waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: > >Brian Kendig contorts . . . > >>	It can not be a light which cleanses >>	if it is tainted with the blood >>	of an innocent man. > >. . . now showing how Brian Kendig is in the dark of the  >most fundamental basic of the Old Testament.  Concepts like >santification and Lev. 17:11 must be foreign to you.  Too bad >you are not interested in understanding.  Too bad you prefer >blurting folly even to your own shame.    Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given   it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is   the blood that makes atonement for the soul.  The Old Testament was very big on the "eye for an eye" business.  It makes sense that Leviticus would support physical injury to "repay" moral wrongdoing.  I know about sanctification.  I've been taught all about it in Sunday school, catechism class, and theology classes.  But even after all that, I still can't accept it.  Maybe I'm still not understanding it, or maybe I'm just understanding it all too well.  From the bottom of my heart I know that the punishment of an innocent man is wrong.  I've tried repeatedly over the course of several years to accept it, but I just can't.  If this means that I can't accept the premise that a god who would allow this is 'perfectly good', then so be it.  >     What ignorance you can show us next?  I guess I'll wait >till tomorrow.  If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing, then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me. Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments before, and they just don't convince me.
In article <1qlvh1$fh0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: |> In article <1qkn25$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> #Do you mean it's moral to use force on someone who advocates |> #the use of force? |>  |> With a few provisos, yes.  Minimum force, for a start. And, it |> depends on what is being forced (on either side).    |>  |> #Or do you mean that sometimes we have to use force on such |> #people out of necessity or self-defence, while recognizing |> #that our own actions in doing so are not moral? |>  |> My opinion is that our actions would be moral, and it would be |> immoral not to act if action would be both necessary and effective.   |> Again, there many caveats and provisios. |>  |> Note, my usage of "my opinion" is an admission that I don't have a lock |> on morals, not that there is no truth about morality to have a lock on.  You're admitting a lot more than that.  You are admitting that your morals are situational.   You are admitting that the actions of other people and the situation you are in help to determine how you judge the moral significance of one of your own actions.  If you employ X degree of force, that's not moral, but if you employ X degree of force, but previously someone else has employed Y degree of force, and the situation is thus-and-so, that *is* moral.  This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so we have to bear the moral consequences of that.  For what it's worth - and yes, I know you claim to be an agnostic - it's this ability to re-label things from "immoral" to "moral"  that I find one of the *least* attractive qualities of the religious mind.
In article <1qilgnINNrko@lynx.unm.edu>, blowfish@leo.unm.edu (rON.) writes: |> Its easy... |> 667 >is< the neighbor of the beast (at 666)- |> the beast lives at the end of a cul-de-sac. |> r.  I noticed this dead horse in your Keywords line. Is this the famous scarlet horse of Babylon that the Beast (that's 666 for you illuminatti) rides on in those wonderful mediaeval manuscripts. If so, I fear your announcement that the old girl is dead may be premature. I bet $20 on her to place in the 6th race at The Downs last Sunday, and she slid in a bad fifth. So she is not dead. She is just comatose. (like god that way, I suppose).  Ninja Gourmet Will fight for food.
rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy) writes:  >In article <1r1u5t$595@lm1.oryx.com> (alt.conspiracy,talk.religion.misc), xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor) writes: >] Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.  >Even if what you say is true, do you think this is a reasonable way >to deal with people who want "lots of illegal guns"?  What makes you say that the guns were illegal?? I understand that the BD's had a valid Class III Federal Firearms Permit, which would allow them to have pretty much anything short of a howitzer legally.
In article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>,  sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...  >In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>, >mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: >> These laws written for the Israelites...  >> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied >> only to God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We >> are living in the age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable >> by death.  There is repentance and there is salvation through our >> Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just for a few chosen people.  Salvation >> is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike.  > >Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.  Which Jews KS?   (ex. as a people, as a language, religiously, politically, or...)   Do you mean those Jews who are God's chosen?  {And Malcolm, please, if you will, set your word wrap at 75 or less  to avoid clutter?}
In article <sbuckley.735337212@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes: >muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:  >>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 ?"  >>... bad thoughts these.  >  well it depends on whether you take the literal dictionary definition of >cult and say all faiths are cults, or if you take a more social-context >view of "cult which allows you to recognize mainstream religions as  >socially-acceptable and cults as groups that involve techniques of brain- >washing and all the other characteristics that define oppressive [probly not >the *best* word] cult behaviour.  My understanding of the academic use of the word cult is that it is a group of people oriented around a single authority figure. It need not be religious. However, I have seen plenty of religious cults, including some that mainstream.
