OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Teachings of Jesus

THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS.
So much for his personal life and temperament. His public career as a popular preacher carries him equally far beyond John the Baptist. He lays no stress on baptism or vows, and preaches conduct incessantly. He advocates communism, the widening of the private family with its cramping ties into the great family of mankind under the fatherhood of God, the abandonment of revenge and punishment, the counteracting of evil by good instead of by a hostile evil, and an organic conception of society in which you are not an independent individual but a member of society, your neighbor being another member, and each of you members one of another, as two fingers on a hand, the obvious conclusion being that unless you love your neighbor as yourself and he reciprocates you will both be the worse for it. He conveys all this with extraordinary charm, and entertains his hearers with fables (parables) to illustrate them. He has no synagogue or regular congregation, but travels from place to place with twelve men whom he has called from their work as he passed, and who have abandoned it to follow him.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/Was Jesus a Coward?

WAS JESUS A COWARD?
I know quite well that this impression of superiority is not produced on everyone, even of those who profess extreme susceptibility to it. Setting aside the huge mass of inculcated Christ-worship which has no real significance because it has no intelligence, there is, among people who are really free to think for themselves on the subject, a great deal of hearty dislike of Jesus and of contempt for his failure to save himself and overcome his enemies by personal bravery and cunning as Mahomet did. I have heard this feeling expressed far more impatiently by persons brought up in England as Christians than by Mahometans, who are, like their prophet, very civil to Jesus, and allow him a place in their esteem and veneration at least as high as we accord to John the Baptist. But this British bulldog contempt is founded on a complete misconception of his reasons for submitting voluntarily to an ordeal of torment and death. The modern Secularist is often so determined to regard Jesus as a man like himself and nothing more, that he slips unconsciously into the error of assuming that Jesus shared that view. But it is quite clear from the New Testament writers (the chief authorities for believing that Jesus ever existed) that Jesus at the time of his death believed himself to be the Christ, a divine personage. It is therefore absurd to criticize his conduct before Pilate as if he were Colonel Roosevelt or Admiral von Tirpitz or even Mahomet. Whether you accept his belief in his divinity as fully as Simon Peter did, or reject it as a delusion which led him to submit to torture and sacrifice his life without resistance in the conviction that he would presently rise again in glory, you are equally bound to admit that, far from behaving like a coward or a sheep, he showed considerable physical fortitude in going through a cruel ordeal against which he could have defended himself as effectually as he cleared the moneychangers out of the temple. "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild" is a snivelling modern invention, with no warrant in the gospels. St. Matthew would as soon have thought of applying such adjectives to Judas Maccabeus as to Jesus; and even St. Luke, who makes Jesus polite and gracious, does not make him meek. The picture of him as an English curate of the farcical comedy type, too meek to fight a policeman, and everybody's butt, may be useful in the nursery to soften children; but that such a figure could ever have become a centre of the world's attention is too absurd for discussion; grown men and women may speak kindly of a harmless creature who utters amiable sentiments and is a helpless nincompoop when he is called on to defend them; but they will not follow him, nor do what he tells them, because they do not wish to share his defeat and disgrace.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Secular View

THE SECULAR VIEW NATURAL, NOT RATIONAL, THEREFORE INEVITABLE.
It must therefore be taken as a flat fundamental modern fact, whether we like it or not, that whilst many of us cannot believe that Jesus got his curious grip of our souls by mere sentimentality, neither can we believe that he was John Barleycorn. The more our reason and study lead us to believe that Jesus was talking the most penetrating good sense when he preached Communism; when he declared that the reality behind the popular belief in God was a creative spirit in ourselves, called by him the Heavenly Father and by us Evolution, Elan Vital, Life Force and other names; when he protested against the claims of marriage and the family to appropriate that high part of our energy that was meant for the service of his Father, the more impossible it becomes for us to believe that he was talking equally good sense when he so suddenly announced that he was himself a visible concrete God; that his flesh and blood were miraculous food for us; that he must be tortured and slain in the traditional manner and would rise from the dead after three days; and that at his second coming the stars would fall from heaven and he become king of an earthly paradise. But it is easy and reasonable to believe that an overwrought preacher at last went mad as Swift and Ruskin and Nietzsche went mad. Every asylum has in it a patient suffering from the delusion that he is a god, yet otherwise sane enough. These patients do not nowadays declare that they will be barbarously slain and will rise from the dead, because they have lost that tradition of the destiny of godhead; but they claim everything appertaining to divinity that is within their knowledge.
Thus the gospels as memoirs and suggestive statements of sociological and biological doctrine, highly relevant to modern civilization, though ending in the history of a psycopathic delusion, are quite credible, intelligible, and interesting to modern thinkers. In any other light they are neither credible, intelligible, nor interesting except to people upon whom the delusion imposes.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Teaching of Christianity

