HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: alt.pagan survey
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:18:14 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr13.235631.901@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>: >Yes and no. As you yourself posted, a person could be an atheist and still
>: >be pagan. As such - religion is not involved. Also, why couldn't a person
>: >be Judaic, Christian or Islamic and still be pagan? What do you call a  
>: >person who practices the Christian faith but also practices Witchcraft,
>: >for example? Or an Islamic person who also believes in other gods?

>: As I understand them, Judism/Christianity/Islam are exclusive sets.
>: These religions proscribe that an adherant does not behave in the
>: manners that you have described.

>They are only exclusive in the eyes of some of the adherants of the
>particular faith. The religious texts may say otherwise. For example,
>in Christianity there is a commandment "Thou shalt have no other god
>before me". Now, many Christians believe that this means that there
>is only one god and you are prohibited from worshipping or believing
>in any others. This is not what the commandment says - it simply
>commands that the Christian God be the primary god at the top of the
>heap. It says nothing about what you may do with "lesser" gods.

>I would guess that Judaism and Islam are similar. 

>Please keep in mind that what the leaders of some sect say is proscribed
>does not make it so to all of the general faith. I see no reason that a
>person has to be a member of one of the highly organized Christian/Islamic/
>Judaic sects to be considered a member of that religion. 

You have just led us into a realm where all definition is subjective,
and so ultimatly no word has any meaning. 

>Bill

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Does the Bible have any contradictions
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:47:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.011228.23831@muddcs.claremont.edu> ileicht@jarthur.claremont.edu (Spiff) writes:
>Contradictions galore actually..
>
>I used to have a sheet given to me in a New Testament class I took that
>picked a number of issues and quotes the bible being for an against...
>
>Hmm.. I recall something about wine... jesus says.. don't drink it..
>and drink it and enjoy... at different places as I recall..
>
>War as well... pound your swords into [some sort of farming tool] 
>and at some other point.. "we shall kill all of them by the sword,
>men, women, and children".. etc
>
>Sorry I can't do better.... 
>

The most glaring one, and the one that usually pops up, is the
commandment "Thou shalt not kill."  But, then go read the Old Testament!
You'll find tons of instances where Yahweh disobeyed his own
commandments, and encouraged his chosen people to do the same.

Also, isn't there something like:

OT: The sinds of the fathers will be paid for by the sons.

NT: No one should answer for the sinds of their parents.

Blessings,
Janis C.
From: cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Herbals Request: Stomach Nausea
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:18:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <1992Apr16.050813.16794@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ai210@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Josh Steier) writes:
>
>Janis, the THC pills are inferior to the consumption of the actual
>herb. It is much more difficult to monitor the dosage, since the
>pills are too strong for many patients, and hard to split in two.
>Also, there is a suspicion that the mixed cannabanols are more effective
>than just the THC purified in the pills.
>

No, no, no!  I *know* it's inferior -- she *told* me that it was better
to smoke the stuff when she could get it than pound the pills.  It's
just hard as all hell to get the cigs.  Far easier to get the pills and
get some relief. 

>
>Therefore, the current medical practice in this oh so enlightened
>part of northeastern ohio is for the patient to go out and buy some
>pot from a drug dealer, or grow your own. (I know at least two people
>who are growing it at home themselves).
>

I've heard that some oncologists encourage their patients to do this.
A lot of the doctors know about the suffering, too, and are angry that
they can't give pot to their patients and help them get better.  The
first thing you have to do to recover from chemo and being sick as a dog
is to keep your food down.  You can't recover if you can't eat, or at
least the recovery is slow as all hell. 

>
>The neopuritans, of course, are ignoring the almost unanimous 
>recommendation of HIV specialist doctors to legalize marijuana for
>medical purposes.
>

Until they get sick, that is.  Then, of course, *GOD* will inform them
in some sort of revelation that's it's okay for just them. 

>
>be well
>josh

I'll do my best,
Janis C.
From: cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Worship of the Greek gods
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:13:58 GMT

In article <92106.191952IO81409@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO81409@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Ailsa N.T. Murphy) writes:
>the aquatic ape theory is, umm... a tad fringey at best...
>not one that is taken seriously, or even mentioned unless
>the professor has feminist leanings, in anthropological or
>archaeological circles.  (and do please give us anthros
>credit for ahving some idea what we are talking about, we've
>spent years on this stuff!)
>                                       -ailsa

I think that it may not be taken seriously for precisely the reason you
mention.  It covers a lot of bases, and answers a lot of questions, and
deserves far more attention than it's getting.  By consigning it to the
feminist ghetto, it will stay, moldering onthe shelves, because anthros
will be afraid of losing their credibility by taking it seriously.

(The same "I can't look at that, it'll make me look silly" mindset is in
my discipline, too!)

Blessings,
Janis C.
From: markbr@radian.UUCP (markbr)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: as
Summary: not ... tim?!
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:01:28 GMT
Organization: Radian Corp. Austin, TX

In article <1992Apr15.011238.7453@news.iastate.edu>, xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
# I to apologise it wasnt nesesary for me to be as nasty as I was-I had just
# read a letter that was mailed to me that was rather nasty(from a dif. group)
# I do have a tendicy to be a bit sensitive at tim. Thank you for the 
# apology
# 
# ELF-KIN

No problem. I'm perfectly willing to apologize for my mistakes (unlike
some other people (NOT YOU - I also got at least one obnoxious email)

Tim? Tim who (he asks, with the name Maroney on his fingertips).

	mark

/*___________________________________________________________________________*
 *  1.     How *DARE* you attribute these opinions to anyone else!           *
 *  2.     Would *you* claim opinions like these if they *weren't your own?  *
 *					                                     *
 *		         Mark Silverdragon                                   *
 *					                                     *
 *          	       	markbr@radian                                        *
 *___________________________________________________________________________*/
Etymology, n.:
	Some early etymological scholars come up with derivations that
were hard for the public to believe.  The term "etymology" was formed
from the Latin "etus" ("eaten"), the root "mal" ("bad"), and "logy"
("study of").  It meant "the study of things that are hard to swallow."
		-- Mike Kellen
From: cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Warfare and women
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:59:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.064304.25424@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@isis.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>
>cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>
>>But, let's look at the facts.  FOr about 40,000 years prior to the last
>>3,000 there were lots of matristic cultures.  And for about 40,000
>
>How would anyone know?
>
>>years prior to the last 3,000 there was no large-scale slaughter in the
>
>How would anyone know?
>
>>name of any god/dess, and no large-scale environmental destruction.
>
>Bwahahahaha!  True, there weren't enough people to do a proper job of it,
>but they certainly did try. 

No shit, dearie.  Why do you think I prefaced my remarks with "lower
population certainly played a part?"  Kindly do not delete the parts of
my statement which would render your cutesie comebacks unimportant next
time.

Janis
From: cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: warfare and women
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:58:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.233432.19450@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <70170@ut-emx.uucp> amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik) writes:
>:
>:I just thought I'd mention that the deities of slaughter and war in
>:both the Irish and Welsh pantheons are female (the Morrigan in
>:Ireland; and Aeron in Wales).  There are also many other aspects of
>:these deities; the Morrigan includes Badb, Nemain, Macha, for
>:instance.  And actually there were no male battle deities; gods like
>:Lugh came much later on and were never accorded domain over war and
>:battle.
>:
>:This whole retrospective attempt to make "women's societies" more
>:peaceful and perfect than big bad evil patriarchy (with which I have
>:quite a few problems, never fear) really doesn't seem to be useful.
>:Of course, Utopian fantasies rarely are.
>:
>:Did mankind worship some form of goddess first?  Probably.  Was
>:lineage traced through the mother for many centuries?  Undoubtedly.
>:Have we gotten ourselves unbalanced as a species?  In my opinion, yes.
>:But fantasizing about how wonderful things were before, *however* they
>:were before, isn't going to change a damn thing.
>:
>:Goddess of war not make any sense.  Snort.
>
>	Another possibility: these were originally goddesses of death,
>inherited from the pre-Indo-European population. When war became a big
>thing, they became goddesses of war.
>
>	Marija Gimbutas discusses symbols of death in detail in her
>books, and supports the change-of-function hypothesis for war
>goddesses, giving Athena as an example.

This is an exceptionally good point.  From what I recalled in my
reading, the Morrigan et. al. *did* start out as death goddesses, since
death was connected with entering the next life.

Blessings,
Janis
From: loren@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Sacrifice
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:38:51 GMT
Organization: Wharton Marketing

Assuming that sacrifice is the killing or offering of living matter or a 
votive representation thereof, what is the reason for it? I understand that 
some deities require blood sacrifice, but what about those who worship gods 
who are not bloodthirsty? For instance, why offer the first fruits of the 
harvest?

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller              LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu
Shoes are the most basic prerequisite for liberty
Xref: sparky alt.pagan:4703 sci.skeptic:8110
From: burns@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jonathan Burns)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "experiments"
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:00:05 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

In article <1992Apr9.225928.2537@samba.oit.unc.edu>
 shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett) writes:

> In article <1992Apr6.015822.26877@latcs1.lat.oz.au> burns@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jonathan Burns) writes:
>
>> BTW, do we have any solid results on cetacean intelligence? 

