps you can answer this question then,
>
>Is the doctrine taught by the Pope according to your definition
>"christian"?
>
>
>Robert

Now you are avoiding the question.  Are you Catholic?  We are discussion
the LDS doctrine.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1bcjqmINNhch@cascade.ens.tek.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:31:54 GMT

In article <1bcjqmINNhch@cascade.ens.tek.com> 
davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>In article <70562@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>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.
>  I think your missing an Oregon view Richard. This initiative has
>divided Oregon in a very distructive way. For instance, because they
>DO NOT support measure 9, churches are being vandalized by pro
>OCA terrorists. These are not threats mind you. These are actual
>attacks that are being carried out upon those in opposition to
>measure 9.
>  Personally, I don't think that Jesus would vote for it's passage. He
>would rather just get out there and help others of their hurt and 
>pains that life, and other people have dropped upon them. He is a planter
>of flowers.

Ignoring the Luke14:26 paradox that misleads so many Christians down the
path of HATE. The Christian Devil is a very tricky fellow, so many
Christians get conned into doing the Devil's work in the name of Jesus,
the ultimate insult to humanity and its creator.

>  You point towards threats the oppostion has made. Personally, I have
>not heard of any. Though, because of all of the heat that has been
>generated around this divisive issus here in Oregon, I'm sure that there 
>has been something, that someone, somewhere  been said that can be
>construed as a threat by the opposition.
>  Regardless of any of that though, Dave did ask you a question. And
>you seem to have tried to slip away from an answer. 
>  Now have you heard about the x-rated video that the OCA has been
>showing to "children" at the various churches around the state? 
>        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
>        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
>        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
>                                        Thomas Merton

Wow, a Christian acting like a Christian should act! Just think of what
could happen if all Christians acted likewise in the name of Jesus,
doing the work of Jesus instead of the work of the Christian Devil. And
that is THE TRUTH!
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: Tue, 13 Oct 92 21:07:01 GMT

In our continuing discussion of the Idaho parody of Holocaust
Revisionism in relation to the criticism that most "evidence" of
"Jesus" comes from believers, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>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.

[Of Holocaust Revisionism...]
>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. 

In response to this request:

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

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18300 alt.politics.homosexuality:6442 alt.sex:32972 soc.singles:27775
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.singles
Subject: Re: <them> attitudes...
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:41:10 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct14.150758.19178@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>But there are a Lot of <us> who are well and
>Royally Screwed Over By Hollywood... or More
>accurately the Victims of 'I saw it in a movie'
>mentality.....

No shit.  Drives me nuts.  'SPECIALLY when it happens to me.

>Does Jimmy Swaggart Represent Xtianity any Better
>than the Pope....
>
Definitely.  The pope comes off as this really nice old man who goes 
around blessing people.  Jimmy Swaggart comes off as an intolerant
greedy man who sleeps around.  

Too many people throw too much into symbols, IMO.

>ps: You would Think that by Now SomeOne would have coined a word for 
>
>DerivingSpuriousConClusionsPriorToFullyAnalysingTheRelevantData.

They did, it's called 'jumping to conclusions'.
>
>] This letter appeared in the Oct 12 column of Ann Landers...
>] Dear Ann Landers:
>]    I'm a 34 year-old gay male professional, in the closet and 
>] tired of it.
>]    I watched the press coverage of the parade for Gay Pride Week,
>] and as usual, the men representing the gay community were sashaying
>] around in wigs, dresses, chaps and harnesses.
>]    Like most gays, I'm thoroughly disgusted with the way we are
>] portrayed by Hollywood and the media. To be fair, however, a large
>] part of the blame must be placed the shoulders of a small minority
>] of the homosexual community. I refer to the effeminate, limp-wristed,
>] nasal-voiced queens who jump in fromt of the cameras and make a 
>] spectacle of themselves.
[so on so forth.]
>] Is this a common attitude in the gay community?

How should I know?  Might be.  Well, gays, how 'bout it?