THE TEACHING OF CHRISTIANITY.
And there I must leave the matter to such choice as your nature allows you. The honest teacher who has to make known to a novice the facts about Christianity cannot in any essential regard, I think, put the facts otherwise than as I have put them. If children are to be delivered from the proselytizing atheist on the one hand, and the proselytizing nun in the convent school on the other, with all the other proselytizers that lie between them, they must not be burdened with idle controversies as to whether there was ever such a person as Jesus or not. When Hume said that Joshua's campaigns were impossible, Whately did not wrangle about it: he proved, on the same lines, that the campaigns of Napoleon were impossible. Only fictitious characters will stand Hume's sort of examination: nothing will ever make Edward the Confessor and St. Louis as real to us as Don Quixote and Mr. Pickwick. We must cut the controversy short by declaring that there is the same evidence for the existence of Jesus as for that of any other person of his time; and the fact that you may not believe everything Matthew tells you no more disproves the existence of Jesus than the fact that you do not believe everything Macaulay tells you disproves the existence of William III. The gospel narratives in the main give you a biography which is quite credible and accountable on purely secular grounds when you have trimmed off everything that Hume or Grimm or Rousseau or Huxley or any modern bishop could reject as fanciful. Without going further than this, you can become a follower of Jesus just as you can become a follower of Confucius or Lao Tse, and may therefore call yourself a Jesuist, or even a Christian, if you hold, as the strictest Secularist quite legitimately may, that all prophets are inspired, and all men with a mission, Christs.
The teacher of Christianity has then to make known to the child, first the song of John Barleycorn, with the fields and seasons as witness to its eternal truth. Then, as the child's mind matures, it can learn, as historical and psychological phenomena, the tradition of the scapegoat, the Redeemer, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the Second Coming, and how, in a world saturated with this tradition, Jesus has been largely accepted as the long expected and often prophesied Redeemer, the Messiah, the Christ. It is open to the child also to accept him. If the child is built like Gladstone, he will accept Jesus as his Savior, and Peter and John the Baptist as the Savior's revealer and forerunner respectively. If he is built like Huxley, he will take the secular view, in spite of all that a pious family can do to prevent him. The important thing now is that the Gladstones and Huxleys should no longer waste their time irrelevantly and ridiculously wrangling about the Gadarene swine, and that they should make up their minds as to the soundness of the secular doctrines of Jesus; for it is about these that they may come to blows in our own time.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Women Disciples and the Ascension

MARK.
THE WOMEN DISCIPLES AND THE ASCENSION.
Let us see whether we can get anything more out of Mark, whose gospel, by the way, is supposed to be older than Matthew's. Mark is brief; and it does not take long to discover that he adds nothing to Matthew except the ending of the story by Christ's ascension into heaven, and the news that many women had come with Jesus to Jerusalem, including Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. On the other hand Mark says nothing about the birth of Jesus, and does not touch his career until his adult baptism by John. He apparently regards Jesus as a native of Nazareth, as John does, and not of Bethlehem, as Matthew and Luke do, Bethlehem being the city of David, from whom Jesus is said by Matthew and Luke to be descended. He describes John's doctrine as "Baptism of repentance unto remission of sins": that is, a form of Salvationism. He tells us that Jesus went into the synagogues and taught, not as the Scribes but as one having authority: that is, we infer, he preaches his own doctrine as an original moralist instead of repeating what the books say. He describes the miracle of Jesus reaching the boat by walking across the sea, but says nothing about Peter trying to do the same. Mark sees what he relates more vividly than Matthew, and gives touches of detail that bring the event more clearly before the reader. He says, for instance, that when Jesus walked on the waves to the boat, he was passing it by when the disciples called out to him. He seems to feel that Jesus's treatment of the woman of Canaan requires some apology, and therefore says that she was a Greek of Syrophenician race, which probably excused any incivility to her in Mark's eyes. He represents the father of the boy whom Jesus cured of epilepsy after the transfiguration as a sceptic who says "Lord, I believe: help thou mine unbelief." He tells the story of the widow's mite, omitted by Matthew. He explains that Barabbas was "lying bound with them that made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder." Joseph of Arimathea, who buried Jesus in his own tomb, and who is described by Matthew as a disciple, is described by Mark as "one who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God," which suggests that he was an independent seeker. Mark earns our gratitude by making no mention of the old prophecies, and thereby not only saves time, but avoids the absurd implication that Christ was merely going through a predetermined ritual, like the works of a clock, instead of living. Finally Mark reports Christ as saying, after his resurrection, that those who believe in him will be saved and those who do not, damned; but it is impossible to discover whether he means anything by a state of damnation beyond a state of error. The paleographers regard this passage as tacked on by a later scribe. On the whole Mark leaves the modern reader where Matthew left him.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Vindictive Miracles and the Stoning of Stephen

THE VINDICTIVE MIRACLES AND THE STONING OF STEPHEN.
Take, for example, the miracles. Of Jesus alone of all the Christian miracle workers there is no record, except in certain gospels that all men reject, of a malicious or destructive miracle. A barren fig-tree was the only victim of his anger. Every one of his miracles on sentient subjects was an act of kindness. John declares that he healed the wound of the man whose ear was cut off (by Peter, John says) at the arrest in the garden. One of the first things the apostles did with their miraculous power was to strike dead a wretched man and his wife who had defrauded them by holding back some money from the common stock. They struck people blind or dead without remorse, judging because they had been judged. They healed the sick and raised the dead apparently in a spirit of pure display and advertisement. Their doctrine did not contain a ray of that light which reveals Jesus as one of the redeemers of men from folly and error. They cancelled him, and went back straight to John the Baptist and his formula of securing remission of sins by repentance and the rite of baptism (being born again of water and the spirit). Peter's first harangue softens us by the human touch of its exordium, which was a quaint assurance to his hearers that they must believe him to be sober because it was too early in the day to get drunk; but of Jesus he had nothing to say except that he was the Christ foretold by the prophets as coming from the seed of David, and that they must believe this and be baptized. To this the other apostles added incessant denunciations of the Jews for having crucified him, and threats of the destruction that would overtake them if they did not repent: that is, if they did not join the sect which the apostles were now forming. A quite intolerable young speaker named Stephen delivered an oration to the council, in which he first inflicted on them a tedious sketch of the history of Israel, with which they were presumably as well acquainted as he, and then reviled them in the most insulting terms as "stiffnecked and uncircumcized." Finally, after boring and annoying them to the utmost bearable extremity, he looked up and declared that he saw the heavens open, and Christ standing on the right hand of God. This was too much: they threw him out of the city and stoned him to death. It was a severe way of suppressing a tactless and conceited bore; but it was pardonable and human in comparison to the slaughter of poor Ananias and Sapphira.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/Was Jesus a Martyr?

WAS JESUS A MARTYR?
It is important therefore that we should clear our minds of the notion that Jesus died, as some are in the habit of declaring, for his social and political opinions. There have been many martyrs to those opinions; but he was not one of them, nor, as his words show, did he see any more sense in martyrdom than Galileo did. He was executed by the Jews for the blasphemy of claiming to be a God; and Pilate, to whom this was a mere piece of superstitious nonsense, let them execute him as the cheapest way of keeping them quiet, on the formal plea that he had committed treason against Rome by saying that he was the King of the Jews. He was not falsely accused, nor denied full opportunities of defending himself. The proceedings were quite straightforward and regular; and Pilate, to whom the appeal lay, favored him and despised his judges, and was evidently willing enough to be conciliated. But instead of denying the charge, Jesus repeated the offence. He knew what he was doing: he had alienated numbers of his own disciples and been stoned in the streets for doing it before. He was not lying: he believed literally what he said. The horror of the High Priest was perfectly natural: he was a Primate confronted with a heterodox street preacher uttering what seemed to him an appalling and impudent blasphemy. The fact that the blasphemy was to Jesus a simple statement of fact, and that it has since been accepted as such by all western nations, does not invalidate the proceedings, nor give us the right to regard Annas and Caiaphas as worse men than the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Head Master of Eton. If Jesus had been indicted in a modern court, he would have been examined by two doctors; found to be obsessed by a delusion; declared incapable of pleading; and sent to an asylum: that is the whole difference. But please note that when a man is charged before a modern tribunal (to take a case that happened the other day) of having asserted and maintained that he was an officer returned from the front to receive the Victoria Cross at the hands of the King, although he was in fact a mechanic, nobody thinks of treating him as afflicted with a delusion. He is punished for false pretences, because his assertion is credible and therefore misleading. Just so, the claim to divinity made by Jesus was to the High Priest, who looked forward to the coming of a Messiah, one that might conceivably have been true, and might therefore have misled the people in a very dangerous way. That was why he treated Jesus as an imposter and a blasphemer where we should have treated him as a madman.
# Anna Karenina (Dole)/Part Two

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
* Chapter 35
# Anna Karenina (Dole)/Part Two/Chapter 10

CHAPTER X
From this time began a new life for Alekseï Aleksandrovitch and his wife. Nothing unusual happened. Anna continued to go into society, and was especially often at the Princess Betsy's; and everywhere she met Vronsky. Alekseï Aleksandrovitch saw it, but was ​powerless to prevent it. Whenever he tried to bring about an explanation, she raised up against him an impenetrable wall of humorous perplexity.
Outwardly, everything was the same, but their relations had completely changed. Alekseï Aleksandrovitch, a remarkably strong man in matters requiring statesmanship, here found himself powerless. Like an ox, submissively lowering its head, he waited the blow of the ax which he felt was lifted against him. Whenever he began to think about it, he felt that once more he must try by gentleness, tenderness, reason, to save Anna, and bring her back to him. Every day he made up his mind to speak; but as soon as he made the attempt, that evil spirit of falsehood which possessed her seemed to lay hold of him also, and he spoke not at all in the tone in which he meant to speak. Involuntarily, what he said was spoken in his tone of raillery, which seemed to cast ridicule on those who would speak as he did. And this tone was not at all suitable for the expression of the thoughts that he wished to express. ******
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/lodern

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/lodern | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ lodern, vb., ‘to blaze, flare,’ first occurs in early ModHG.; lit. perhaps ‘to spring up (of plants}’; a LG. word. Comp. Westphal. lodern, ‘to grow luxuriantly,’ to which OHG. lota, ‘young shoot,’ is allied; for the root lud see under Leute.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/lind

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/lind | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ lind, gelinde, adj., ‘gentle,’ from MidHG. linde, OHG. lindi, adj., ‘soft, gentle, tender, mild’ (Goth. *linþs is wanting); corresponding to OSax. lîthi, AS. lîþe, ‘mild, friendly, soft,’ E. lithe. In Scand. an exact correspondence is not found; the term used is linr, ‘friendly, mild, soft’ (whence Lapp. lines is borrowed), which with Bav. len, ‘soft,’ Du. lenig, ‘pliant,’ points to the fact that the dental of the G. and E. words is a suffix. Hence lin- is the root from which are formed in OTeut. Goth. af-linnan, ‘to go away, yield,’ OIc. linna, ‘to cease,’ AS. linnan, ‘to cease, part from, lose,’ OHG. bilinnan, ‘to relax, leave off.’ Therefore the Teut. root meant orig. ‘yielding disposition.’ Comp. OSlov. lěnŭ, ‘lazy,’ Lat. lên-i-s, ‘gentle, mild,’ and lentus, ‘flexible, pliant.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/link

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/link | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ link, adj., ‘left,’ from the equiv. MidHG. linc, adj., with the variant lęnc (gen. -kes); the form with sl is probably quite as old as that with initial l (comp. drosseln, Stier, Hocken, and lecken). In OHG. only lęncha, f., ‘left hand,’ is recorded; the adj. is rendered by winistar, MidHG. winster, in Bav. lërz, lërc, and tenk, Lower Rhen. slinc (this is doubtless a primitive variant of link, as is shown by the analogies under drosseln, Stier, Hocken, and lecken); in E. left (AS. *lyfte? Du. lucht). In the OTeut. dials. there are no other correspondences of link; perhaps ModHG. lenken is allied to this word with the prim. meaning ‘oblique, awry’; lenken signifies lit. ‘to direct obliquely.’ Schlimm may also be a cognate.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/locken

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/locken | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ locken, vb., ‘to curl, entice,’ from MidHG. locken, OHG. locchôn, ‘to entice, allure, decoy,’ with the equiv. variant MidHG. lücken, OHG. lucchen. OIc. only has a corresponding lokka, ‘to entice.’ To these Lith. lugsti, ‘to beg,’ is primit. allied. Comp. Luder, allied to laden.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/locker

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/locker | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ locker, adj., ‘loose, spongy, dissolute,’ first occurs in early ModHG. with the MidHG. variant loger; in UpG. lucke, lücke (now luck); from the same root as Lücke (Teut. root lug).
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/lispeln

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/lispeln | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ lispeln, vb., ‘to lisp,’ with a diminutive or frequentative suffix from MidHG. and OHG. lispen, vb., ‘to stammer’; never ‘to speak through the lips’ as a derivative of Lefze (see Lippe); it rather represents wlispen (thus in Lower Rhen. in the 15th cent., also by transposition, wilspen?). Comp. AS. wlisp, wlips, OHG. lisp, ‘stammering’; E. to lisp, Du. lispen.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/lohen

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/lohen | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ lohen, vb., ‘to flare. blaze,’ from the equiv. MidHG. lohen, OHG. lohén; allied to Lohe (1).