In article <f1682Ap@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) wrote: > In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com>  > sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: > >Ignorance is not bliss!   > Ignorance is STRENGTH! > Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!  Huh, if ignorance is strength, then I won't distribute this piece of information if I want to follow your advice (contradiction above).   Cheers, Kent
In <93105.093812KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:  >Rocco L. Martino, a Philadelphia business >executive wrote: "Separation of church and state is a false premise >that must finally be cast aside and replaced by the true meaning of >our constitution."  blechhhh.  Gimme that ole' time Inquisition ...  >Oh yes, the organization's "national ecclesisatical advisor" is >Catholic politician Cardinal John J. O'Connor of New York.  It figures, doesn't it?
In article <1993Apr17.152833.7811@maths.tcd.ie>  pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes: >jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin) writes: >> God CAN be seen: >>        "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." >Wot? God's a mooner?   Such lunacy!  >(Gee, maybe there's something in this Christianity thing after all - >maybe God is John Belushi from "Animal House")
In article <a5kB3B1w165w@anarky.tch.org> melchar@anarky.tch.org (Melchar) writes: > >      It took someone THIS long to figure that out?  What is "aluminium siding"?  I keep seeing references to it.  Something to do with railway lines, perhaps?  E-mail reply please, I'll never find it otherwise.
The tongue that brings healing is a 	tree of life, 	but a deceitful tongue crushes the 	spirit.
: Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed : for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the  : character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out : the rest the hard way. :
: In my mind, to say that science has its basis in values is a bit of a : reach. Science has its basis in observable fact.   I'd say that what one chooses to observe and how the observation is interpreted and what significance it's given depends a great deal on the values of the observer. Science is a human activity and as such, is subject to the same potential for distortion as any other human activity. The myth that scientists are above moral influence or ethical concern, that their knowledge can be abstacted whole and pure from nature untainted by the biases of the scientist, is nonsense.  Bill  : If one is to argue for objective values (in a moral sense) then one must : first start by demonstrating that morality itself is objective. Considering : the meaning of the word "objective" I doubt that this will ever happen.  : So, back to the original question:  : And objective morality is.....?  This may be an unfortunate choice of words, almost self-contradictory. Objective in the sense used here means something immutable and absolute while morality describes the behavior of some group of people. The first term is all inclusive, the second is specific. The concept supposedly described may have meaning however.  If there is a God as described by the Christians (for instance), then He has existence apart from and independent of humankind; His existence is outside of our frame of reference (reality). If this being declares a thing to be so, it is -necessarily- so since He has defined Himself as omnipotent and, if His claims are to be believed, He is at least omnipotent relative to us. God is intrinsically self-defined and all reality is whatever He says it is - in an objective sense. If God determines a standard of conduct, that standard is objective. If human beings are held accountable for their conformance to that standard while permitted to ignore it, they substitute a relative morality or mode of conduct, giving the term morality a nebulous, meaningless sense that can be argued about by those pretending to misunderstand. The standard is objective and the conduct required to meet that standard is therefore objectively determined. Just because it is convenient to pretend that the term morality is infinitely malleable, doesn't mean that the objective standard itself doesn't exist. Morality has come to mean little more than a cultural norm, or the preferred conduct of "decent" people, making it seem subjective, but it is derived from an absolute, objective, standard. Ironically, this objective standard is in perfect accord with our true nature (according to Christianity at least), yet is condemned as being contrary to human nre, oppressive and severe. This may be due as
> magarret@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (COMPUTER DUDETTE) writes:  >I just recently realized that I am bisexual, and also just recently returned to >religion, and have a good friend who has pointed out to me that homosexuality >is a sin in the bible.  Well, I don't see how it could be considered a sin,  First of all as far as I know, only male homosexuality is explicitly mentioned in the bibles, so you're off the hook there, I think. In any event, there are *plenty* of people in many denominations who do not consider a person's sexual identification of gay/lesbian/bisexual as an "immoral lifestyle choice"  >Also, I have always been a somewhat liberal feminist, and am pro-choice, and it >seems that being pro-choice and being religious don't mix either.  I am told  This is another misconception. You are not being told the whole story.  My former minister is a lesbian, and I know personally and professionally several openly gay and lesbian ministers. I am a Unitarian-Universalist and like most others in my denomination, am pro-choice. You needn't go looking to the Unitarian Universalists (which is a liberal religion) for acceptance of your sexual identification and pro-choice views, however; there are many of us who believe in spirituality AND freedom of conscience.  Good Luck on your journey!
