HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:29:01 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO


              -=> Quoting Rob Strom to Laura Johanna Manninen <=-
 RS> From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
 RS> Date: 4 Sep 92 20:08:00 GMT
 RS> Organization: IBM Research
 RS> Message-ID: <1992Sep04.200800.25038@watson.ibm.com>
 RS> Newsgroups: alt.messianic
 RS> Do you (Christians) equate the garden of Eden with heaven/the
 RS> afterlife? 
                              -BC> reply <BC-
Pretty much.  Gan-Eden, as Paradise, - or the Third-Heaven.  The place
of temporary abode in Avraham's bosom, etc....  Not the highest Heaven
-where the Covering Cherubim are before the presence of the Throne of
HaShem.  Is that what you were looking for?  BTW..., as per some of
your other comments, please see my post to Robert Levene.

... 012 Think not that I am come to annul the Torah or the Prophets: 210      
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Donna D'Iorio)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: The Fathers
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:02:04 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:124/7022 - MAXUS World H, Dallas TX


    To Laura Johanna Manninen
LJ>From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
LJ>Date: 1 Sep 92 00:50:22 GMT
LJ>Organization: University of Turku
LJ>Message-ID: <LJMORLY.92Aug31205022@polaris.utu.fi>
LJ>
LJ>Donna, did you get TA's theology I sent ? If not, I'll try again --
LJ>I just don't want to post any more junk... (like that description of
LJ>Maccoby's book)

    No, Laura, I didn't get it, but it appears that I have missed one
batch of incoming mail from the network that this newsgroup comes to me
on.  Sorry....I understand your not wanting to spread this stuff around!
Pretty sure we can count on seeing the same stuff rehashed many times
over again though.

    I assume that what is missing from my attempt to translate here is
"the taking or spilling of...."

LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag miflatzti -- Amos Oz
    Jewish blood is a monsterous concept
LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag matok -- Yasser Arafat
    Jewish blood is a sweet concept
LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag nifla -- Saddam Chussein
    Jewish blood is a marvelous concept (Saddam Hussein)
LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag meshaker -- haChomeinistim
    Jewish blood is an intoxicating concept  (Iranian Khomeini)
LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag meshubach -- haChamas
    Jewish blood is an excellent concept  (the Hamas terrorists)
LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag meshagea -- haChizbollah
    Jewish blood is a make-you-crazy concept  (the Hezbollah terrorists)
LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag nehedar -- neo-nazim
    Jewish blood is a wonderful concept (searchers for a scapegoat)
LJ>Dam yehudi hu musag ila'i -- haPamyat
    Jewish blood is the supreme concept (??? couldn't figure out)

And finally what appears to be the "Christianized" version of denial
which gives life to the "Dam yehudi hu musag nehedar" perspective:
    LJ>The Jewish blood... What's that ? -- Tom Albrecht  :-)

    Oh Augustine! What evil you set in doctrinal granite, that we should
still be dealing with your error in this hour!  "And the King shall
answer and say unto them, Truly I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye
have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have
done it unto me."
    Shalom, Donna

    Deu 33:29   Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee,
O people saved by the LORD, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword
of thy excellency! AND THINE ENEMIES SHALL BE FOUND LIARS UNTO THEE;
and thou shalt tread upon their high places.


    Shalom, Donna

--  
Donna D'Iorio - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Donna.D'Iorio@f7022.n124.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: esd3@po.CWRU.Edu (Elisabeth S. Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Interfaith marriage: Jew/Christian
Date: 8 Sep 1992 18:19:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: af749@cleveland.freenet.edu (Philip D. Ferrante)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


I really need your help!  Does anyone know of a newsgroup where
Interfaith Marriage Jew/Christian is discussed?  How about the raising
of children in a Jewish/Christian home?  I would really appreciate
any, and I mean ANY resource you could direct me to!

Thanks,
Philip D. Ferrante
af749@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Paradise (was Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby Book)
Organization: University of Turku
	<LJMORLY.92Aug30185025@polaris.utu.fi>
	<1992Sep04.200800.25038@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 5 Sep 92 19:29:23

In article <1992Sep04.200800.25038@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <LJMORLY.92Aug30185025@polaris.utu.fi>, ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:

> |> How do you think you'll get pass the angel who is standing in front of the 
> |> paradise with a flaming sword (Gen. 3:24) ? 
> |> 
> Do you (Christians) equate the garden of Eden with heaven/the afterlife?

