waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
930425  Tony Alicia writes:  Let's start with the name "Rosicrucian". I took me a long time to come to the conclusion that there is a difference between a *member* of a "rosicrucian" body and BEING *a* ROSICRUCIAN. So when you say that you met some 'rosicrucians' you mean "members of a group that calls themselves rosicrucian". At least that is what your observation suggests :-)   Response:  This makes much sense to me.  This is also true of most religions. There is a difference between being a *member* of a group of people who call themselves 'Hindus' or 'Christians' or 'Pagans' and actually *BEING* any of these.  The social groups tend to make very important requirements about not belonging to other 'religions'.  I find that the ideal described by the holy texts of most religions can be interpreted in very similar ways so that one could presume that 'mysticism' is the core of every religion and Huxley's 'Perennial Philosophy' is the Great Secret Core of all mystical trads. :>   Tony:  I'd prefer if you would have stated up front that it was the Lectorium Rosicrucianum, only because they may be confused, by some readers of this newsgroup, with the Rosicrucian Order AMORC based (the USA Jurisdiction) in San Jose, CA; this being the RC org with the most members (last time I looked). Of course, "most members" does not *necessarily* mean "best".   Response:  Certainly true.  I didn't know there WERE any groups which called themselves 'Rosicrucians' that didn't associate with AMORC.  Sure, I've heard all the hubbub about the Golden Dawn and Rosae Crucis in relation to all these Western esoteric groups, but hadn't heard about other 'Rosicrucians'. I'll admit my bias.  I live in San Jose. :>   Tony:  "You'll have to trust me" when I tell you that if that lecture/class/whatever had been presented by AMORC, it is unlikely that you would have had the same impression, i.e., you'd probably have had a positive impression more likely than a negative one, IMHO.    Response:  This may be slightly off.  I've met some of these Rosicrucians and have a couple friends in AMORC.  The stories I've heard and the slight contact I've had with them does not give me the hope that I'd be received with any kind of warm welcome.  I still like to think that most people who are involved with stratified relationships (monogamy, religion, etc.) are in DEEP pain and hope to heal it within such a 'cast'.   Tony:        It is curious to know that 3 other RC 'orders' (in the USA) claim to be *non- sectarian*.   Response:  I'd like to know at least the addresses of the 'other orders' which call  themselves 'Rosicrucians' and especially those which are 'nonsectarian'. Is this 'nonsectarian' like the Masons, who require that a member 'believe in God by his/her definition'?              Tony:  I don't see nothing *fundamentally* wrong with "us containing something divine"... And yes I don't like phrases like "eternal bliss" either! :-)   Response:  Let alone us *BEING* something divine. ;>   Tony:  BTW, I have read the intro letters of the LRC which they will mail you free of charge.   Response:  Addresses, phone numbers of groups?  I'm into networking.  Thanks.
In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes: >     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider >the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought >the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier, >would amuse you all... <MUNCH!> >     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,  It would be funny if it wasn't so damn *NASTY*; and as non-xian as I am,  it's hard to believe that someone is pushing black is white and freedom is slavery so blatantly.
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:  >In article <1993Apr20.143400.569@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca >(Malcolm Lee) wrote: >> 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.  >Well, if they were Satanists, or followers of an obscure religion, >then I would be sure that Christians would in unison condemn and  >make this to a show case.  You might be sure, but you would also be wrong.  >And does not this show the dangers with religion -- in order  >word a mind virus that will make mothers capable of letting >their small children burn to ashes while they scream?
