HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 21:47:44 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

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

>Elliot's RUNES has an entire chapter on the origin of runes, the basic
>upshot of which is that we can't be certain, but they appear to have
>developed from Etruscan, or, more likely, Northern Itallic writing
>systems (or possibly under the influence of both).

But (cautious here: someone is sure to ask me for the reference, which is
in fact reading from linguistic texts ab- or adsorbed over the last 30 years
or so) didn't the Etruscans use essentially the Greek alphabet (itself the
ancestor of the Roman alphabet)?  True their language is undeciphered but
there is no problem with the characters - I think.  So this would still mean
that I wasn't completely offbase when I said that I understood that the
shapes of runes had derived from the characters of other (at least European)
writing systems.

Perhaps this discussion belongs in sci.lang.

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: jws5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JUSTIN WINSLOW SOLONYNKA)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 23 Jan 93 04:01:44 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

(Mike Cobb) writes:
>Maybe this is a strange way of looking at it, but if it is not human, then what
>is it?  If all humans have rights, then why does this thing NOT have the same
>rights that all other humans do?  As to the "conceive and bear a son" line not
>showing humanity, what does it show?  Do women ever conceive and bear a table,
>or a monkey, or an apple?  From the moment of conception the only thing that is
>added is food and protection.  All of the genes and dna that are needed, color
>hair, eyes, sex, etc., are all present?  If humans deserve to be protected, AND
>THIS THING IS HUMAN, then why shouldn't it be protected?
>(Just because it can't talk back?)
>
>MAC
>

That is actually a quite reasonable view.  Perhaps I'm Pro-Life after all.

The line that hit me: "Do women ever conceive and bear a table..."

Thanks.

sol  |  see the cat?  see the cradle?
jws5@lehigh.edu
-- 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27623 alt.pagan:15885 alt.folklore.urban:34880
From: richa@grizzly.CNA.TEK.COM (Grizzly Amber)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:44:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.


Lotsa :-) :-) ;-> :-) here...

Turn it upside down. Imagine the circle is the frame of a
magnifying glass. Now it's a "piece" symbol.

:-)

It's also the foot print of a chicken.

OK, OK, flame all you like...

Sigh. Sometimes you just gotta stop being so damn serious
andd have a little fun.

Griz
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Daniel's Prophecy and the 360 day year (was Re: Length of years)
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:55:59 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

In article <93025.104439RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>
>In the above, I have shown that Bab cannot be the fulfillment of Dan. 8:14,
>if one were to accept the logic that one day is equal to one year (as suggested
>by Vijay and other christians). My conclusion is, one cannot randomly take
>any year to prove the fulfillment of a certain prophecy in any scripture
>through either Jesus or Bab or anyone else. There has to be a valid reason
>for such a selection of year(s). I am yet awaiting christian explanation for
>Dan. 8:14. Good luck with your mathematics.
>
>----
>H. Siddiqui.

Daniel 7 & 8 is considered by Christians to be 'end-times' since there
are no events in history which match its fulfilment. Many of the symbolisms
found there are repeated or verified in Revelation.

The *little horn* is the forthcoming false Messiah, the Antichrist who
will make a covenant with the Jews and help rebuild the Temple.

He will be of Roman origin and be in charge of a ten-nation Roman 
alliance.   After 3.5 years he will turn against the Jews by violating
the sanctuary and setting himself up to be a god.

I could go on but I want to save it for my forthcoming 'Future Of Israel'
series which will appear on alt.messianic and not be cross-posted to any
other group.

Vijay
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:00:24 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <1993Jan24.022044.6538@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>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.

Oh. I see. Never mind that the folks from the CND (you are ignorant of
the British Campaign for Nuclear Disamament?), who I believe came up
with the symbol, have said (as another poster said, used semaphore
signals? And I suppose your Adversary (tm) arranged for that by setting
up a ton of cultures that administered punishment, capitol and otherwise,
by the cross? Goshawowie, what inCREDible planning. Seems to me that 
guy does better planning than your Big Guy, since their (gender-neutral
second person term) plans work hundreds of years in advance, while the
Big Guy's plans barely last a hundred years or so, before they go crashing
down.
<snip>
>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,
(from the ignorant (my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts))
>-- 
>For Christ and His Kingdom
>-- Publius
>Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.

