HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Pulling Firearms
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:15:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.023744.18259@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>These are not variances in the Fact that when the
>Weapon was Drawn, a "commitment to the Use of
>Lethal Force" has occurred.
>
>And in Small English, for the Slow Reader,
>that Means that One has concluded that the
>Perp will be DEAD, ceterus paribus. 

That's false. No "commitment" to deadly force occurs until the
trigger is pulled. Carrying a handgun, in the hand or in the
holster, merely shows a *capability* to use deadly force.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
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 03:37:44 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

barth@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barth.richards) writes:

>Actually, they were both.  The runes that most people are now familiar with
>were used as letters, but they were also used in divination, so each rune
>had a symbolic meaning as well as a phonetic one.  There were also runes
>that had only a symbolic meaning and were not used for letters at all.  The
>swastika and the symbol we now call a "heart" were two of these.

Blush!  Of course you are right.  Indeed, in most writing systems, the
individual graphs often become infused with symbolic meaning as well.  The
swastika, however, I am told, is found in archaeological remains from much
of the northern hemisphere and is said to have associations with labyrinths.
Kindly do not, however, ask me for references (see below :-).

>>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?

Er, um, well, a book I once read, uh, that is, I might be able to get time
to go back to the library.  Written by a Swede.  Says he, defensively,
caught with his trousers down.

>Actually, runes were used over quite a wide portion of Europe, and I seem
>to remember that their early use was pretty pan-Germanic.  Again, I will
>check my references and get back to you.

Yes, but at least some of this stuff in other parts of Europe (e.g.
Byzantine territories, Sicily) was attributed by Mumbleberg (op.cit.) to
Scandinavian travellers in those parts and used by him as proof of their
travels.  Mind you, at the earliest stage (2nd century?) of rune-writing the
distinction between Scandinavians and pan-Germanic is a bit notional.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27145 alt.pagan:15680
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Cecilia Henningsson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Living forever (Was: ankh (you very much?))
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:22:22 GMT
Organization: Lysator ACS at Linkoping University

[Here was a mess of attributations. I couldn't disentangle it.]

>>>>Don't be silly. I'm quite able to have children. I have--much to
>>>>my regret--no intention to live forever.
>>>Well, I wouldn't be caught dead living forever!  -- Robert
>>Well, I just quote Woody Allen (I think is the author of this one):
>>        I want to live forever, or die trying.

Woody Allen? Heck no! It's Vila in the eminent BBC sf-series
_Blakes_7_.  He is also the one to say: "There isn't a lock in the
universe I can't open if I'm scared enough." You don't need to ask his
profession, do you? :)

--Ceci

--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
                   "Grandfather was a tree." 
  Opening sentence of _Hearts, Hands and Voices_ by Ian McDonald
===================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Art Johnson)
Subject: Re: MORMONISM VS. THE BIBLE (The Doctrine of God)
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 01:38:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.195715.16270@news.ysu.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank  
DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
> 
> DOCTRINE OF GOD
>  
     [...stuff deleted: read it yourself!...]

     Once more into the breach!!!!!!! :-)

Arthur Johnson
johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:52:09 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <c0AO02d931y801@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>You see Gordon, the problem here is that you have two different
>definitions for Jesus.  When you say that Jesus is not a created being
>you are talking about the pre-incarnate Jesus; in which I would agree.
>My original discussion was talking about Jesus in the flesh, in which
>he was created.  Your semantics gives you an answer in either situation.

I guess I don't really understand what you are talking about then. 
Are you saying that Jesus in the flesh is *not* the same being
as the pre-incarnate Jesus (Logos)?  I thought this was a heresy
in both orthodox and Mormon theology.  Or are you saying that
Jesus' physical body was not created by the food he ate or
the nourishment he received from his mother?  I'm not at all
clear what you believe and what you believe the Mormons believe
about this.  Maybe you would like to outline both positions
so I can see if I want to attack yours or deny that the one
you say Mormons believe is truly accurate.

>And yes, I will say that the Mormons teach that their Heavenly Father
>was created!  Don't you teach that "As you are, your God once was"?
>That we worked up the ladder to reach Godhood?  Thus his Godness was
>created.
>

Well, I wouldn't use the word created for it, but I think that is
a more accurate view of Mormon theology than the ones you have
previously expressed.  And a genuine heresy to orthodoxy, I agree.
But the being who is God is not created, neither human souls.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:40:32 GMT


We have been discussing the OT Law.  I wrote that, by the standards I have
available, the OT law is unreasonably harsh.

