HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Summary: the sound of one axe grinding ...
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:52:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.201857.10192@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
(Eric Rescorla) writes:

>What a completely bogus argument: "But there are also many other things
>that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose
>that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Indeed!  Paul should also check out the speculations in Morton Smith's
_The Secret Gospel of Mark_; after he stops sputtering, he might well
attempt to formulate some *rational* grounds for (what I predict would
be) his vehement rejection of Smith's scenario.  [Note: I am not, myself,
persuaded by Smith; but his argument is interesting, and has some kind
of grounding in the data -- it requires a rather sophisticated analysis
employing a well-developed critical methodology to answer Smith's case.
Christians capable of such analysis seldom wind up in conservative camps.]

[SPOILER: Smith's scenario is that Jesus indulged in probably-homosexual
initiations of his followers into his tradition of magic; the only trace
of this left in the canonical gospels being the youth (traditionally,
Mark himself!) fleeing at Jesus' arrest, in Mk: 14:51-52.]
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Verifying Christianity #1
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:32:48 GMT


What would the verdict be if we attempted to determine who the authors of the
gospels are?
-- 
Frank
....
"Forever, O LORD, your word is settled in heaven."  PSALM 119:89
"The entirety of Your word is truth."  PSALM 119:160
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ethridge@crchh403 (Allen Ethridge)
Subject: Re: Do you have any children?
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:36:57 GMT
Organization: BNR, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Richard Pitts (rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu) wrote:
: In article <C14A36.DwH@news.rich.bnr.ca> ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:
: >In article <80709@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
: >>Because some people see it as amazing that we exist to start with, not
: >>that we die, but that we lived at all.
: >
: >And some of us can't figure out why anyone would want to spoil the wonder
: >and mystery of existence by postulating the unsubstantiated existence of
: >a god, especially a god that was so mean, self-centered and irresponsible
: >as to take all the credit for the good but none of the blame for the bad.
: 
: But it seems here (or at least in some parts of society) that man
: is a good person and has no faults :-), for man will surely save the
: world in spite of all the evil that man brings against others.
: Does man want to take credit for the good and not for the bad, too?

Who is this "man" you refer to?  I know of no such creature.  Some
humans are more responsible than others, some are more capable of
responsibility than others.  Are you saying that since humans aren't
perfect it's okay for god to be "mean, self-centered and irresponsible?"

: 
: How do you suppose this evil tendency arose in mankind, for you do
: believe mankind isn't all peachy-clean, don't you?  Look at the
: newspapers, TV, the prisons, down your street, our own selves.
: 
: Mankind is not all perfect as some would want you to believe.
: We have a freewill and we have a nature that tends toward evil.

What is this "evil tendency" in mankind?  Good and evil are human concepts,
and relative to particular cultures and events.  Your belief in
this evil only tells me that there are things you don't like; it tells
me nothing of the world.

: 
: I believe we as a whole are in need of help, for we can't bring
: about perfection on our own.  Look how long people have been 
: around and yet crime is still on the increase.  Tyranical world 
: rules continue to bring havoc on the world.

You look only at the unpleasant - great positive strides have been made.
Open your eyes - you might be suprised.

No, we can't bring about perfection, on our own or otherwise - perfection
is like god - impossible and unnecessary.  Maybe we will progress to great
enlightenment, through natural occurances outside of human control, or perhaps
we will destroy ourselves.  Does it really matter?

Why must you insist that you are so important that the whole universe
should share your values?  Or is it this god of yours that teaches you
such arrogance and ignorance?  And why does he bend your head so that you
can only see "evil?"

You make too many assumptions.  All there is in life is this moment.  If
you waste this moment, either through worrying over the "evil" in the world
or seeking divine intervention, you've wasted a wonderful gift.

As Jim Morrison once said: "No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting
the dawn."

--
allen@well.sf.ca.us
ethridge@bnr.ca
my opinions are my own
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JESUS IS GOD
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:12:45 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

In article <1993Jan20.024727.6123@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
[ reams and reams deleted ]

> You have to pity the jews really:
>there they were, stumbling along for centuries, consistently 
>misunderstanding their own holy books. It's a good thing you christians 
>have come along to set them straight. You think they'd be a bit more 
>grateful, wouldn't you.
>

Actually, the last two decades have seen a massive increase in the 
number of 'Messianics' (Jewish Christians).  Most of them ARE grateful
for Gentile witnessing.