In article <lefty-260493134641@lefty.apple.com>, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes: > > These particular Tibetans are advocating increased violence against  > the Chinese occupiers.  Are they wrong?  Wrong about what?   I think they are correct in thinking that a  well-placed bomb or six would get headlines, but I think they are  wrong if they think that you can set off bombs and still be a  Buddhist.  Maybe what we are seeing here is that Chinese cultural genocide against the Tibetans has worked well enough that some Tibetans  are now no longer Buddhist and are instead willing to behave like the Chinese occupiers.   Every action is its own reward.  > Clearly the occupation of Tibet _has_ been largely ignored.  On the other hand, people who are aware of the occupation are mostly full of admiration for the peaceful way that Tibetans have put up with it.   And what does it cost us to admire them?   Zip.  > Are Tibetans currently "people of peace"?  Do they serve themselves  > well or badly by being so?  Yes they are, and whether this serves them well or not depends on  whether they want Buddhist principles or political independence. And without political independence can they preserve their cultural and religious traditions?  > Would an increased level of violence make them "terrorists"?  The Chinese would certainly refer to them as terrorists, just as the Hitler regime used to refer to European resistance movements as terrorists.  > Assuming that the group advocating this course is correct, and  > greater attention is focussed on the occupation of Tibet by the  > Chinese, are the Tibetans better off as "people of peace" or > as "terrorists"?  Better off in what way?   As proponents of pacifism or as  proponents of political autonomy?  And better off in what time-scale?   The Soviet Empire practised cultural genocide against something like a hundred small minorities, some of which resisted violently, and some of which did not, but in the end it was the Soviet Empire that collapsed and at least some of the minorities survived.  Now some of the minorities are fighting one another.    Is that because they have to, or because violent resistance to an oppressive Empire legitimized violence?
In article <C4J571.K3D@rice.edu>, swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) said: >Posted on 27 Mar 1993 at 00:16:13 by Michael Parks Swaim >In article <C4HIM1.BrF@cs.psu.edu> jdh@math.psu.edu (Jeremy D Hall) writes: >>Well, I *WILL* do the math, and I get:  (6^6)^6=2,189,739,336 >> >>This mean anything to anyone?  :^)
To: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com  LM>>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away.  LM>True.  But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of LM>her body for another 9 months.  I see this as being unbelievably cruel.  Life is not a "violation". As for cruel, killing a living being solely because it exsist. That my friend is down right cold.                                     Anthony    * SLMR 2.1 * What's the difference between an Orange?
Tony Alicea (ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote: >In a previous article, shades@sorinc.cutler.com (Darrin A. Hyrup) says: >>They [Thelema Lodge] don't have an internet address, but they do have a CIS >>address which can be reached via uucp/internet.  It is 72105,1351 so I guess >>that would be '72105.1351@cis.com' or something like that. >> >		......@compuserve.com  I've tried 72105.1351@compuserve.com  Bounced twice....  Any other guesses?
In article <1qjclt$nh7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:  > [...] > > [as I recall, I first entered the fray on this matter in response to > an assertion by Simon Clippingdale that morality was relative.  Oops! Quite right. I got so busy that I saved Frank's last post back then, intending to respond when I could, and I sort of forgot. I'll try to do it soon if anyone's still interested, and probably even if they're not.  > Is he therefore trying to sell something?  I don't think so. ]  Well, yes, maybe I am. I'm trying to have people buy and take on my opinions, thus causing said opinions to spread in time-honoured memetic virus mode until the world is a veritable paradise. So how about it, folks? As they say over here, You Know It Makes Sense.  > Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That' > odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon  Cheers  Simon
In article <1e9e02bm40FM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) wrote: > >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?  > 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
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?    2Pe 1 16 ¶ We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you  about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were   eyewitnesses of his majesty.   2Pe 1 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the  voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom   I love; with him I am well pleased."¹   2Pe 1 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we  were with him on the sacred mountain.   2Pe 1 19 ¶ And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and  you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark  place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.  This is a documented testimony. Perhaps further research on your part is warranted before making more statements. There is considerably more to study in Peters' two books of testimony regarding the Messiah. It is well worth  your time, Mr. Brian.
In article <1r9fuj$bdi@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes: >In article <C5wo5C.EBv@sunfish.usd.edu> rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes: >> >>Simply put, evolution/creation when each is looked at properly - theory/fact >>vs. assertion/fiction - is a specific example of exactly what separates reason >>and science from nonsense. > >   Although I agree that creation is nonsense, I submit that you are making >the same mistake that creationists commonly do.  In this and previous posts, >I think you have been engaging in the fallacy of false dichotomy; you have >consistently characterized science/religion as rationalism/nonsense, when >in fact the latter do not form a complete set of options.  Neither do the >former, for that matter. > >   I wish that the semi-explicit linking of evolution to so-called "rational" >atheism could be avoided; it just gives the creationists fuel for their >often-repeated incantation that "evolution leads to atheism." > >  -- Dave  No, Dave, and as an anthropologist I take great umbrage with this  misrepresentation.  I sense that it is you that has made the jump from creation (science) to religion (see above).  I have characterized science/*creation  science* as rationalism/nonsense, and that it is.  When people promote their  religious beliefs as science they become nonsense.  Kept where they belong  they are meaningful and useful, as virtually any anthropologists will tell you, and as I have said several times in this group.  And it works the other way,  too, and I have repeatedly said so.  Never have I said or meant anything  different, here or elsewhere, and I don't think my communication skills betray me.  Nor do I presume to offend people's spiritual sensibilities, as I would hope others would not disparage mine.
In article <1993Apr25.194144.8358@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote: > In article <C5yMIr.FnE@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: > >You said everyone in the world.  That means *everyone* in the world, including > >children that are not old enough to speak, let alone tell lies.  If Jesus > >says "everyone", you cannot support that by referring to a group of people > >somewhat smaller than "everyone".   > That's right.  Everyone.  Even infants who cannot speak as yet.  Even > a little child will rebelliously stick his finger in a light socket. > Even a little child will not want his diaper changed.  Even a little > child will fight nap-time.  Oh boy, get a small baby and figure out how much brain power they have the first 6 months....  Cheers, Kent
A question regarding the Islamic view towards homosexuality came up in a discussion group that I participate in, and I'd like to ask the question here,  "What is the Islamic view towards homosexuality?"
rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:  [Discussion on Josephus inserts]  Thanks.  Am I correct, then, in assuming that that Josephus did in fact write about Jesus, but Christian copists embellished it?
In article <1993Apr21.141714.5576@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: > |> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have > |> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until   > I will clarify my earlier quote.  God's laws were originally written for  > the Israelites.  Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to > all people, not just the Jews.  Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of > Heaven through the saving grace of God.  I never said that the Law was made > obsolete by Jesus.  It wasn't Jesus who changed the rules of the game (see quote above), it was Paul.  Cheers, Kent
There are actually a few important things we can glean from this mess: 1)	When they start getting desperate for an answer to the question: "What's it all about. Mr. Natural?", pinkboys will buy darn near *anything*, which means: 2)	There's still plenty of $$$$ to be made in the False Jesus business by enterprising SubGenii.  Just remember that: 3)	Once you've separated the pinks from their green, don't blow it all on automatic weapons from Mexico.  Put it in a Swiss bank account.  Smile a lot.  Have your flunkies hand out flowers in airports.  The Con will just shrug you off as long as: 4)	You never, never, NEVER start to believe your own bulldada!  If "David Koresh" hand't started swallowing his own "apocalypso now" crap, he'd be working crossword puzzles in the Bahamas today instead of contributing to the mulch layer in Waco.  This is because: 5)	When you start shooting at cops, they're likely to shoot back.  And  most of 'em are better shots than you are.  	In short: 	- P.T. Barnum was right  		and 	- Stupidity is self-correcting Thus endeth the lesson.
kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:  >  Let's say that we drop a marble into the black hole.  It races, ever faster, >towards the even horizon.  But, thanks to the curving of space caused by the >excessive gravity, as the object approaches the event horizon it has further to >travel.  Integrating the curve gives a time to reach the event horizon of . . . >infinity.  So the math says that nothing can enter a black hole.  This is not correct.  The event horizon is not the "center" of the black hole but merely the distance at which the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light.  That is, the event horizon is a finite radius...
In <1qc6tiINNhie@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:  >adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:  >>1) We're not just talking about proteins.  In fact, we shouldn't be >>talking about proteins at all, since (if I have to say this again I'm >>goint to be really upset) *nobody*claims*that*proteins*appeared*de* >>*novo* >>the proteins did not form randomly. >>   >Before I repond to 2.), Andy, please clarify 1.).  You state that >proteins did not form randomly.  That seems to be my point.    Well, I am not Andy, but if you had familiarized yourself with some of the current theories/hypotheses about abiogenesis before posting :-), you would be aware of the fact that none of them claims that proteins were assembled randomly from amino acids. It is current thinking that RNA- based replicators came before proteinaceous enzymes, and that proteins were assembled by some kind of primitive translation machinery.  Now respond to 2. :-) --Cornelius.
Fact or rumor....?  Madalyn Murray O'Hare an atheist who eliminated the use of the bible reading and prayer in public schools 15 years ago is now going to appear before the FCC with a petition to stop the reading of the Gospel on the airways of America.  And she is also campaigning to remove Christmas programs, songs, etc from the public schools.  If it is true then mail to Federal Communications Commission 1919 H Street Washington DC 20054 expressing your opposition to her request.  Reference Petition number
In article <sandvik-250493170513@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >In article <1r9mflINNak4@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) >wrote: >>          An example is the FBI report that several of the bodies found  >>        in the rubble had bullet wounds.  The local coroner, who is  >>        independent of the FBI, has so far found no bullet wounds!  > >According to CNN last night (Saturday 4/24/93) he has now found bullets >in two of the corpses, in the head (that would indicate that the bullets >were aimed at killing the humans). > 	This will not, of course, deter the several die-hard Koreshies on this net, who will probably claim that the Tarrant County medical examiner (Dr. Peerwani) was coerced by the FBI into faking this evidence.  Either that, or they'll claim the FBI shot them. 	The rest of us might contemplate the difficulty of determining the cause of death from a corpse that has been reduced to a Krispy Kritter. 	************************************************************ 	*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   * 	*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   * 	*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   * 	*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  * 	*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           * 	*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   * 	************************************************************
ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:   >In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:  >> >>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the >>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is >>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.   >>  >	Just wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"? >Warning: There is no point in arguing who's "legit" and who's not. *WHICH* >Golden Dawn are you talking about?  No, I don't mean the LR, whatever that is.  As for which GD, I'm using _The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic_ as my source, so (unless Regardie is lying) I'm pulling the name out the the original order's rituals.  The multiple modern groups are part of why I through in the comment about all the "spin-offs".  >	Just for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation) >I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas >Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,  As a member of the Religious Society of Friends (my membership is in the Urbana-Champaign (IL) Friends Meeting) I find that amusingly ironic. :)  >	Any takers? :-)  Not me--I don't want to belong to *anything* which runs around claiming to be the TRUE whatever.  I find that disgusting. :(  Enjoy the journey!                       --Br'anArthur                                       Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
In article <1qvv7u$kc1@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes: ... >	I think that the consensus will become that FBI/ATF muffed it, >not merely because they walked into an ambush on Feb 28, and Koresh >got his prophesy today, against their stated intentions, but because >they played right into polarizing the situation and not diffusing >it. > >	Koresh had set up all the conditions of a classic cult >confrontation and had stated publically what the outcome would become.  	Before or after his kids were shot?  >The government upped the ante and parcipitated the conclusion today. >It does seem that the fires were set from within the compound by the >members of the group and not caused by the CS gas or the way it was >delivered. Let the subsequent investigation shed light on that. Suppose  	Then why make the comment?  >that the government had used pyrotechnics and started the fire. The >Dividians still had the decision to stay or leave. They never intended  	As did the Jews against the Nazis in WW II:  do what I say or die.  >to leave. > >>The building burns, almost everyone dies.  It probably doesn't bother >>you much, but it bothers many other people.....most of whom dont believe >>particularly in Koresh or his message.   	ALl humans, I hope.  > >	Yes, the finger pointing has begun. > >>	Four ATF agents and 90 branch Davidians are now dead because of >>crazy tactics on the part of the ATF and FBI. > >	Yeah, they blew it. They were being too "rational" in a >situation that was not your ordianry criminal game. They haven't learned >that much from Jonestown, or The Move House, or the SLA shootout.  	Or perhaps they have:  kill first, blame the dead ones, 	destroy all the evidence.  >
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > I am not a Christian, however I suspect that all flavours of  > Christianity hold that (a) objective morality exists and (b) their > particular interpretation of scripture/revelation/TV is a goodly glimpse > of it.  That they may all disagree about (b) says nothing about the truth  > or falsehood of (a).  Actually, they generally claim that (b) their particular interpretation of scripture/revelation *is* this objective morality.  That there are two conflicting versions of this objective morality does tell us something about (a).  It tells us at least one fake objective morality exists.  The next logical step is to deduce that any given religion's objective morality could be the fake one.  So caveat emptor.   mathew
In a previous article, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) says:  > >"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible >organization of such men and women, who having themselves found >the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the >burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience, >and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be >guided. >"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc. >have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of >the civilised world, all following some line of occult study, >yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics >  	Up to that point I thought you were talking about the Rosicrucian Order... :-)  [No offense intended!]