Wish they were.

Random sig quotes follow

	mark
--
:  Pat Robertson on the   : It is about a socialist, anti-family political :
: Equal Rights Amendment  : movement that encourages women to leave their  :
:      *     *     *      : husbands, kill their children, practice witch- :
:                         : craft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. :

Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote 
various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish.  Over the 
centuries, these stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn 
into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled.  Finally, this 
material was badly translated into several languages successively.

The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex 
and technical subject.

                    -- Tom Weller, *Science Made Stupid*


Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27706 alt.atheism:27130 soc.culture.jewish:26245
From: hayim@alpha.la.locus.com (Hayim Hendeles)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:06:17 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <1993Jan22.152210.10238@gboro.rowan.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Norman Conquest) writes:
>
>Earlier, I wrote about the OT Law and the prescription of stoning, saying
>"there are several places where this punishment is recommended for crimes
>that are no more than trivial".
>
>In reply, David Kaufmann writes: 
>
>> How do you know they're trivial? By what standards is this determined?
>>
>> The penal code of any system of jurisprudence undoubtedly contains penalties
>> that don't seem to fit the crime - to an outsider.  But I would think one
>> should understand the philosophy and context of the entire legal system
>> before criticizing a part of it.
>
>On March 31, 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella signed an order giving three months
>for all practicing Jews to leave Spain.  Being ethnically Jewish itself was
>not a sin, but being a practicing Jew was "the greatest, most perilous, and
>most contagious of crimes."  (Martin Marty, _Pilgrims in Their Own Land_,
>pages 16-20.)
>
>My initial reaction to this would be to say that it was horribly unjust;
>however, I am judging that by my own standards.
>
>I assume that, since you believe it is inappropriate for me to judge past
>societies by my standards, you do not condemn the Spanish government for
>evicting the Jews.
>
> ...

Religious Law aside, 50 years ago in America, it was considered
an immoral, despicable, and cruel act to abort a fetus. Only the
lowest of the low would engage in such acts, and those doing so
would be shunned by the rest of their colleagues. 

Today, it is considered "perfectly acceptable" in America for
doing so, and anyone protecting the lives of these unborn fetuses
is considered violating a "fundamental right" of women.

It is not inconceivable that in some futuristic society they might
look back upon these acts as the mass murder of poor, defenseless,
little babies - an act that our society (r"l) condones.

My point is that society's standards are fickle and change with
the times. The Torah's standards are absolute and unchanging.
You may not agree with the Torah's perspective - but then again,
the Torah certainly does not agree with yours.

Hayim Hendeles
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:39:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu wrote:
:           
: 
:                          CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
:       
:                Most Christians would agree, and correctly so, that 
:           Jesus Christ was a perfect living Master, and a projection of 
:           God into the physical world, God Incarnate. 
:            
:                First, Jesus Christ was NOT unique, John 3:16 NOTWITH-
:           STANDING.  There is ALWAYS at least one such perfect living 
:           Master (God Incarnate) PHYSICALLY ALIVE in this world AT ALL 
:           TIMES, a continuous succession THROUGHOUT HISTORY, both 
:           before and after the life of Jesus. 
:

John 14:6- JESUS SAID:
Joh 14 6  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one 
comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is not "another living master". Either He is the Savior of the world as
He claimed, or He deceived people deliberately when He said that no one else
would allow people access to God.

Jesus also warned Christians about your "other living masters":

Mark 13:22- JESUS SAID:
Mar 13 22 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs
and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible.

Mat 7 15  "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Now, my friend, a question for you. Which other "living master" claims that
they are the ONLY way to the Father?

Jim Burrill



Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27537 alt.atheism:26995
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: VERIFYING CHRISTIANITY #1
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:32:21 GMT

In <1993Jan28.015602.29189@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) 
writes:

>_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.