The point is that the Bible is a very big book (understatement).  It  
would be impossible to find the Messianic prophecies on one's own.

For many centuries, the majority of the world's Jewry have lived apart
from Gentiles, some communities without any knowledge of Christ.

It takes believers to point out the existence of fulfilled Messianic
prophecy.  At my college we had a mini-mission to the Jews.
On the basis of Psalm 22 and Daniel 9, 4 out of 10 Jews are now
considering the possibility that Jesus is their Messiah.

For the ones that didnot, here's a look at what they said:
Re Daniel 9 : "The Book of Daniel is not chronological"
              " Missionary nonsense"
Re Psalm 22 : " It's just a coincidence "
General     : " I'll believe that Jesus is the Messiah if my Rabbi
                or Dad tells me to"

Vijay (ucakrvb@uk.ac.ucl)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christian pro-choice
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:10:26 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:

> >Is there anyone on here who is pro-choice who has neither had an abortion,
> >paid for one, or encouraged someone else to have one?
> 
> Here!  Here!  I certainly belong to that category, as well as most of
> other New Hampshire residents.

It's easy to be pro-choice when you don't have 4000 babies a year being
killed at the abortuary down the street, or when you've never come
face-to-face with the reality of the abortion decision.

To be pro-choice and Christian is simply to be confused.

--
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: God haters
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:16:10 GMT

What does one need to do to be classified as a God hater?
Obviously someone who says "i know God personally and i hate him" qualifies.
If someone believes strongly that certain books and preachers
of God are false, i don't think would that qualify. I follow Buddha's advice
to not offer opinions about God. I also don't feel the need to
offer any emotion whatsoever to "God". Lords, Gurus, and People
are another matter entirely to me. But since i hear this so
often and since the funnymentalists use this accusation so often,
maybe someone would be interested and expound on this doctrine of
God hating.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JESUS IS GOD
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:18:22 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:

> >Actually, the last two decades have seen a massive increase in the 
> >number of 'Messianics' (Jewish Christians).  Most of them ARE grateful
> >for Gentile witnessing.
> 
> And the Gentile Christians should be grateful to the Messianics for
> restoring the Jewish root of Christianity, which, for centuries,
> has been neglected or ignored.

We would be even more grateful if they would now help restore the biblical
root of Christianity.

--
Tom Albrecht
From: dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Messyantics
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:08:52 GMT
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R

pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:

  [Previous reference deleted somewhere; looks like one of Vijay's.
  I apologize for following-up a later article, but I never got
  the original: dcs]

# >Actually, the last two decades have seen a massive increase in the 
# >number of 'Messianics' (Jewish Christians).  Most of them ARE grateful
# >for Gentile witnessing.

  This is usually called 'response bias'.  It's like saying that
  most people who buy a particular brand of toothpaste prefer it
  to competing brands.  The more interesting question is whether
  these people represent a majority of the target market (that
  is, Jews); if not, are the remainder massively ticked off?

  (A related question is whether the enormous amounts of money
  being spent to suck in Jews might accomplish more elsewhere;
  some of the numbers I've seen for $$/proselyte are really
  hard to accept.)

# And the Gentile Christians should be grateful to the Messianics for
# restoring the Jewish root of Christianity, which, for centuries,
# has been neglected or ignored.

  If 'twer so, 'twould be.  The fact is that the J4J operations
  are strictly a PR front for major churches.  They prey on the
  most ignorant Jews who don't know enough about Judaism to
  recognize the BS they're being fed.  A direct consequence is
  that the new recruits also don't have much to bring to the
  party (except, maybe, a taste for gefilte fish).

  Considering the sponsorship of the J4Js, it's highly doubtful
  that it would matter anyway.  These churches already have
  fully-developed theologies, after all, which are quite
  incompatible with Judaism.

  It's possible to engage in fruitful dialogs between Xtians and
  Jews, (OK, add Islam.  Glad to see you guys here!) but only on
  a basis of honest mutual respect.  At root, "Messianic Judaism"
  is neither honest nor respectful.  Dishonest, in that it claims
  a nonexistent compatibility between Xtianity and Judaism;
  disrespectful, in that it misrepresents Judaism where convenient.

