waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
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. |>   I would hardly consider the BD's to be Christian.  They were acting in direct contradiction to scripture.  Jesus' Second Coming is something that everyone will know of.  Jesus also predicted that there will be false Messiahs who will use His name.  His prophecy has been fulfilled.  |> I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what |> they were doing, and it's their own actions. |>  |> What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside, |> including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful |> conditions. |>  I agree with you there.   |> If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud |> that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions. |>  Me too.  I have already given my life to God.  If God tells me to lay down my life, it will be to save another life.   |> You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare |> the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all. |>  |> 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? |>  Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD's contradicted scripture in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any association with the BD's.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any further ties with this cult, which was what they were.  Do you judge all Muslims by the acts committed by Saddam Hussein, a  supposedly devout Muslim?  I don't.  Saddam is just a dictator using the religious beliefs of his people to further his own ends.  God be with you,  Malcolm Lee   :)
joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:   >Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does >god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??  >In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live >according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god >make that desicion? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every >one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is >that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be >created.     i guess i ought not conclude from this, then, that since you didn't ask to be created, you don't care if you go to hell.  :)  >Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which >has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to >expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?  >Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so >righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep, >unable to do otherwise that follow the rest?     i don't consider myself an unthinking sheep.  the bible says god created us to be in communion and obedience to him.  the first and only rule was to not eat of a certain tree, or else the punishment is distance from him and physical death.  god's intention in creating us is to have a relationship with us.  the bible documents god's attempts to have that relationship culminating in the person of jesus to bear the consequences of all sin so that all who accept him can have a relationship with god again: the purpose of creation.
In <1ren9a$94q@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)  writes:  >In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike  Cobb) writes: >>Why is the NT tossed out as info on Jesus.  I realize it is normally tossed >>out because it contains miracles, but what are the other reasons?  > It is not tossed out as a source, but would it be regarded as >unbiased and independant?   This brings up another something I have never understood.  I asked this once before and got a few interesting responses, but somehow didn't seem satisfied. Why would the NT NOT be considered a good source.  This might be a  literary/historical question, but when I studied history I always looked for  firsthand original sources to write my papers.  If the topic was on Mr. X, I  looked to see if Mr. X wrote anything about it.  If the topic was on a group,  look for the group, etc.  If the topic is on Mr. X, and Mr. X did not write  anything about it, (barring the theistic response about the Bible being  divinely inspired which I can't adequately argue), wouldn't we look for people who ate, worked, walked, talked, etc. with him?  If someone was at an event  wouldn't they be a better "reporter" than someone who heard about it second  hand?  I guess isn't firsthand better than second hand.  I know, there is bias, and winners writing history, but doesn't the principle of firsthand being best still apply?  MAC -- ****************************************************************                                                     Michael A. Cobb  "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois     class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana           -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
I wrote:   > My hope is that Brian K. will look and will see the ramifications of the > truck coming towards him.  My hope is that Brian will want to step out > of the way.  My fear, though,  is that Brian will instead choose to glue himself > to the middle of the highway, where he will certainly get run over.  But if > he so chooses, he so chooses, and there is nothing I can do beyond that > to change his mind.   For it is his choice.   But at this very moment, > Brian hasn't gotten even that far.  He is still at the point where he > does not want to look.  Sure he moves his eyeball to appease me, but his > head will not turn around to see the entire picture.  So far he is > satisfied with his glimpse of the mountains off in the distance.    Kent Sandvik writes:  >The problem is that you imagine him inside this huge wall, unable >to see reality. While he imagines the same about you. Clearly we >have a case where relativity plays a big role concerning looking >at opposite frames of reality.  Kent, with regards to the information contained in the Bible (which is the original context of this thread), Brian Kendig is inside a huge wall.  Brian *IS* inside.  The Bible and the information contained therein are outside the wall.   Brian Kendig proves this very sad fact by the absurd things he says.  For example, "If I get through into the firey pit, I will cease to exist."  The Bible doesn't say that.  He hasn't a clue even to what Jesus said about hell.  That is but one example.