What do you mean by this question ? It's all the same how you call it;
heaven, paradise, olam haba... It's the place without evil, and evil
can't enter to it. I'd say notzrim goyim normally call it heaven,
and Jews the world to come. In Hebrew, when someone dies, you can say
"halach le'olamo" (he went to his world). Around the time of Yeshua
people talked about 'Gan Eden' and 'Gai Hinnom' as the two possibilities
where to go. Here's a quote from the dying moments of Rav Yochanan ben
Zakkai:

    In his last hours, Rabban Yochanan be Zakkai kept weeping out loud.
    "O master," his disciples exclaimed, "O tall pillar, light of the
    world, mighty hammer, why art thou weeping ?" "I go to appear before
    the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be he ... moreover I have
    before me two roads, one to paradise and one to Gehenna and I KNOW
    NOT whether he will sentence me to Gehenna or admit me into paradise."
    (Avot de Rabbi Nathan 40a; chapter 35, Schechter)

So, how would you answer to the question, how you'll get pass the angel 
who is standing in front of the paradise with a flaming sword ?
Or do you count yourself to the Sadducees who didn't believe in afterlife ?

> -- 
> Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
> IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598

- Laura
--
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans 
of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from ancient, from the days of eternity." - Micha 5:1

"Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing 
love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,"
says the LORD, who has compassion on you.    - Yeshaya 54:10

met b'chet, CHAI B'Y'SHUA !
From: hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz)
Subject: Re: What's In A Name?
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:51:10 GMT

In article <9209151630.AA24926@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
>

[deleted to save space]

>>     the Nation of Eretz-Israel as a whole.  There were several
>>     Prophets who didn't marry, and obviously they had a "special
>>     calling".  Are you saying that because one may have an unusual
>>     calling from HaShem - that they are wrong?
>
>Who said it was a special calling?  They chose not to marry,
>they weren't ordered.

Actually, the most probable setting is that those prophets whose
families are not mentioned just never had the families relevent to
their prophecy.  Yeshaya who named his children with significant
names was relevent.  Shmuel had problems with his children, so they
are mentioned.  Note that there is no point where it is written
"Shmuel married and his wife conceived and bore children".

Those neviim which do not mention their children, still probably
had families, we just don't hear of them.

[deleted to save space]
>
>
>Rob
>
____________________________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |  Said the fox to the fish, join me ashore  |
| H_Markowitz@att.com |  The fish are the Jews, Torah is the water |
|_____________________|____________________________________________|
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Clean And Unclean Un / Maccoby book
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 7 Sep 92 10:03:32

In article <9209061629.AA05929@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
> >> My suggestion is to call themselves "Messianics," list
> >> themselves under "Churches - Messianic" and to cease and
> >> desist from calling their practices Judaism.

> ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi writes:

> > Then what is the difference between MJ'ism and RJ'ism ?

> "MJism" accepts the faith tenets of Christianity.
> "RJism" retains those of Judaism.

Could you give the faith tenets of RJism and what are they based on.

> >> > Do you believe that God is one ? 
> >> Yes.

> >> > Or is it just a question of "religions"
> >> Yes.

> > These two answers contradict one another. In one religion, God describes
> > himself in a certain way (or that's what the believers in that religion
> > believe); in another in a different way. Yet, there is only one God, and 
> > he can't contradict himself. 

> The different religions are based on contradictory understandings of
> what they believe G-d said.

Then what is Tanach ???

> ...
> > Thus, which one is the correct (notice: the correct one is not a religion;
> > the uncorrect one is), Messianic Judaism or Rabbinic Judaism ?

> Neither could be called "a religion."  Judaism, which you call
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Rabbinic Judaism" is the correct form of the Jewish religion,
                        VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV        
> unlike Karaism, Frankism, etc.  "Messianic Judaism" is a
> form of the Christian religion, based upon shared faith tenets,
> which Harvey Smith was kind enough to post for us.  It doesn't
> make sense for me to decide if it's "correct" or not, since
> I don't accept Christianity's faith tenets in the first place.

???

Once again, what have "tenets" to do with this ?

> R

- Laura
--
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans 
of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from ancient, from the days of eternity." - Micha 5:1

"Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing 
love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,"
says the LORD, who has compassion on you.    - Yeshaya 54:10

met b'chet, CHAI B'Y'SHUA !
From: Arthur.Marsh@f3015.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Arthur Marsh)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re:Book: The Bible and UFOs
Date: 6 Sep 92 09:20:58 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/3015

On Thu 03 Sep at 12:41 dfm2@jaguar.uofs.edu (1:30163/150) wrote to All:

 > There was a book in my high school library, i believe on that subject.
 > it supposed that Ezekiel's chariot, Elijah's disapperance, and much
 > dinine revelation to be the work of UFOs
 > I didn't think it seemed that rare.

Erik Von Daniken (sp) claimed that in Chariots Of the Gods. A Christian by the name of Clifford Wilson has written a number of books refuting the claims of Von Daniken's books. 

Shalom.

Arthur. 