> Now, let's assume for a moment that dolphins and various cetaceans have
> some real intelligence, and can communicate sophistocated concepts among
> themselves, just for the sake of argument.  After having a few of their
> kind come back with tales about captivity by humans, do you think perhaps
> they'd be handing around a lore of information about humans:
> 
> 	If you are captured by a human, act stupid.  Try to act
> 	no smarter than perhaps a bull sealion.
> 
> It would be an issue of preservation of the race, no doubt...

I'm afraid it would mean that a lot of dolphins have been martyring
themselves in tuna nets to keep up the cover, my dear. <sigh>

But it's lovely to think that some day when the nets are all dolphin-
safed, and the fish-stocks are regenerated, these grey snouts are
going to break surface by some tourist boat in the Barrier Reef,
and say "Hey. Guesswhat."

> This proves that dolphins are more intelligent and disciplined and
> communicative than chimps, who continue to exhibit intelligence even
> though it means that we tend to torture them unmercifully and complete
> restrict their freedom on a frequent basis.

> Do you know that, in terms of genetic maps, humans and chimps have more
> in common than horses and donkeys?  Think about it...

We are such an _obedient_ species, n'est-ce pas?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan Burns        | Dawgunnit! TOTAL ECLIPSE! And just when I was
burns@latcs1.lat.oz.au| getting set for a quiet night of "Moon Hating".
Computer Science Dept | Oh well, might as well get back on the beat...         
La Trobe University   |    - Geo. Herriman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Worship Greek gods (central paradox of modern paganism)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:11:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.005102.4094@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>: Most, (not all!), neolithic agricultural cultures were matriarchal. This may be 
>
>This is wild speculation. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
>They may have been matrilineal - that would not surprise me in the least.
>

I do think that it lies still in the realm of speculation, but I also
think that there is a lot of evidence that is starting to point that
way.  I would also like to point out that, unlike my posts in the recent
past, I am not flaming anybody.  I'm just using this thread to spout
some.  

It's a long way from the old Man-the-Mighty-Hunter bringing home his
spoils after the arduous male-boding of hunting and slaking his ravenous
bloodthirst, for his pair-bonded mate, after lounging around on fur
rugs, to either invite her hungry brood to freeload off of the labors
of the man, or to cringe in submission and remain a sexual slave, one of
the harem -- a la Desmond Morris, Robert Ardrey, or even H. G. Wells.
If we seem a little extreme, at least don't discount what we say flat
out; there's some good information and a new way of thinking in it.  *We* 
had to swallow the other shit for years and years.

With the coming of science, a lot of women hoped that their subjugation
would end as we all stood, armed only with fact, before the all-seeing
eyes of Impartial Truth.  We were wrong, and the anthro guys
especially, now that they were deprived of the Adam and Eve myth to keep
us in our place, started concoting a whole new cycle of myth based on
science to keep us in our place.

Understandably, this pissed a lot of us off.

Yes, many of us are angry; I am.  Try not to let this anger make you
think, "Oh, those castrasting man-haters.  They have nothing to
contribute."  The woman-haters contributed most of society for the last
couple thousand years, and we (women) are still here.  At least listen.
It's no more improbable that Neolithic cultures were matriarchal than
that they were centered on Man-the-Mighty-Hunter and his lazy and
non-contributing baby machine.  These ridiculous myths of the Tarzan
crowd are so firmly engrained in the mind of the man on the street (and
the woman on the street) that it may take dynamite like this to blast
it out of them. 

Blessings,
Janis C.
From: mlbst25+@pitt.edu (Monica L Boyle)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: New Age/Christian Survey -Help!-specifically the responses to the
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:16:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <29EE04B1.8016@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>  
>
>But, I digress.
>
>Anyway, in my experience, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE, Catholics are not
>sheep.  You will never find a fundie Catholic, and they are quite happy
>to embrace science and evolution and the big bang etc.  (Personally, I
>think that this is because they were so embarrassed at the Middle Ages
>and they way they mangled science that they have learned their lesson
>and now just stay the hell out of the whole thing.)  
>
>But, I might be wrong . . .


Yes, I suppose I was speaking a bit absolute.

There are some Catholics that are so unwilling to open their eyes to the world
that they border on becoming fundamentalist.

Incidentally...this pagan group seems to be a group with its feet on the 
ground.  

Would any of you be willing to give me a basic idea of what this group is
about and what philosophies seem to be generally agreed to by the group?

(I have learned from my weeks of observation that this group is most 
definitely a diverse one, with many different beliefs.)

Thank you, and I would welcome any responses:

Monica Boyle
mlbst25+@pitt.edu

P.S. Please hurry...I go home for the summer (I am a student) in a week and
I would like time to look over the info and mull it over over the summer.

-- 
Monica L. Boyle
mlbst25+@pitt.edu
"Sometimes you just have to look reality in the eye and deny it."
-Garrison Keillor
From: walrus@bessel.umd.edu (Grig Larson)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Jesus was a pagan and lonely wiccians
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:23:19 GMT
Organization: Punk Walrus Enterprises, Inc.

In article <1992Apr10.041435.7808@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> an725@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Fortman, Jr.) writes:
>
>This is in regard to "Jesus was a pagan" part of the original subject.
>
>From what I know about Jesus I would say He was most likely was a 
>pagan.  It's too bad that some "christians" have done terrible things
>in the name of Jesus.
>
>*Paul
>
>Have you hugged a tree today?
>-- 
>fortmapl@dayton.bitnet
>fortmapl@udavxb.oca.udayton.edu

My definition of pagan is so broad, many Christians are Pagans...
 


=================<<< <  <   < *Punk Walrus* >   >  > >>>=================
[  \||/  |       ---------------------------------------       |  \||/  ]
[  (o-)  | "It might be in the     ||  walrus@bessel.umd.edu   |  (o-)  ]
[   /\   |  basement, I'll go up-  ||  Punk Walrus on the      |   /\   ]
[ Punkus |  stairs and check..."   ||  FanTek BBS 301-203-9582 | It's   ]
[ Walrus |       -- M.C. Escher -- ||  SF&F Author Extrordinare| Punkie!]
=========================================================================
But then, that's just my opinion.....
From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (Doug Krick)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: New Age/Christian Survey -Help!
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:04:21 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

In article <1992Apr6.210958.23743@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
(B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:
>
>I would suggest not responding to this person on three grounds:
>
>1. paganism is not "New Age" or Christian
>
>2. this may be an attempt to get @dresses for hassling folks (I suspect that th
>e
>author may be a born-again Christian; see my third reason)
>
>3. the questions are very Christo-centric, and use assumptions which many
>mainline Christians would find questionable
>
>IMO, of course
>
>              Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again,
>                               Br'anArthur
>
>Wicca is a Green and Fuzzy Religion
>               --Pug and Bran

Well, I did respond to him.  And I in the responce, I said that I was assuming
he meant "a pagan religion" instead of "the New Age".

Will let everyone know if I start to get harassed on this one...

Krikket  --  a.k.a. Doug Krick  --  krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us   

Supercalifragilisticsadomasochisim   !   Disclaimers?  We don't need no
   -- Need I say anything else?      !   stinkin' discalimers!
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Jesus was a pagan and lonely wiccians
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:03:45 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

A Kashko writes:

>2) It seems that while being Jewish he certianly did not fit confortably
>into their tradition, being more person centred than cult centred. And most 
>Christians fail to note that the although Jesus talked a lot about love, he
>seemed to reserve most of hist for children and social outcasts
>(reference: What Canst thou say: towards a quaker theology: Janet Scott)

If one reads the prophets, one rapidly discovers that Jesus in this wise
fits right into some of the "traditions" of his religion.  The judaism of
the OT concerns itself *both* with the cultic and the moral/social aspects
of religion.

>3) The idea of Christianity as a "be nice to one another" type of
>religion doesn't square with the parable of the talents
>" From him that has not shall be taken away even that which he has"

This is surely one of the most common fallacies seen in theology: the
assumption that morality for God is necessarily the same as morality for
people.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The Peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet let us pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous Peace of God.."
From: cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Sacrifice
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:32:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.201711.15952@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:
>egnr76@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) writes:
>
>
>>	Someone recently  gave me the idea that giving up your time
>>could be regarded as a sacrifice, even if no material object was sacrificed.
>>Especially if you are or feel you are short of time.
>
>>	Comments ?
>
>Giving of oneself is the only type of sacrifice acknowledged in my religion.
>The Charge of the Goddess says: "Nor do I demand sacrifice, for I am the
>Mother of all living, and my love is poured out upon the Earth."  To me,
>this means that killing of something (without need) is disrespectful to the
>Lady, but that giving love makes one a channel of the Lady.
>
>              Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again,
>                               Br'anArthur

You hear about this a lot from charities and stuff.  They usually
complain not only about money, but about the lack of people willing to
put in the hours necessary to actually spoon the soup into the homeless
person's mug.

Giving money to a charity is certainly very important, and I always
thought that must be one of the really great things about being rich --
you can barf out a $10,000 check for something that seems worthy if you
want to.  But, and I admit this, I'd rather give the money than the
time.  Hospitals need money, but really sick people give me the willies
and I'll admit it.  I'm not happy about it, but it's true.

Money is the easy way for someone who doesn't really want to get
emotionally involved with seeing the little homeless kids' big eyes to
still make a contribution.  As important as money is, it wouldn't do a
damned thing if there weren't people willing to give time.

Blessings,
Janis