David Kaufmann has been taking the opposite position, at least when he can
refrain from insulting me.  However, he misunderstood and failed to address
the main point of my last post.  I will attempt to restate it.


Dr Kaufmann argued that I cannot reasonably judge OT laws by any but OT
standards; there is an entire philosophy which drives the legal system, and
what should be considered is how well the various punishments fit within
that legal system.

Judaism, for example, assumes that the Torah is divinely authored; one of
the basic commandments of Judaism is to honor one's parents.  Parents are
considered representatives of the Creator.

A rebellious son, who denies his reponsibility to his parents and declares
his rejection of the source of life has, by this standard, forfeited his
right to life.

Therefore, by the philosophical framework in which the OT Law is meant to
operate, killing a rebellious son is perfectly consistent.  I have never
denied this.


However, Dr Kaufmann said nothing whatsoever about my counterexample about the
Spanish Expulsion of the Jews.

The Spanish monarchs had declared being a practicing Jew "the greatest, most
perilous, and most contagious of crimes."  Spain was a Catholic country, and
someone who rejected the Catholic religion had forfeited his right to live
in a Catholic country.

Using the philosophical framework that Ferdinand and Isabella lived in, the
expulsion of the Jews was completely justified and perfectly consistent.


It seems to me that if I cannot fairly criticise Jewish law by standards
except those used by the people of the time, that I also cannot fairly
criticise Spanish law except by the standards of THOSE people.  The standards
of legality and morality that I follow are external to the OT society, true;
but they are also external to the standards of Ferdinand and Isabella.


In your last answer, you said nothing about the Spanish actions of 1492.
Perhaps I did not make it clear, but your evaluation of those actions is
what I was interested in.

So then: how do you see the Expulsion of the Jews?  Do you use standards
external to the 15th-Century Spanish monarchy?  If so, who are you to use
your standards on others?  Why should anybody care what you think?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Ad Hominem (was: Virginia and Darlene)
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:08:25 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

In article <14280@pogo.wv.tek.com>, daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
wrote:

I totally agree that ad hominem attacks should not happen -- and if I have
done something similar I apologize deeply. The foundation of the modern
society is based on peaceful cooperation and understanding, and ad hominem
attacks are basic instincts we have inherited from our ape genes. Mildly
speaking.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.slack,alt.peeves,alt.discordia
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1993Jan22.162420.14957@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:28:58 UTC

In article <1993Jan22.162420.14957@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.032036.19118@nuscc.nus.sg> 
cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan) writes:
>>Can someone enlighten me on this question:
>>If God exists and God is All Powerful and All Loving, why does
>>He allow sufferings to exist.  Why did He create humankind with
>>the propensity for Greed, *HATRED* and Delusions and allow us to
>>murder and harm each other?
>The God of the Bible exists and is all powerful; however, he
>is not all loving.  If this is the God you are referring to,
>then your presupposition is in error.  God doesn't love everybody
>nor does he love everything.  For starters . . .
>Malachi 1:3
>    "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the Lord says.  "Yet
>    I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have *HATED*, . . . ."
>Proverbs 6:16
>   There are 6 things the Lord *HATES*, 7 that are
>   *DETESTABLE* to him:
>   (1)haughty eyes, (2)a lying tongue, (3)hands that shed
>   innocent blood, (4)a heart that devises wicked
>   schemes, (5)feet that are quick to rush into
>   evil, (6)a false witness who pours out lies, and
>   (7)a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
>Malachi 2:16
>   "I *HATE* divorce," says the Lord God of Israel,
>   "and I *HATE* a man's covering his wife with
>   violence as well as with his garment," says
>   the Lord Almighty.
>Would you care to rephrase your question? 

And let us not, oh brethren, forget the all time *HATE*-mongering classic,
spoken by the god-man himself, yes that's right, and *JESUS* said:
Luke 14:26 (KJV)
	"If any man come to me, and *HATE* not his (1)father, and (2)mother,
	 and (3)wife, and (4)children, and (5)brethren, and (6)sisters, yea,
	 and his own (7)life also, he cannot be my disciple"

The Stark Fist of Removal will not be denied! 
JHVH-1, the great SuperNatural awaits his chosen ones!
And JHVH-1 is quite peeved as well as peevish as he does come quick!
Revelation 22:20 (KJV)
	"He which testifieth these things saith, 'Surely I come
	 quickly.' Amen! Even so, come, Lord *JESUS*!"
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27522 soc.culture.jewish:26078
Date: Sunday, 24 January 1993 21:16:38 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.16R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: technical question here
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
Distribution: world

Note to scj readers: this is crossposted to talk.religion.misc,
where the question originated.  Crosspost to scj is courtesy
of drieux, and rather thoughtful (IMHO).