Arthur.Marsh@f812.n800.z3.fidonet.org

--  
Arthur Marsh - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Arthur.Marsh@f3015.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: My Heritage
Date: 6 Sep 1992 08:11:16 -0500
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

I wrote:
>> You're 180 degrees away.  If you wrong someone, *only* that
>> person can forgive you.  Repentance, charity, etc. only help
>> if you transgress against G-d.

In article <LJMORLY.92Sep4110218@polaris.utu.fi> you write:>
> [..] If you kill someone, you can't ask forgiveness
> from him anymore. 

That's right.  One more reason not to murder.

> And if you transgress against God (as actually is the
> case always), you are under the thread of punishment until the sacrifice
> has been made. Repentance is needed, but charity etc. has nothing to do with
> this.[...]

One's path of repentance usually includes charity.

>> >  If, inorder to recieve forgiveness from God blood must be shed how
>> > does one do this today?
>
>> Heartfelt prayer, sincere repentance, and righteous action.
>
> Sacrifice. (that was given for us about 2000 years ago)

Answered in other post.

>> > Christian today."  I assure you it was no such thing.  Until you have
>> > had the same experience you can NEVER know what it is like to KNOW
>> > beyond a shodow of a doubt that God is with you every walking second.
>
>> Actually, G-d warned us about such experiences in Deut. 13:4.
>
> Where do you get that ?

"Signs and wonders" are sometimes a test of faith.  It's easy
to tell if it's a test - if the message is to go against the
Torah, you know it's a test.

R
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:45:43 GMT
	<716184217@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 11 Sep 92 04:03:38 GMT

In article <716184217@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>   Most feminists don't care why someone is against "choice for women."
>   His objection is enough of a litmus test.  I think that "choice for
>   men" is a good litmus test for equality my style.

  "Equality my style".  The only equality that you ever espouse is
"choice for men".  Not choice for people.  Just choice for men.  Some
equality.  You don't care about women or anyone else -- as long as you
get to live your life the way *you* want, the rest of the world can go
to hell.

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Defining terms 
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<715952271@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:52:02 GMT

In article <715952271@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

- Feminism is, more than anything else, a political movement.  The real
- "theory" behind most of this political movement demands is "it is good
- for women therefore it is good."  

Feminism is an intellectual movement with political implications.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:26:44 +1200
 <1992Aug31.071149.15854@news.columbia.edu> <1992Aug31.194731.20698@leland.Stanford.EDU> <63hns+c.payner@netcom.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

In article <63hns+c.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> Tell me, how is -anyone- influenced by history? We live with what history
						  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> has left us, but that is day-to-day reality, not the past. 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are born, you grow up. That has already happened, it is history. The
fact that `it has always been that way' is an artifact of history that I deal
with quite often, even in engineering work. What is seen as the historical
norm has a lot of power with most people, and changes to accomodate the
passions of the day. I think it is important to see where we come from
and what is driving people, in order to understand them and get on with
my life, as well as interacting with other people. But then, I'm not 
exactly a `historically normative' person.

> >Hmmm...  So, if she is a fanatic, what then?  Instant dismissal of all
> >her ideas?
> 
> You would uncritically accept the writings of a fanatic? (I'd use the
> word extremist here BTW). Rather, take with a few metric tons of salt.
> If you have the time and inclination, the best thing to do would be to
> check things out and draw your own conclusions. But there is not enough
> time in life to do this for every extremist/fanatic/whatever. It is
> simpler to ignore most of these things, or dismiss them out of hand.

alternatively, wait and see if other people begin taking some of it
seriously, then investigate. Christ and Hitler are figures who spring to mind.
Uncritical acceptance is different from reading, and trying to see what drives
the fanatic.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: a programmer is not an engineer, indeed
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:36:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.152837.9951@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>you apparantly are not afraid of them...so maybe you can answer the
>question better than i, why didn't you go into engineering with
>a specialty in software as opposed to going into CS ??? 

I went into CS because I found it more interesting.

>the fields are similar while the job and career prospects are certaily
>MUCH better for the engineer.

<snicker>

> so why CS and not engineering?

Personal preference.
  
>men get the negative messages every bit the same that women do. we just
>don't throw in the towel and quit when we have a setback.

Men get _different_ negative messages.  Then again, no two men get the
same negative messages.  And some men do quit; we just know about the
ones who either didn't have the setback, or didn't quit.  There are a
lot more men digging ditches than women.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: The word "sexist" (WAS: Sexist studies...) 
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<AWERLING.92Sep10230919@dante.nmsu.edu> <nnvn6-=.payner@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:23:18 GMT

In article <nnvn6-=.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

   In article <AWERLING.92Sep10230919@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
   >- I have yet to make any value judgements here, despite several posters
   >- assumptions to the contrary.
   >
   >I assume you are partially (fully?) referring to me.  I've been
   >conscious of your evading 

   Bogosity alert - I have "evaded" nothing, especially value judgements.
   I simply see no need to make them here.

You came out of nowhere and called Women's Studies sexist.  Surely you
knew what loaded language you were using.


   >                         of value judgments, or at least your lack of
   >including or inferring them.  What I have tried to point out is that
   >the *word* sexist is negative in our language (via our culture).  To
   >say that Women's Studies is sexist is to call it negative, without
   >providing a disclaimer.  

   Since this usage is consistant with the primary dictionary definition,
   I do not see the requirement for a disclaimer. If the word sexist
   does not refer to the actions of both sexes, than it is sexist as well, 
   and I do mean with the negative bias.

   Think about it, if language does color though (as claimed in another
   thread), then defining sexism as men doing bad things to women (as it
   is often used) defines the problem as strictly a male problem. A non-
   sexist (and valid) usage is the non-biased version, just 'discrimination
   by members of one sex against the other'. 

I would use your latter definition, with the word "negative" added
before it. 


   >                                  Your lack of a disclaimer is either
   >neglectful on your part or dishonest.  

   Far from it, your use of ad-hominum is distastefull, and completely
   unecessary. By what means do you judge "dishonest"y in others?

I said *either* neglectful or dishonest.  Either you neglected to
state that you meant "sexist" neutrally, or you were withholding them
for some reason.  One or the other, yes?


   >If you wanted to merely say that you find Women's Studies to be
   >exclusionary, you might have considered using less-loaded words than
   >"sexist."

   And you might have chosen other words than "dishonest" and "neglectful".
   But you did not.

If you weren't being dishonest or neglectful, what were you being?

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Transmitting from Planet Yip--where everyone you meet 
			      is already dead.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Bathroom symbols
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:24:08 GMT

dfrankow@unity.cs.umn.edu (Dan Frankowski) writes:

>I found your interpretation very interesting indeed.  Thanks for
>posting.  I'd never thought of it that way.  Now (honestly trying not
>to sound adversarial), what symbols would you use instead?

I appreciate your kind remarks.  So rare indeed.

I liked the idea of using the Mars and Venus symbols.  But if we
have to stick with human looking silhouettes, how about one standing
with an arch of pee coming from crotch area, and another sitting
(this one could have breasts) on the toilet?  I can picture it
very well in my head....

I mean, if we need to draw these distinctions based on our biology,
why don't we stick to the biology?

And of course the bigger issue that arises is:  how often and in what
contexts do we specify 'generic, sexless human', like we do on the 
men's bathroom door, when we all take it *really* to mean 'men only'?
I don't know the answer, but it unsettling in the case of both
restrooms and ginger cookies. :)

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:889 soc.men:16185
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Looking for "women's" rpg.
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:36:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1992Sep9.031634.29592@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
> I've seen very little evidence that
>there ever was 'a truly matriarchical society'.  Part of the problems seems
>to be in defining what a 'truly matriarchical society' is, it seems to me.
>(Would we know one if we saw one?).
>
>There were clearly matrilineal societies, but the experts I have seen quoted
>deny that these matrilineal societies were 'really matriarchical'.
>
>There are some serious non-fictional books on the topic that have been
>debated at length over on soc.men.  Loren Petrich has mentioned the works
>of the 'pro' faction in his long standing debate with Robert Schaeffer on
>this topic.  However, I don't recall the author's name - ?Gimblya? -
>?The Godess Myth?.  The anti-side I have read Steven Goldberg's 
>"The Inevitability of Patriarchy" (an essay, not a book).  I wound up
>disagreeing with both sets of views from what I read.  I'm of the viewpoint
>that the topic needs some more definition (what exactly IS a patriarchy) and
>probably lacks sufficient evidence to prove OR disprove.

The definitional side certainly is a difficult one. Just as it's easy
to argue from what little evidence exists that past matrilineal societies
were not even vaguely matriarchal, i.e. that men had the real power,
there seems to be a continuing consensus in some newsgroups that in 
today's patrilineal society women hold most or all of the real power.

The kind of fancy footwork that all this involves can sometimes get
quite amusing. For example, if you go to Crete, which was at one time
a matrilineal state (standing among the restored ruins of Knossos
and looking up at the twin peaks of Mt Ida, you can get an intuitive
understanding of why) you will find a museum in which every container
is labeled "vase." In the large guidebook for Knossos, there is a long
description of the royal chambers and the antiquity of the throne on
which the king sat and so forth, with only the most minor of discordant
footnotes pointing out that because this was a matriarchal society
the figure referred to in the text as "king" was actually a queen...

paul
Newsgroups: alt.feminism