In article <1rdlsf$vi@agate.berkeley.edu>, isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes: =Hmm.  The police strategy of bursting in with weapons drawn, clearly marked as =officers and yelling "Police" repeatedly.  This is used every day to bust drug =houses.  The idea is to awe the suspects into submission with surprise and =display of firepowere in order to avoid a gun fight.  As for not knocking, it's =a sad necessity in many cases since the suspects will attempt to escape or even =fight.  Usually this strategy works; if it didn't, then it wouldn't be used so =commonly, now would it?  How often is it used when the convoy carrying the brigade is visible for miles before it reaches the place that's to be searched? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Brian Kendig writes:  >  Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given >  it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is >  the blood that makes atonement for the soul. > >The Old Testament was very big on the "eye for an eye" business.  It >makes sense that Leviticus would support physical injury to "repay" >moral wrongdoing.  Brian K., guess what?  You missed the point.  On a scale from cold to hot, you are at 0 degrees Kelvin.  >I know about sanctification.  I've been taught all about it in Sunday >school, catechism class, and theology classes.  But even after all >that, I still can't accept it.  Maybe I'm still not understanding it, >or maybe I'm just understanding it all too well.  Then as you understand it, what is it?  >From the bottom of my heart I know that the punishment of an innocent >man is wrong.  Yes.  I agree with that.  But what does that have to do with Jesus? Punishment you say?  Jesus did not regard his death as punishment.   >I've tried repeatedly over the course of several years >to accept it, but I just can't.   Good.  I wouldn't either--not the way you understand it.    >If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing, >then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me. >Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments >before, and they just don't convince me.  Ask Jesus himself.  He himself said why in John 12:23-32.  It isn't a mystery to anyone and there certainly is no need for a persuasive argument.   Read Jesus's own reply to your question.  Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7.  But one obvious reason why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27).  The fact that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise from the dead.  It is an obvious point.  Do not overlook it. Without this obvious point, I would have no hope and my faith would be vanity.  Why did Jesus suffer in his death?  Again, ask Jesus.  Jesus says why in John 15:18-25.   That's no mystery either.  "The world hates him without reason."  It is a direct proclamation of how far we humans botch things up and thus, how much we need a Saviour.
In <C60y12.E9J@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:  >In <1993Apr24.214843.10940@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu >(E. Elizabeth Bartley) writes:  >>I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require  >>opposing a moment of silence.  >If the ONLY people proposing a "moment of silence" are doing so as a >sham to sneak in prayers, then it MUST be opposed.  What the HELL have >prayers to do with public schooling?  [I ask this question as a devout >Christian.]     Uh oh, Michael; you typed "hell" and capitalized it to boot! Now Peter Nyikos will explain that you're not a real Christian!  >>>I'll back off when they do.  >>Does anybody else besides me see a vicious circle here?  I guarantee >>you the people who want school prayer aren't going to back off when >>they can't even manage to get a quiet moment for their kids to pray >>silently.  >Their kids can bloody-well pray any God-damned time they WANT to.  And >nothing, on heaven or earth, in government or the principal's office, >can prevent or in any other way deal with their doing so.  *Especially* >if the prayer is silent (as bursting out into the "Shema Yisrael" or >some other prayer *might* be construed as disruptive if audible :-)) >No one ever prevented ME from praying in public school!  They hardly >even prevented me from masturbating in study hall.  BZZT! Sorry Michael--the Nyikos Inquisition pointed out that I was hell-bound after one mildly scurrilous pun on "revealing oneself." Admitting to masturbation--well, I'm just shocked!
Deuteronmy 20:13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword  Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, bith man and women, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
In article <1993Apr21.225146.20804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:     ... |>       I will agree that creation should not be taught as science  |>       IF macroevolution is not taught as science.  However, if we are |>       teaching the wildly speculative theories of macroevolution as |>       an explanation of origins, then equal time should be given |>       to creation.  Neither one qualifies as science.  Create a |>       philosophy course: Call it "Origins".     ... |>              ========================================================== |>             //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        // |>            //                          "I speak for myself only"   // |>           ==========================================================      Interesting idea.      This suggestion has inspired me to post, under the title "Theories  of Creation", a collection of various "philosophies" of creation that  I am aware of.  Could you explain which of these theories you would want taught, and which ones you would not?  Or, perhaps, I haven't included a favorite theory of yours (if so, could you describe it for me for inclusion in an updated list)?
starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams) writes: > : If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion, > : do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been > : reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not > : on the Endangered Species List.   >  > How about "washed in the blood of Barney the Dinosaur"?  :)  Judging from postings I've read all over Usenet and on non-Usenet BBs conferences, Barney is DEFINITELY an endangered species. Especially if he runs into me in a dark alley.                                                                                 A.Lizard
In article <C5stEL.K0E@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes: >>Dear Brother Bill, >> >>One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just  >>wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take? > >  So do you want the president to specifically order each and every activity >of the FBI, or what?  And how willing are you to blame Reagan and Bush, >directly, for the incidents that took place in the War on Drugs in their >administration?  Are you going to blame Bush for the fact that Weaver's wife, >infant, son were killed?  It happened while he was president.  ... or consider the thousands in Central America killed by those brave CIA/NSC sponsored "Freedom Fighters."  Thus far, Slick Willie is a piker.  							spl
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: > From article <1qcq3f$r05@fido.asd.sgi.com>, by livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com  > (Jon Livesey): > > If there is a Western ethic against infanticide, why > > are so many children dying all over the world? >  > The majority of the world isn't "Western".  Superficially a good answer, but it isn't that simple.  An awful lot of the starvation and poverty in the world is directly caused by the economic policies of the Western countries, as well as by the diet of the typical Westerner.  For instance, some third-world countries with terrible malnutrition problems export all the soya they can produce -- so that it can be fed to cattle in the US, to make tender juicy steaks and burgers.  They have to do this to get money to pay the interest on the crippling bank loans we encouraged them to take out.  Fund-raising for Ethiopia is a truly bizarre idea; instead, we ought to stop bleeding them for every penny they've got.  Perhaps it's more accurate to say that there's a Western ethic against Western infanticide.  All the evidence suggests that so long as the children are dying in the Third World, we couldn't give a shit.  And that goes for the supposed "Pro-Life" movement, too.  They could save far more lives by fighting against Third World debt than they will by fighting against abortion.  Hell, if they're only interested in fetuses, they could save more of those by fighting for human rights in China.  And besides, Suzanne's answer implies that non-Western countries lack this ethic against infanticide.  Apart from China, with its policy of mandatory forced abortion in Tibet, I don't believe this to be the case.
In article <1qe8qk$58t@news.ysu.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes: > >I need to prioritize things in my life, and this board is not all that important >to me.  My personal relationship wife the Lord is first, my wife is second, and >my ministry at church is third.  (Not to mention my job!)  Have you informed your wife of this prioritization?  This board will have >to wait until (if ever) I can organize my life to fit it in.  I tried dropping >out, but Sieferman coerced me to come back.  He won't this time.  Thou hast used my name in vain!  I never coerce.  Ridicule, maybe, but never coerce.  Please take responsibility for your actions.  (deletia)  >I'm history. >Frank
Andrew A. Houghton"  writes:    >I'm still waiting to hear a good response from a christian type..  how >is christ's word (as quoted by Paul) reconciled with current christian >beliefs?  Almost one third of the world's population claim to be Christian.  But any similarity between their beliefs and lifestyle to the first century model is purely coincidental.  At Luke 18:8 it states, "...nevertheless, when the son of man returns, will he really find the faith on the earth?"
In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote: >  > In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: > >So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire > >on their house, killing most of the people inside. >  > We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been > the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and > people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly > disinterested observers.  There's another point to be made. Those who have been inside burning houses know that if they want to stay alive, it's better to run out from the building. We had one case where an FBI agent *had to  drag out a women* from the burning house, she run back in when she saw the forces arriving. It is a good indication of the fanatical mind that the followers had -- including having they children burned instead of saving these innocent victims of the instance.  Cheers, Kent