Come to think of it, drieux, how do you know?

Big Al.  Of course, all lesbians feel that sandwiches should be jelly
side up, everyone knows that.
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "Mr. Gomes, I've Re-Read My Bible"
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:53:24 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

> The basic right that Americans treasure is their right to be LEFT ALONE by
> the government.  The government is not supposed to intrude upon our
> personal lives unless we transgress the rights of others.  That was the
> basic compact drawn up by the Founders.

Rather simplistic.  I would challenge you to produce original documents
from the founders to support your theory.

> The government is NOT there to dictate morals.  It is there to protect the
> rights of citizens from abuse by other citizens or foreign powers.

You seem to have a very limited view of morals.  Prohibiting murder,
kidnapping, extortion, polygamy, bestialty, etc. are all examples of
"dictating morals."  And this is a decidedly Christian view of morality,
"... and you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

It is impossible to generate a just system of human government without
regard for the written, revealed word of Almighty God.  Christians
throught history, including many of our founding father(tm), have
understood this truism.  In 1798, John Adams said, "Our Consititution was
made only for a moral and religious [i.e., Christian] people. It is wholly
inadequate for the government of any other."  It's a shame that professing
Christians in the 20th century have adopted an essentially pagan view of
human government. While there have always been antinomians in the Church,
there seem to be a run on them in this day and age.

It is a decidely unchristian position to suggest that God has two sets of
laws, one for Christians and one for nonchristians.  The Bible does not hold
out this option.

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

True.  Sinful becomes criminal by legal statute.  Christian should do all
they can to criminalize significant sinful behavior.  And they should
resist all efforts to decriminalize what's already on the books.

> While it is sinful for me to take the Lord's name in vain, it is not
> criminal, nor should it be.

I can't seem to find anything in the Bible which suggests God set aside the
third commandment (or any of the ten commandments, for that matter).
Perhaps you can point that out for us.

--
Tom Albrecht
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Honest Question For Any LDS
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:33:06 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <Bvu09E.5x6@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>In article <7OCT199200441575@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes...
>
>[...]
>
>> 
>>Jesus Christ spoke to the young Joseph Smith when he was only fourteen years
>>old.  All the wrangling, scripture quoting, and dictionary quoting in the world
>>can't change that.  It happened.  If you don't think it happened, then too bad
>>for you.  Not everybody is ready for the truth. 
>
>	Ok. Let me ask you about this visit.
>
>	Did Joseph Smith receive a visit from angels? or from the 
>Father and the Son, or from the Father alone, or from the Son alone?
>
>
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu


Well Robert, that depends on who you ask.  They all four we "true" at one
point in time!  Wonder which one is really "true"?  Or if ANY of them
are?  Isn't it great, if you are an LDS you get multiple choice "truth"!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Historical/traditional answer to geneology of Christ
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:11:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.190126.22253@brtph560.bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
>
>   HALT! You sounded half convincing up to this point. You yourself claim
>   that there WERE geneologies in those days in which women were mentioned
>   (see Matthew:)).

Yes, Matthew did mention some women in the geneology, but only on
the sideline, not on the main line of the geneology.  Again there is
nothing sexist about this, for Matthew was simply following the
convention of his days in his literary style (like calling Lake of
Galilee a "sea", as it was generally called in those days.)
The reason that Matthew broke the literary convention a bit to mention
the OT women in the geneology was probabily to get the maximum OT
exposure.  In addition, Matthew was probabily defending the inclusion
of the Gentiles (remember that it was a big controversy in the
earliest days of Christianity) by mentioning these OT women (they
were all Gentiles!)

> ... If there were ANY case in which it would be not only
>   appropriate but required it is the case when there were NO males to 
>   mention (ie Mary).