  Disclaimer: I am not attacking the beliefs of Jews who have
  converted to Xtianity.  They are welcome to enjoy the same
  freedom of religion which I defend for myself.  I must, however,
  insist on some sort of truth-in-labeling here, where Xtianity
  is openly called by its proper name and not disguised under
  some misleading label like "Messianic Judaism."  This tactic is
  insulting to both Judaism AND Xtianity; I would hope that
  Xtians would have enough self-respect to wear the name proudly
  instead of hiding behind false advertising.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27724 alt.pagan:15954 alt.folklore.urban:35060
From: towfiq@Microdyne.COM (Mark Towfiq)
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:16:55
Organization: Microdyne Corporation, Westford, MA, USA
In-reply-to: u0d05@keele.ac.uk's message of 26 Jan 93 12:01:15 GMT
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
X-Mailer: GNU Emacs 18.58 with RMAIL and Supercite 2.2
Distribution: world

>>>>> On 26 Jan 93 12:01:15 GMT, u0d05@keele.ac.uk (PG Herzberg) said:

ph> P.S.  This is my first post to AFU and I've read the FAQ and have
ph> been reading AFU for months.  Is this unique?

  Wow, you actually READ the FAQ?  That is unique!! :^D

ph> P.P.S As it is my first post can you please go easy on my spelling
ph> and grammar.

  I don't mind going easy on your spelling and grammar, but what about
logic?  Are you saying that your spelling will dramatically improve as
you post to AFU? ?^D

Mark
From: RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: VERIFYING CHRISTIANITY #1
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:05:41 GMT
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

I have a short comment to make about Frank's statement that there are
some 24633 manuscripts extant for the New Testament alone.
   Mark did you ever ponder about the fact that NONE of these two are
   alike.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: joshua@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: ankh (you very much?)
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:38:59 GMT

SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen) writes:

>Imagine, if you will, outliving not only all the friends of your youth
>and your middle age, but also all of their great great grandchildren.
>Then imagine the enormous weight of memories, both good and ill, and the
>vast network of associations with pain and pleasure that any possible
>event would acquire, and the steady decrease in the novelty of daily
>experience.  One would have to be wholly other than human to endure such
>a burden.

I don't know if someone who lived that long would be considered 'human'
in the full sense, but if you have the potential to you can always decide
not to at some point.

josh
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Christian pro-choice
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:45:06 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <C14B8K.L7r@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>I was discussing the topic of abortion with someone else a few days ago.
>He said most people that are stauchly pro-choice have probably either
>had abortions or paid for an abortion to have been performed.
>I told him I did not agree.  Maybe I should consider it more carefully,
>
>Is there anyone on here who is pro-choice who has neither had an abortion,
>paid for one, or encouraged someone else to have one?

ahem.  Me. Me. Me-me-me-me-me-me-meeeeeeee....

-jen

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
From: styri@hal.nta.no (YuNoHoo)
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
Reply-To: styri@nta.no
Organization: Bohemians and Globetrotters, Unlimited
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 14:09:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.001241.19660@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz
(Mr. John T Jensen) writes:
>
>gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>>
>> It is sort of neat that the peace symbol is an upside down rune from
>> norse mythology.  The rune, (picture a peace symbol upside down)
>> represents the horns of an elk.  It's the "defence" rune, I believe.
>> [He said, being too lazy to go across the room and look it up...]
>
> I don't know what you think runes were, but they were in fact letters,
> representing sounds, not concepts (such as defence).  Nor were they pictures
> of creatures.  Some were derived from Roman letters (such as the rune for
> F), others made up. [stuff deleted] Later generations that could not read
> them may well have infused the, to them, mysterious shapes with ideographic
> meanings and reinterpreted them as pictures, but certainly there was no such
> intention on the part of the inventors.  Their invention was stimulated by
> Roman writing, amongst the then-pagan proto-Norse.

I'm sorry, but this is only one theory. Problem is, there are no certain
translations based on the "letters representing sounds" theory. There's an
academic dispute going on at the moment here in Norway (spills over in the
newspapers once a week) and a scientific paper seems to be forthcoming.
A new theory links the runes to older stuff than Roman letters and such.
Cindy may be more up-to-date on this than I am, she's been haunting the
university library lately.

Concerning the peace symbol you should look up Uncle Cecil. He's got a
story on that subject as well. He may of course be wrong (he missed badly
naming the type of sugar in grape-nuts), but it's good fun to read anyway.

---
YuNoHoo  "I'm on thin ice, sure - but I can swim"
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27764 alt.pagan:15997 alt.folklore.urban:35119
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Runes < was: Peace Symbol >
From: comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:49:47 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen) writes:

>>>They were originally notched into the 90-degree edge of a
>>>block of wood rather than on a flat surface

>>I don't remember hearing about that one before, but it's interesting.
>>What's your source?