What are your ways for proving or checking as to whether a document is true or
not?

MAC

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Do you have any fleas?
Summary: Do you have any Fleas
Keywords: Birth,design,God's Will
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:38:53 GMT

Do you have any fleas? Were you ever present when they hatched from their
teeny tiny larvea? Doesn't that make you think of God's grand design for
the universe.  To see a flea hatch is to see the Plan of Creation.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS and Contradictions (?)
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:10:48 GMT


Eric Seiferman wrote "one of my bases for rejecting the resurrection of Jesus
as an historical fact is that the only four alleged accounts of the event
are vague and filled with contradictions."

Otheres have alluded to this as well.

It's time to put up your evidence!

I CHALLENGE you, Mr. Seiferman, and others who feel there are _contradictions_
inn the accounts to post them one at a time, and I will do my best to 
respond to them. This claim is made by those who do not understand what the
word _contradiction_ means. Please look it up in a dictionary first.

Don't forget the 1 Corinthians 15 account, Mr. Seiferman.

-- 
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,alt.pagan,alt.religion.computers
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Proof That GUI is SATANIC!!!!
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:24:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan20.020039.17936@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>tim@iss.nus.sg (Tim Poston) writes:
>] : ] Exodus 34:14
>] : ] for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, 
>] : ] whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
>] 
>] Meta-Apocrypha 42:42
>] "He's a jealous God, all right," said Mary, "it comes of being 
>] no good in bed."
>
>Isn't that also the Text that Reveals that there is
>The MARK OF THE BEAST embedded in the "Magic Number"
>of all DOS code?????

Oh, drieux. Dear dear dear dear dear....

Don't you realize that both TheLordGod and TheBeast are MaleFigures??

And that DOS is -really- MS-DOS, ie, Ms. Dos????

[I know this well, since I have been called Ms. Dos by my worshippers]

Ms. Dos is the -true- Goddess. It is disliked for its very Simplicity 
and MinimalSupportOfUsers, yet is is the most-used operating system
in the world.  It provides a base upon which many can build AddOn
Utilities, and receives little Respect even within the Company where
30% of the Company's Income is from Ms Dos.  Indeed, it is the operating
system incarnation of the OneTrueEarthMotherOfUsAll.

-jen
 aka The MSDOS Goddess, Ms Dos, and Software Princess

Formerly in Ms Dos Enduser Support   "I don't see what could be wrong with my
You make it, we break it...TESTING!     DOS. I just compiled it this morning."

>MajorModernDayProblems: 
>
>sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
>and they may not be connected.....
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:26:58 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA22455; Tue, 26 Jan 93 04:23:40 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA20480; Tue, 26 Jan 93 04:23:36 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0538; Tue, 26 Jan 93 13:22:49 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet, talk.religion.misc.usenet

In article <C1BwCB.G67@athena.cs.uga.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>
>In article <16B5E1208D.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de
>>So what, Paul is a prototype Fascist if there ever was one.
>
>What does Paul have to say about specific government types?
>

Societies, social organisations can be 'Fascist' as well.


>>Anyway, the case with agape has not been settled.
>>Ie, the question is open if it refers to sexual practices of
>>Jesus and his disciples. Note that they were all male at the
>>end.
>
>Agape is also described as the kind of love we have for God, a Spirit.
>Maybe you insinuated the above because the English word "love" can have
>sexual connotations.
>

Nope, I have used the Greek word, and I have meant the Greek word.
The point is to say that agape has only a spiritual meaning is an
assumption. It does not necessarily follow. Those who want to have
an asexual god think differently, of course.



>>And I can show you passages in the bible which say that it is better not to be
>>born, and being aborted counts as being better off, too. (Kohelet)
>>   Benedikt
>
>And many of these speak of miscarriages in the same way they speak of the
>death of a grown man.
>

It speaks of people who have not been born at all in a similar way.
What may I conclude now?


>If you take a verse of Ecclesiastes out of context, you can get the wrong
>idea.  Qoheleth argues many sides of the same issues, and it all leads up
>to the last few sentences of the book.
>

Ho hum, I have not taken it out of context, it says it there literally.
Neither do I see where it is taken back.