Not so!  Luke already gave a lengthy and detailed treatment on
Mary's role in Incarnation.  Mentioning Mary again in the
geneology would be redundant and unnecessary.  Obviously, in
the brief summary of the geneology, Luke adopted the conventional
uniformity of the construct in his literary style.  Again, if
we use the object-oriented terminology, we can say that in order
to maintain the uniformity of the construct, Luke legitimately
put an object of a derived class ("son-in-law") in the place of
an object of the base class ("son").  Note that the uniformity in
contruct was very much part of the legitimate literary style of
those days.  Remember that Matthew dropped a few generations in
order to have the uniformity of 14 generations in each of the three
sections of the geneology.  Well, there are other reasons that
Matthew dropped those generations (for those were the evil generations
not counted in the eyes of God!  But that's a different issue!)
My point is that uniformity in construct was as much part of the
legitimate literary style as it is in today's object-oriented
programming style.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Idaho
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:44:28 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Oct12.180652.3398@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu 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?

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.

If an airplane schedule says that a plane goes to Idaho, you can check it by
actually taking the plane, not just by reading the words that say that a plane
goes there.
--
"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)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The Book of Abraham again...
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:51:56 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Except that now we seem to be talking about Fac. 2. E. A. Wallis Budge
describes a hypoencephalus on page 119 of EGYPTIAN MAGIC (Dover 1971
reprint). Here is the description with the corresponding Fac 2 numbers in
parentheses: "The first group of gods are: -- Nehebka offering to Horus his
Eye (7), a goddess with the Eye of Horus for a head, the cow of Isis-Hathor
described above (5), the four children of Horus (6), two lions, a member of
the human body...In the other scenes we have the god Khepera in his boat,
Horus in his boat, and Horus-Sept in his boat (one of these is #4 -- the
falcon in the boat). The god with two faces represents the double aspect of
the sun in rising and setting (2), and the god with the rams' heads (1), who
is being adored by apes (22, 23), is a mystical form of Khnemu, one of the
great gods of reproduction...."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen)
Subject: Re: Robertson Roulette
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:26:18 GMT

In article <1bj7f7INNfd5@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>In article <ldprb8INNbkv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>                     Robertson Roulette
>>                     by Joesph L. Conn
>> 
>> The Bush Campaign needs The Religious Rights Support, But
>>         Can The Average American Voter Stand Pat?
>
><Rest of article not included>
>
>Here's a puzzle.  There is one word in the rest of this article which makes
>it practically certain that this text came from a real paper source by way
>of a scanner.  What is that word, and why does it betray the true origin of
>the text?

"... and on street comers."  This is an unthinkable typo for a human,
but an OCR system that fails to segment the word properly the first time
will join the r and n, recognize the result as a word, and happily emit
it.

--Rich, 5 years a slave to OCR
  (but still a fan of modem technology)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons and Masons
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:39:14 GMT

> Jason writes.........>
> >And what's wrong with Masons?
> >

Apparently the early Mormons had no problem with even refering
to themselves as Masons:

  'Before adjurning the meeting Emma (Joseph's Wife) read a document
  that Joseph and the church leaders had prepared for the Relief
  Society in March.  It stated: "... We do not mention their names,
  not knowing but what there may be some among you who are not
  sufficiently skill'd in Masonry as to keep a secret...Let this
  epistle be had as a private matter in your Society, and then we
  shall learn whether you are good masons.'
_Mormon writers Newell&Tippets, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, p.111_

I am looking for an article I had on Masonry.  It is really an
ugly thing -- vows to have you throat cut, and your heart yanked out.

Mark
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18550 alt.peeves:15776
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: How do they do it?
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:23:32 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

>In article <Bw5zvE.62I@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>>I'm aware that the sting from
>>a tarantula isn't very dangerous and they don't often sting anyway,

Tarantulas *never* sting.  Also, they seldom bite.

gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>The event you mention is a psychological compulsion,
>and is interesting precisely because it is out of the realm of ordinary
>behavior.

Some strange definition of ordinary?

Peeve:  people who pick nits about the accuracy of people's writing
	even when the spirit of what was intended was clear.

!Peeve: what do you expect when you crosspost to alt.peeves?

-- 
Many doors suddenly open to you when you realize you're a sociopath.