In <1993Jan21.070242.25164@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)  wrote:
# "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:
# ]   This shouldn't be a problem, since the commandment in question
# ]   (along with 606 others) were given specifically to Jews, who
# ]   DO have the judicial system to prevent abuse.  The trouble
# ]   arises when others pick and choose portions of the text for
# ]   their own use.
# 
# this raises the somewhat interesting question for
# those who are 'christian biblical literalists':
# 
# would you recommend that they spend a little time
# understanding a bit of the Talmud before they
# go kibitzing about what the 'old testament' means?

  Somehow I have a hard time believing that the XBL crowd would
  care.  Vijay is already telling us that the Authorized Version's
  translation of Ps. 22:17 is more reliable than the Masoretic
  Hebrew (Hey! if there's nothing close to 'pierced' in the
  Hebrew then it was CHANGED!)

  Since the 'literalists' are literal only about readings that
  support their version of <whatever> and reject even the plain
  Hebrew text when it contradicts a (peripheral, yet) point of
  dogma, do you really think that they would believe Talmudic
  evidence that First Century Judaism didn't take a "kill them
  all and let Heaven sort them out" approach to criminal law?
  Or anything else that doesn't fit what they want to believe?

  OF COURSE they could dramatically reduce their shoeleather
  ingestions if they did a little ignorance amelioration
  first.  But then they wouldn't be the flaming wackos that
  we all know and love [*1], would they?

[*1] "love to send up," would you believe?  How about "love to
     do without?"  "love to hear the last of?"  HELP!

--- 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:27643 alt.pagan:15895 alt.folklore.urban:34907
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
From: derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Derek Tearne)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 04:43:11 GMT
Organization: Fujitsu New Zealand

In article <C1GMq4.CA7@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> u0d05@keele.ac.uk (PG Herzberg) writes:
>
>P.S. This is my first post to AFU and I've read the FAQ and have been
>reading  AFU for months. Is this unique?

Yes, in all probability you are.  Amazingly there are approximately 40,000
more lurkers out there.  Some of them _must_ have read the FAQ.  Some of them
may eventually get round to posting.  

The really unique event would be a first post where the poster doesn't mention
the fact that it is a first post, has read the newsgroup for more than one 
month, read the FAQ and ....     

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

....  doesn't expect special privileges!

>exact reference , but another two explainations are:-
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

One error - not bad at all...  

ObUL: When the Grauniad installed computers they requested a special 
spelling checker and thesaurus which randomly misspelled words.
     
Derek "We liek it thsi way" Tearne


-- 
Derek Tearne.   --   derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz   --    Fujitsu New Zealand   -- 
 _______
 _______} This is a Usenet Condom<tm>.  Roll the condom over the .signature 
	  file before posting to protect yourself from .sig retro-virii
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose ANSWERING ---> Willard Smith (Rabbits DO! Chew Cud)
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:06:23 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

Well, Tony, after reading your 100K dissertation on how rabbits
chew their cud, it is clear that Willard was wrong.  Therefore,
since Willard is a Mormon, that must mean that the Mormon church
is an unChristian cult, just as you have been saying.

Did you ever see the Caine Mutiny?  The part about the strawberries
reminds me very much of you.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.slack,alt.discordia,alt.pagan
From: joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina)
Subject: Re: Getting to know God, was God is NOT Allah was Re: Islam at a Glance
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:22:33 GMT

In article <1jl36bINN4pt@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:
>In article <fYaK67C@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Does God have an omphalos?
>
>Does god have a pineal gland?

Zits?

*) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)!(* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (*
Jo Ann Malina, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
joann@slac.stanford.edu  -or-  415/926-2846
Neither Stanford nor the DOE would be caught dead with these opinions.
Nor do they consult me when formulating theirs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.     -Bill Clinton
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27202 alt.slack:3808 alt.discordia:720 alt.pagan:15707
From: gseidman@math14.math.umbc.edu (gseidman@math14.math.umbc.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.slack,alt.discordia,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Birthing men...
Date: 22 Jan 1993 02:57:00 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: math14.math.umbc.edu

In article <1993Jan21.034131.19299@wam.umd.edu> bast@wam.umd.edu (Jaguar) writes:
>It seems one day a woman who had a hysterectomy fond herself pregnant.
>The fetus has attached to her bowel.....
>Do not recall if the article stated that she carried it to term or not.
>However, this would imply that it could be possible for a man to carry 
>a child.
>Of course, you would have to open 'em up, put the fertilized egg in...
>hope it implants and does not trigger an infection if it does not...
>Delivery would be by C-section of course...
>Granted, this would not be the easiest, cheapest and most effective way
>to have children.
[stuff deleted]

There is an essay written by Larry Niven and published, among other
places, in his anthology _All the Myriad Ways_. The essay is entitled
"Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" and deals with, in an extremely funny
manner, the problems facing Superman in reproducing. One of the
suggestions was planting a human egg fertilized by a single Kryptonian
sperm into his bowels.... I recommend this essay, by the way, to ANYONE
and EVERYONE.


--Pope Gregory I of Zot
"...the demon image is zot..." --Steve Cook, Prophet of Zot
Zot guards my lighter, along with Eris and J'M'TH!

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: JESUS HAS DIED - Christianity Connection - Part IV
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:04:37 GMT

Those are all interesting possibilities, but could you give any proof or 
reasong behind the things that you were writing?  If all we have to do is write
things that are logically possible there could be any number of things, 
couldn't there, that could have happened?  What did happen?

MAC
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:20:44 GMT

In article <93023.143323IO10184@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO10184@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes:
>
>    What a neat coincedance! I just snatched a book from a local
>bookstore that sheds light on this subject.

Actually, the best book on this is Rev. Alexander Hislop's book "The Two
Babylons".  The "peace symbol" obviously was derived from the sign of
cross, and the sign of cross was, as Rev. Hislop documented in details
in his book, one of most ancient pagan and occult symbols in human
history, and that is why the cross was called "cursed tree" in the
Bible, and that is why the Adversary chose to nail Christ on the cross.

The pagan and occult origin of the sign of cross was well-known to the
early Puritans.  In New England, you can still find many historic
church buildings dated back to the Puritan days, and in NONE of them
can you find the sign of cross.

So, is the "peace symbol" a pagan and occult symbol?  Of course it is,
for it was derived from the sign of cross, which was one of the most
ancient pagan and occult symbols in human history.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.


-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
Subject: Re: Small Historical Question here
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:25:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

drieux, just drieux (drieux@wetware.com) wrote:
: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill) writes:
: ] 
: ]       The United States was founded by Christians, as a Christian Nation
: ]                                Jim Burrill                       
: ] 				10/23/92
: ] 
: ]     History shows us that Pilgrims were in search of Religious Freedom when
: ] they came to the new world. King James was king of England.
: 
: ok, 
: 
: So which were the RealChristians[tm]????
: 
: The Puritans? The Pilgrims? The COE????
:
    A study of the the history of this time period shows that the Puritans
were also in search of religious freedom and freedom from repression from the
corrupt Church of England and King James at this time. I chose to discuss the
Pilgrims on the basis of references I had available from William Bradford's
"History of Plymouth Plantation". If you would like a discussion on the
Puritans, I will refer you to the book I mentioned in the basenote.

Jim Burrill 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:27:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.220448.28774@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>Actually, you won't find Christ condemning either homosexuality
>>>     or abortion (even though this act was somewhat prevalent at
>>>     the time-- funny, isn't it?).
>>I don't really have any info. on abortion among Jews in the 1st century,
>>but I do know that the Jewish leadership knew that homosexual acts were
>>sins.  Jesus did not specifically mention the topic in the record we
>>have inthe gospels.  But he does condemn "porneia" the general term
>>for homosexuality.

>Porneia means "sexual immorality."

Exactly.  But, according to what I have read, it included homosexuality,
as well as incest and adultery.

>In fact, I don't even know of any location where Jesus condemns
>porneia. I think that's Paul too.

Well, off of the top of my head, Jesus mentions fornication in a list with
other things that defile a man in Matthew 15 around verse 19 or so.

Link Hudson.