In article <pgf.735710979@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >How come noone mentions Eric Hoffer when talking about  >fanatic behavior anymore?  Good point.  If you haven't read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer, do so at your first opportunity.  I don't know why Hoffer is out of style now, but "The True Believer" is still the best explanation of nutball behavior ever written.
The trouble with trying to find out the truth is that Roehm and his buddies were ACCUSED OF being flaming faggots, one of the pretexts for the Night of Long Knives in which Roehm and most of the SA wing of the NSDAP were purged.  Since the accusers thereafter controlled the records, anything bearing on the subject -- true or not -- has to be considered tainted evidence.  The available data suggest that Roehm and his crowd, the SA -- Sturmabteilung, "Storm Troopers" -- left the world a better place when they departed, but concrete particulars are still no more than more or less shrewd guesses.   -- Diccon Frankborn
In article <1993Apr26.215627.24917@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: >A baby's innocence has nothing to do with whether the baby >is a sinner.  Innocence and the sin nature are two different attributes.  >The baby is innocent, yet the baby is a sinner.    >You have two arms and two legs?  Why?  Because your parents did. >Why? Because their parents did.  Etc.  Did you do anything to get them?  The thing is, I know what arms and legs are.  It's therefore generally easy to tell whether or not someone has arms and legs.  This "sinful nature", since it does not require that the baby actually perform any sins, seems to be totally invisible.  As far as I know, maybe half the babies have a sinful nature and half don't--it'd look exactly the same, since there is no way to tell the difference.  >We are born sinners.  We are born sinners because our parents >were born with it.  We got it from them.  We did nothing to earn >the title "sinner".  We get it because our parents had it, their >parents had it, their grandparents had it, etc, infinitum.  So what's so bad about a sinful nature, then?  I could understand it being bad if it always results in people committing sins, but babies can have it, never commit sins, die, and they still have it.  So the bad part about can't merely be that it results in people committing sins--so what _is_ bad about it? -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole     that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...    -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
:  : > Surely you are not equating David Koresh with Christianity? The two are : > not comparable. :  : This is always an option: when the sect is causing harm, re-label : the cult to something else. :  : Cheers, : Kent  Good point.  I would not doubt that DK could have spouted verse and debated with best. According to reports his extensive Bible knowledge was one way he sucked in the fools (followers?).  Quote bible all you want. I too judge what you say be what you do and even more by if it makes sense.  Sense, common that is.  Doesn't seem so common after all!
Would someone be kind enought to document the exact nature of the evidence against the BD's without reference to hearsay or newsreports. I would also like to know more about their past record etc. but again based on solid not media reports.   	My reason for asking for such evidence is that last night on Larry King Live a so-called "cult-expert" was interviewed from Australia who claimed that it was his evidence which led to the original raid. This admission, if true, raises the nasty possibility that the Government acted in good faith, which I believe they did, on faulty evidence. It also raises the possibility that other self proclaimed cult experts were advising them and giving ver poor advice.
Jenny Anderson (jennya@well.sf.ca.us) wrote:  : medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba) entirely missed my point in my previous : posting, in which I wrote:  : : firmly on the western coast of the Med.  You can bet IUm gonna keep this : baby  : >My my my, such double standards.  You neglected to give any primary sources : >for your book,  _Encyclopedia of the Bible_.  Are we to expect that source : >to be as unbiased as the other sources...  MR. Butler *DID* give at least : >one source, you have given none.  : REPLY  : It was a JOKE.  The Readers digest _Encyclopedia of the Bible_ was the most : outrageously bogus *authority* I could dredge from my shelves. : I was trying to point out that going to some encyclopedia, rather than :  original or scholarly sources is a BIG MISTAKE in procedure.  I am glad : to note that Butler and DeCesno are arguing about substance now, : rather than about arguing.  I guess the joke was on me...  I am so used to seeing bogus stuff posted here that I assumed that yours was necessarily the same.
> i need some brief information on scientology (or applientology as frank zappa > would call it) anyone have the time to send me some info on ol' l.ron and the b > asics of what scientology is all about would be appreciated---p.s.i am not inte > rested in any propaganda
In article <93111.195217A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:  [stuff about Mithras deleted]  >Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.
royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree) writes: >In article <keng.735334134@tunfaire> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes: >[lotsa stuff taken out]  >Bottom line: due process was not served.  No peaceful attempt to serve >a warrant occurred.  The peaceful attempt to serve the warrant was met with gunfire. Due process was not served because the Branch Davidians wanted it that way.  *You* think on that.  >royc  -- "Milk is for babies; when you're a man, you drink beer" - Arnold
In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) wrote: > I will repeat my position here.  Worshipping on Sunday has never been a > sin.  As a child I attended services on Saturday and Sunday--at the SDA > church and at the Pentecostal church across the street.  I might even go to a > Baptist church next week.  I worship God every day, and every Christian  > should.  Even if we can prove that Christians should meet on Sunday (and > we can't) we can never prove that violation of the Sabbath is not a sin > any longer.  Nor can we prove that violation of Sunday is a sin.  We > cannot use the Sabbath commandment for that purpose.  My online Bible is on a CD, but I don't own a CD-ROM system for the time being, so I can't search for the famous cite where Jesus explicitly states that he didn't want to break existing (Jewish) laws. In other words technically speaking Christians should use Saturday and not Sunday as their holy day, if they want to conform to the teachings of Jesus.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes: > >     Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have >probably spent more time than you doing the same.  > >     None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the >case.   Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? .. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin off of AMORC?? i would be quite interested in hearing what evidence you have to support this claim.   >Study Harder,  Study Smarter, not Harder! :-)
In article <1993Apr23.221525.4323@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu wrote: > Well, Stephen's annotated study of David Koresh's sermon > doesn't bother me.  It's probable that a careful review of > what Stephen has done with obvious expenditure of thoughtful > effort would provide additional insight into David and his love > for God [May his soul rest in peace.]   And whether or > not we agree with various points of theology therein, a review > would likely provide significant insight into our own love > for God.  One thing that seems apparent from even a cursory > reading of Koresh's message is that he was not the 'looney > tunes' portrayed in the FBI filtered press reports on him > but was quite possibly the friendly, likeable person his > attorney reported him to be.  Someone stated that the Davidian cult should not be associated with Christianity. Well, I read all those four postings, and I'm now even more convinced that Davididians are truly Christian in nature. But sometimes it makes sense to re-label the cult,  especially if the ugliness is too much to handle.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr22.213142.6964@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: >And we do not end perfect either.  We are never perfect.  Can you name >one person, young or old, past or present, that you deem perfect?   Krishna.  BG10:20(Miller) I am the self abiding in the heart of all creatures; I am their beginning, their middle, and their end. BG10:32(Miller) I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of creations, Arjuna; of sciences, I am the science of the self; I am the dispute of orators. BG10:41(Miller) Whatever is powerful, lucid, splendid, or invulnerable has its source in a fragment of my brilliance. (42) What use is so much knowledge to you, Arjuna? I stand sustaining this entire world with a fragment of my being. BG11:32(Miller) I am time grown old ...
In article <204l02tO40sf01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes: =>I don't necessarily agree with Pat Robertson.  Every one will be placed before =>the judgement seat eventually and judged on what we have done or failed to do =>on this earth.  God allows people to choose who and what they want to worship. = =I'm sorry, but He does not!  Ever read the FIRST commandment?  I have.  Apparently you haven't.  The first commandment doesn't appear to forbid worshipping other gods.  Yahweh's got to be at the top of the totem pole, though. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
In article <1993Apr5.182411.7621@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes: >First of all as far as I know, only male homosexuality is explicitly >mentioned in the bibles, so you're off the hook there,  Actually, there is one condemnation of lesbian acts in the Bible, Romans 1:26.  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"  There are plenty who don't read the Bible. Or pray for that matter.
Kent:       You say that  >There are about 4-10 competing Rosicrucian orders existing today,                       ^^^^^^^^^ >most of them are spin-offs from OTO and other competing organizations >from the 19th century France/Germany. Maybe I should write an article                         Please don't!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >about all this, I spent some time investigating these organizations >and their conceptual world view systems.       Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have probably spent more time than you doing the same.        None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the case.   Study Harder,
Sorry, the San Jose based Rosicrucian order is called A.M.O.R.C,  I don't remember for the time being what the A.M. stand for but O.R.C is Ordo Rosae Crucis, in other words latin for Order of the Rose Cross. Sigh, seems l'm loosing more and more of my long term memory.  Otherwise their headquarters in San Jose has a pretty decent metaphysical bookstore, if any of you are interested in such books. And my son loves to run around in their Egyptian museum.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1r59i4$e81@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: #In article <1r3570$hkv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: #|> In article <1r2ls3$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: #|> #|>  #|> #|> #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. #|> #|>  #|> #|> Since both statements, to all intents and purposes, say effectively #|> #|> the same thing,  #|> # #|> #Are you serious?  Two statements, one of which says that use of force #|> #in the given situation is moral, and the other of which says it is #|> #not moral "say effectively the same thing?" #|>  #|> Yes, when you tag on the "Unfortunately, ...", then to all intents and #|> purposes you are saying the same thing. # #Then delete the "unfortunately".   Now tell me that the two statement #say effectively the same thing. # #And to save everyone a couple of trips round this loop, please notice #that we are only obliged to use force to preserve self.   We can choose #*not* to preserve self, which is the point of pacifism.  O.K., got you.  I concede your point, though the word "obliged" strongly implies that one must sometimes use force.  A further rephrasing would give you the distinction you mention, however.  If I have you right, a pacifist would not even go on to say, "unfortunately,etc."  #|> #Would you say this of any two statements, one saying "X is moral" and #|> #the other saying "X is immoral?"   How would you decided when two  #|> #statements "X is moral" "X is immoral" actually conflict, and when #|> #they "say effectively the same thing". #|>  #|> What they prescribe that one should do is a pretty good indicator. # #And in this case they don't prescribe the same things, so.....  Yes, fair enough, though why confuse things by saying that "one is  somtimes obliged" if the real meaning is that "one is never obliged".  #|> #|>                  and lead one to do precisely the same thing, then  #|> #|> either both statements are doublespeak, or none. #|> # #|> #They might lead you to do the same thing, but the difference is what #|> #motivates pacifism so they obviously don't lead pacifists to to the #|> #same thing. #|>  #|> That's not true.  You could formulate a pragmatic belief in minimum  #|> force and still be a pacifist.  If the minimum is 0, great  - but one is #|> always trying to get as close to 0 force as possible under that belief. #|> Not the same as 'force is immoral, period', but still tending to pacifism. # #If you don't think the use of force is immoral, why minimise its use?  If you don't think that it is "immoral, period.".
In article <1993Apr2.041929.24320@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kditto@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kimborly Ditto) writes: > >Concerniong this thread... > >Has anyone ever seen "Drop Dead Fred" ??  THis movie seems to tipify the >"imaginary friend" theme rather well.  I LOVED the movie, as i had an >imaginary friend when i was a kid and it borught back great memories.   > >Seriously, if you have a chance, see "Drop Dead Fred".  It'll make ya >think.  especially the end. > >Blessings! >--Kim >
Bill Gripp writes  >>Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ would have >>with weapons.  >FYI, these people were not "followers of Christ".  David Koresh was >their messiah.  ok, but didn't Jesus figure somewhere into their beliefs? Anyway, my original question regarding christians and weaponry still stands.
In article <1993Apr23.225933.22683@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:    Brian, it doesn't offend me if you decide to reject Jesus    Christ.  I only wish you would make that decision after you    learn who Jesus is.