Yuck.  I had better just keep my mouth shut.  It's ogham (early Irish stuff)
that is written on 90-degree edges, and that of stones rather than wood ---
is this not so?  Sorry!

jj

John Thayer Jensen                      64 9 373 7599 ext. 7543
Commerce Computer Services              64 9 373 7437 (FAX)
Auckland University                     jt.jensen@auckland.ac.nz
Private Bag 92019
AUCKLAND
New Zealand
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: VERIFYING CHRISTIANITY #1
Date: 27 Jan 1993 21:24:02 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <C1It27.Dtz@boi.hp.com> jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill) writes:
>Eric Sieferman (sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1993Jan26.154824.18539@news.ysu.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>: >
>: >Yet from it's first book (Genesis) to it's last (Revelation), it is in
>: >  COMPLETE harmony in it's major subject - God's redemption of man.
>: 
>: Huh?  The question of "redemption" hardly ever appears in the OT,
>: the major part of the Bible.  And the prescription for
>: "redemption", such as it is, is to repent and behave
>: better (eg, Book of Jonah).
>
>Eric apparently has never read the 53rd chapter of Isaiah. I'd suggest he read
>the entire book of Isaiah, then come and re-evaluate his statement about
>redemption. Much of this book ,as well as many other of the prophets, tell
>about the coming of the Messiah.

Apparently, you didn't read my paragraph you quoted, much less the
entire posting.  I said that the question of "redemption" hardly
ever appears in the OT, especially if "redemption" is meant
in the context of an afterlife.  This conclusion not only comes
from my own reading of the OT, but from discussions with (primarily) Jewish
students and scholars who know more than me about the historical context
of the OT writings.  Mentioning one chapter in Isaiah hardly
contradicts my original statement.

The idea of a messiah appears several times in the OT, but
a consistent picture of who this person is and what he will
do does not appear.  Many of the messianic references were
requests to God to send someone to bail out one or more
Hebrew nations, or to send someone to straighten up the
backsliding chosen people.  The authors of these verses
seemed to be expecting some sort of philosopher/king
or prophet/king, which is definitely NOT any of the
Jesus' presented in the NT.

There was an interesting discussion here recently dealing with
some of the "prophecies" in Isaiah.  There are other ways
to interpret these verses, and some of them seem much more
reasonable (to me) than the usual christian interpretation.
-- 
---  As Seen In soc.religion.islam:  You can dance the whole day
alone in your room, or with your wife and family at home, but you cannot
do that in a disco.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: VERIFYING CHRISTIANITY #1
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:56:02 GMT

_Evidence that Demands a Verdict_, by Josh McDowell.

What a piece of trash.  Learn how to construct a logical
argument.  When you do, you will be embarassed that you
posted this tripe.

Simple example: if I find a copy of _Mein Kampf_ along with
a receipt dated 1932 from a bookseller in Bonn, and verify
that said bookseller existed in 1932, all I have done is
proven that this is when the book was sold, and it must have
been printed beforehand.

It does not mean that a word of _Mein Kampf_ is true.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Disproof's uncouth, refuting moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Diatribe against Rushdie (was: Jihad in Islam)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:07:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.184930.14707@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
>So Rushdie seems to have a big problem with his 
>identity..... One day he calims he is a Muslim and the other day he claims
>he isn't..... So what is he??? Well, I doubt he even knows it himself....

He is trying to preserve his life.  Would you tell untruths and make
inconsistent statements if you believed that you would have a lesser chance of
being slaughtered?

>If I write a book claiming that *your*, yes *your* mother Mr Butler
>is a fucking whore who everybody everywhere has fucked. But she is 
>dead and thus can't defend herself against these sick accusations. 
>And you tell me to prove it and I answer:"It is *only* fiction, don't 
>take it personal!" Would you then say "well you are right and I think 
>you have the right to have this view and write a book expressing it" or 
>would you tell me to stop selling the crap and publicly say that the 
>thing I did was wrong?? I have *no* facts whatever for my accusations 
>and your mother can't defend herself as she is dead. 

1) The actual answer is "yes, write your book".
2) Telling someone to stop selling the book, and telling someone "if you keep
selling the book you will be murdered in cold blood" are not the same thing.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc