waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <sandvik-200493000159@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: |> In article <93Apr20.011634edt.47719@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, |> cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) wrote: |> > In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> |> >    sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: |> > | I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity |> > | knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think  |> > | the actions today would produce a good picture of your  |> > | religion? |> > Clearly all people considering themselves Christians are all alike, |> > and support one another in everything they do.  In particular, it |> > follows that they certainly will support all the actions of any |> > other person calling himself a Christian...  NOT. |>  |> I see, there are Christians, and there are Christians. No wonder |> the Christian world is in shambles, you can't even agree who |> is a rightful one and a wrong one. |>   If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.   Too easy?    |> Please, I would like to hear your comments about a supposed |> Christian leader that makes sure that children are burnt to |> death. |>   Would you say all Muslims are like Saddam Hussein?  I wouldn't make such a blanket judgement, why do you?
>I'm curious to know if Christians ever read books based on critique >on the religion, classical text such as "Age of Reason" by Paine, >or "The Myth Maker" by Jacobi. Sometimes it is good to know your >enemy, and if you want to do serious research you have to understand >both sides, and not solely the one and only right one.  Yes, one does.  I examined a critique of the Book of Romans by I think, Benjamin Franklin once, a Deist.  I found it amazing that Benjamin Franklin missed the whole boat.   I also have the writings on Thomas Jefferson sitting on my shelf, and it is amazing how much he missed.  I have studied Plato's Theory of Forms and  Aristotelian Hylomorphesism.  What a pile of junk.  Jesus makes Plato and Aristotle look like kindergardeners.  Psychology, the id, ego, superego by Freud?  Elements of truth, but Jesus explained it far better and gave reasons.  Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson are mere men.  They can screw up the Bible just as well as any man.  I do not put these men on a pedestal.  And if I remember T.J.'s autobiography correctly, he thought Thomas Paine was the most unread man he ever met.  Here's some more circular reasoning to you.  Paul says to the Corinthians that "that the gospel will be foolishness to the world, because it is  spiritually discerned."  And so, people without the spirit of God haven't a clue to what the Bible is saying.   From your point of view, that's incredibly circular and convenient.   To me, it is mysteriously and supernaturally bizarre.   I can see it, but you can't.  This is not arrogance on my part.  Trust me.  It is as bizarre to you as it is to me.  But nonetheless, it is a truth, explainable or not.  Are any of you color blind to red and green?  I am.  Remember those dot tests they do at the optomologist's?  They put pictures in front of you and you are supposed to identify the pattern in the dots?  If your eyes are perfectly normal, you can see letters or numerals embedded in the dots.  They are a slightly different color and stand out from the background.  But if you are color blind to red and green, you will not see anything but gray-shaded dots.  That is how a dot test appears to me.  I do not see a pattern at all.  A normal seeing person will see the patterns.  And to him, I seem like a total anomaly.  To him, I appear as if I am missing the universe or something. It is hard for him to understand why I can't see anything that to him is as plain as day.  That it what it is like with the Bible, the Word of God, to the believer. The believer can see the meaning in the words.  I can see how the patterns fit together.  There is such depth.  Such consistency.   But then, on the other hand, I notice the non-believer.   He doesn't see it.  He thinks I am weird because he thinks I am seeing things.   I look at him, and say, "No, you are weird.  You do not see."   Then it is time for a sanity check.  I go to another Christian and say, "Do you see this."  And they go, "Yes.  It is an "X"".  And I say, "Thank God, I see the "X" too."  It is truly the strangest thing.   It adds a little extra dimension to the phrase,            "He will make the blind see, and the deaf hear."
In article <1993Apr21.145336.5912@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: > And does it not say in scripture that no man knows the hour of His coming, not > even the angels in Heaven but only the Father Himself?  DK was trying to play > God by breaking the seals himself.  DK killed himself and as many of his > followers as he could.  BTW, God did save the children.  They are in Heaven, > a far better place.  How do I know?  By faith.  It seems faith is the only tool available for emotional purposes due to the tragedy. As such it maybe fills a need, however I'm getting tired to see children dying in pain in Sudan due to lack of food, and assuming that God takes these sufferers to heaven after a painful death.  Cheers, Kent
Jim Kasprzak (kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu) wrote: : In article <=4z5wqc@rpi.edu>, weinss@rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes: : |> Let me begin by saying I think this is the world's first religion to use : |> the net as its major recruitment medium.  Therefore, even if this : |> religion does not take off, its founding members will be very important : |> historically as this method of soliciting membership will eventually become  : |> common. :   :  So what is Kibology? Chopped liver?  Kibo Himself summed it up by saying "Kibology is not just a religion, it is also a candy mint ... and a floor wax." I personally think that it is more like Spam Clear. :    :  You really should check out alt.religion.kibology, as Kibo's religion is  : slightly older than yours, makes more sense and has more slack.  Yes! Why send money to B0B when Kibo will pay you to worship him. (Funny, he doesn't seem to have paid me...)  : ------------------------------------------------------------------ :      __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State... :  ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA : /____ *|   "I understand the causes, and sympathize your motivations, :      \_| But all the details of this war are just your self-infatuation."  :       ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu
In article <2855@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes: |> In article <1993Apr20.220340.2585@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: |> > |> >armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons |> >to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence. |>  |> Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at |> night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably |> more persuasive than having devotions with him. |>  |> --  |> Tom Albrecht  Give him the $2, leave the house and call the police.  That's what I would do.  I will not kill to protect mere possessions.  Peace be with you,
In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round. >So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them >from subjective values, before we go any further.   Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes  certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All of which is subjective.    What is objective, though, is the approach a scientist  takes in discussing his model and his observations.  There is no objective science.  But there is an objective approach which is subjectively selected by the scientist.  Objective in this case means a specified, unchanging set of rules that he and his colleagues use to discuss their science.  This is in contrast to your Objective Morality.  There may be an objective approach to subjectively discuss your beliefs on morality.  But there exists no objective morality.  Also, science deals with how we can discuss our observations of  the physical world around us.  In that the method of discussion is objective ( not the science; not the discussion itself ).  Science makes no claims to know the whys or even the hows sometimes of what we can observe.  It simply gives us a way to discuss our surroundings in a meaningful, consistent way.  I think it was Neils Bohr who said (to paraphrase) Science is what we can _say_ about the physical world.
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
stuff deleted - but message is: :    :  : >He is God. :  : In other words, the right of might. :  : >He is God. :  : In other words, the right of might. :  :  :  : >God granted you the gift of life whether you were sinner or saint. :  : In other words, he can do it, he did it, and your in no position to : argue about it. :   : >one that must be killed by Him.  Note:  I say that God and God alone is : >worthy to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.  We are not called to carry out : >such duties because we are not worthy. :   : In other words, you better do what this God wants you to do, or else! :  : >|> Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so :  :  : >God is God.  Who are we to question the Creator?  If you doubt God's doing : >in certain situations, do you claim to know a better solution?  Would you : >be playing the role of God? :  : In other words, its his game, he made the rules, and if you know whats : good for you you'll play his game his way. :    Careful there, you make God out to be some spoiled little deity that when he can't have his way takes his ball and goes home.  Now that you mention it....  Naw... Can't be right, makes sense.
Mr. Clinton said today that the horrible tragedy of the Waco fiasco should remind those who join cults of the dangers of doing so. Now, I began scratching my head thinking (a bad sign :-), "don't the  mainstream religions (in this case Christianity...or the 7th day  adventist in particular) just keep these guys going ? Isn't Mr. Clinton  condemning his own religion ? After all, isn't it a cult too ?"
jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill) writes: >Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote: >:  >: Can you please point to something, anything, that proves to me that >: the universe cannot possibly be explained without accepting as a fact >: the existence of a god in precisely the way your holy book describes? >:  >: Can you please convince me that your religion is more than a very >: cleverly-constructed fable, and that it does indeed have some bearing >: on my own personal day-to-day life? > >Would you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the >events surrounding Jesus' life?  No.  There are two problems here:  (1) Peter died two millenia ago.  The original letters he wrote have long since decayed into dust.  If he were alive today and I could question him, then this might lend credibility to your claims (but probably not much, because after all, I've heard people claim with all sincerity that they've spoken with Elvis recently).  But after his death, Peter's writings were transcribed by monks for centuries, and I find it hard to believe that one of them somewhere didn't decide to change the wording of something to make it (in his opinion) a little easier to understand.  (2) Even if Peter did witness the miracles of Jesus two millenia ago, that doesn't mean that your deity is what the Bible says it is (God might just be Satan, trying to convince everyone that he's a nice guy), or even that your deity is still alive and active in the world today.  Nice try, but it just isn't enough to convince me, especially since your wild claims about your deity seem to fly in the face of the way I've observed the world to work.  Please find something more compelling.
In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) wrote: > tional as that is for so many). One direct benefit is being able to  > keep things in perspective, KS. >  > Such as who hurts more -- the ones who died, or the loved ones who  > are left? Besides the lessons. It's also time for many to grieve. > Including those who've lost their faith in others, or in God. >  > I'm learning to be patient, and let things heal. God willing.  Christians through ages have had to learn to be patient. I do think it's time to face the reality. The events during the last 52 two days showed what the world is really like.  Kent
Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect    to join.  There are just so many.         Dean Kaflowitz  Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So convenient that it is burdensome at times.  Dave.
kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:  > I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in > which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a > secret ceremony involving a bull.  He stands naked in a pit covered > with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on > the scaffolding.  They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the > worshipper in the pit with blood.  This is supposedly some sort of > rite of passage for members of the bull cult.  I wonder if this is > related to the Mithras cult?  Yes, this is certainly one of the traditional ideas about the Mithraic cult (although not the only one.)  It had many elements that seem to have been borrowed by Catholicism (e.g. the Mass, communion, the sharing of a sacred meal, consecration of bread and wine, etc.)  For quite an amusing novel that uses this same idea, check out:  The Covenant of the Flame by David Morrell.  It has some quite interesting occult bits, and lots of killing. I won't spoil it by revealing the ending, but I will say that it is relevant to Mithraism.
In article <765422d6347700t48@edmahood.infoserv.com> edmahood@infoserv.com (Ed Mahood, Jr.) writes: >In <Pegasus-130393124328@fp1-dialin-7.uoregon.edu>, Pegasus@AAA.UOregon.EDU (Laurie EWBrandt)  wrote: >> ... >> A definiation from a text book used as part of an introductory course in >> social anthorpology "The term myth designates traditionally based, dramatic >> narratives on themes that emphasize the nature of humankind's relationship >> to nature and to the supernatural. ...." from Peter B. Hammand's .An  >> introduction to Cutural and Social Anthropology. second ed Macmillion  >> page 387. >  	I'm not sure that you can distinguish between myth and legend so neatly, or at all.  A myth is more than a single story.  The thought  structure and world-paradigm in which that story is interpreted is as important a part of the myth as the story itself.  Thus, I can think of no story which is meant to be conveyed understandably from one person to another within a single culture which won't rest upon that underlying thought structure, and thus transmit some of that culture's mythical "truths" along with it.
In article <C5rBHt.Fw4@athena.cs.uga.edu>  hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: >In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>  dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes: >>If it were a sin to violate Sunday no one could >>ever be forgiven for that for Jesus never kept Sunday holy.  He only >>recognized one day of the seven as holy. >Jesus also recognized other holy days, like the Passover.  Acts 15 says  >that no more should be layed on the Gentiles than that which is necessary. >The sabbath is not in the list, nor do any of the epistles instruct people >to keep the 7th day, while Christians were living among people who did not >keep the 7th day.  It looks like that would have been a problem. >Instead, we have Scriptures telling us that all days can be esteemed alike >(Romans 14:5) and that no man should judge us in regard to what kind of >food we eat, Jewish holy days we keep, or _in regard to the sabbath. (Col. 2.) >>The >>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the >>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?" >I don't think that the Sabbath, or any other command of the law is totally >irrelevant to modern Christians, but what about Collosions 2, where it says >that we are not to be judged in regard to the keeping of the sabbath?
In article <1993Apr22.004331.22548@coe.montana.edu> uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote) writes: >Sunlight shining off of the ocean. > The universe, mirrored in a puddle. > >Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph null bottles of beer! >Take one down, pass it around  ...  Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall! > Isn't it amazing how there *always* seems to be *another* bottle of bheer there?  Aleph *one* bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph *one* null bottles of beer!  	you, too, are a puddle. 	As above, so below.
In article <1993Apr25.190040.8071@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote: > "Christ" is Greek for "Messiah".  "Messiah" means "Annointed One". > "Annoint" means "to rub with oil, i.e. to anoint; by impl. to > consecrate"     The major prophet Daniel uses the word "Messiah" > in Daniel chapter 9. >  > How "closely" did you analyze the Bible?  Looks as if you didn't > get past the first word.   So was the catalyst to break your faith the > "priests" who interpreted the Bible for you?   Did you ever do what > the Bereans did to Paul's teachings in Acts 17?    Brian, does all this mean that you have to be well versed in ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic in order to understand the core of Christianity? I hope you are not Catholic, because my Christian upbringing was based on the teachings of Luther, and the one of the core messages was basically that you don't need to know latin in order to learn about salvation.  BTW, your statement would also eliminate about 99.5% of all the Christians in the world, as well.  Cheers, Kent
In article <8968@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes: }m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes: }>joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes: }>}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes: }>}>}(a) out of context; }>}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep }>}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK? }>}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither. }>} }>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for }>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a }>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context? }> }>Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again? } }(1)  Stephen said you took a quote out of context }(2)  You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article }     (call it A) that took a quote out of context }(3)  But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the }     lack of X  (a common creationist error) }(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the }     conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A  Excellent.  Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other than a direct assertion by his part.  For instance, am I to assume that you have no position on eating shit merely because you have not said your position, or might a conclusion be made by observing that you do not.  }(7)  I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins }     "Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended }     to follow from the sentence that preceded it.  }Is that better Jim?   It's called an argument.  If you disagree with it, }explain why the argument is not sound.  (I admit that my assumption in (7) }may have been a bit hasty.)  If you agree with it, just say "yup."
God ItSelf appeared to me and spoke to me, saying "Rawlins has been listening to a deamon, and has been taken in by its satanic words!"
In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:  >They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released >non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.  How do you know? Were you there?  While obviously Koresh was a nut case, the (typical) inability of the government/media to get its story straight is quite disturbing. On tuesday night, NBC news reported that the FBI did not know the place was burning down until they saw black smoke billowing from the building. The next day, FBI agents were insisting that they saw Davidians setting the fire. The FBI was also adamantly denying that it was possible their battery of the compound's wallks could have accidentally set the blaze, while also saying they hadnt been able to do much investigating of the site because it was still too hot. So how did they KNOW they didnt accidentally set the fire.  Sounds like the FBI just burned the place to the ground to destroy evidence to me.
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: >In article <bskendigC5Ku3C.6Dx@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes: >>I've asked your god several times with all my heart to come to me...  >Brian K., I am pleased with your honesty.  And to be honest as well, I >believe you have not asked my god to come to you.  Why do I say this?  Because that would contradict your religious beliefs; therefore, you feel more comfortable simply accusing his sincerity, so you will not have to critically examine your religious beliefs.
<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: | For an illustrative example in the opposite direction, it may be possible | to ADD services to an insurance contract and REDUCE the premium.  If you | add preventative services and this reduces acute care use, then the total | premium may fall.  Women who are known not to want abortion services, for example, might be judged to be more likely to require prenatal care & coverage for childbirth... which can be an order of magnitude more expensive than abortion.   This topic should really be restricted to talk.abortion, which exists to relieve t.r.m & t.p.m of abortion flamage.
burning yourself alive seems a rough way to go, given the waco bunch had other choices.  but it reminded me of the russian old-believers who, thinking the antichrist was coming in 1666, grew frantic when Peter the Great  started westernizing Russia and reforming the Russian Church a few years later. They locked themselves in their churches and burned themselves alive by the thousands.   are there other cases of apocalypse-obsessed christians resorting to self-imolation? is there a history of precedents?