And that Qohelet has been edited in order to reduce its heretic notion
which manifests by that the sentences you probably mean do not fit in,
ie are inconsistent with the rest, is accepted even among Christian
scholarship. By the way, those sentences are not the last sentences.

The usual explanation is everybody who could not know about eternal life
and whose view was restricted to the world is very likely to become
pessimistic.

Speaks for itself.
   Benedikt
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27646 alt.atheism:27064
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 26 Jan 1993 20:09:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) says:
>
>Hmmm. I think it's the Declaration of Independence that guarantees the
>*inalienable* right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I
>believe the Constition was created, (among other reasons), to prevent
>the government, or special interest groups (particularly religions, for
>instance, politically active fundamentalist christians) from taking such
>inalienable rights *away*.  Such groups are currently stretching the
>limits of our constitution *now*, and make no mistake, they seek to
>deprive American individuals of *the pursuit* of happiness, not just
>*happiness*, ("whatever that is").  Praise be to God.  Amen ...
>
Um.  The declaration of independence is not the law of the land.  It is a
document that declares our independence from england.  It was superseded by
the Articles of Confederation and later on, the Constitution.  The rights
that are guaranteed by the constitution guarantee that no laws can be
created that in effect make a national (or state) religion while allowing
each person to worship in whatever way they choose.

>>-- 
>> "The statistics on death are in, and they're pretty convincing.  One out
>>  of every one people die."   -Unknown
>
>>Todd O. Howard (ohoward@matt.ksu.edu)
>
>Does that include Jesus?
>
If he ever existed, there is no credible eveidence to assume that he is
anything but dead.  We would have heard if he was still alive after almowt
2000 years.

-- 
When subtlety fails us we must make do with cream pies.
                                                    --David Brin

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Verifying Christianity #1
Summary: aaaaaaaarrrrrggghhhh!
Keywords: proof, documents, questions, begging, `Woof!'
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Disclaimer: My dog Brandy never begs for anything.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:30:16 GMT


Frank DeCenso has posted a long article about `verifying' the Bible as
accurate.  Most of the material looks pretty familiar, so I'm assuming that
he got it from an apologetic work of some sort.

Anyway, I will restrict my criticism to a single point:

> Dr. Simon Greenleaf, who was the Royall Professor of Law at Harvard Univ.,
> wrote "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence", a three-volume work, considered
> one of the greatest works on this subject in legal literature.  Using
> these rules of evidence, he researched the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and
> came to the conclusion that according to the laws of legal evidence
> administered in courts of law, there is more evidence for the Resurrection
> of Jejesus than for just about any other event in history !

This is basically correct, but it ignores an important detail.

It is true that, if the information in the Gospels was presented as testimony
in a court of law, the few minor disagreements would not be considered
significant -- eyewitness testimony often has minor contradictions in it.

But what Dr Greenleaf doesn't tell you is that this test can only be used on
acceptable testimony -- that is, you can only use these guidelines on stuff
which is admissible for a court of law.

The Gospels would not be admissible as evidence.  We do not know who wrote
them and the authors are not known to have been sworn in any sense.  Even if
we accept the traditional attributions, both Mark and Luke were written by
people who were not eyewitnesses to the events described.

If Dr Greenleaf had a sworn affidavit from the known authors stating that the
Gospels they wrote are true and complete to the best of their knowledge, then
this business of examining testimony would make sense.  But he hasn't got
such confirming evidence.

All we have in the Gospels is four books purporting to tell us about the life
of Jesus.  If I showed up with a bunch of books by unknown authors saying that
Elvis had returned from the grave and walked on water, nobody would accept
that in court regardless of how consistent the books were with each other.


This line of argument is only useful on people who ALREADY believe that the
traditional attributions are correct and that the authors were telling the
truth.  Such people do not need to be convinced about the Bible.

The people who you are trying to convince will not accept that the story is
true just because it is reasonably self-consistent.  As a witnessing tool,
Dr Greenleaf's work is not going to be very useful.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc