waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) wrote: > I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would > not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of > initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on > alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present > in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of > an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.    Dennis, I'm astounded. I didn't know you were interested to even study such filth as alt.sex.stories provide...  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr22.155850.28992@atlastele.com>, jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) wrote: > For several years all I knew is I really liked dropping 'cid (LSD). > Frankly speaking, I didn't really care.  It was fun anyway. >  > It didn't matter that every child my wife and I want to have are at a  > *tremendously* greater risk of serious birth defects. >  > For several years all I knew is I really liked having sex with as many women > as I could convice.  Frankly speaking, I didn't care.   >  > I didn't care that I was putting each one of them at risk (as well as their > future partners).  It seems you lived a fairly 'wild life'-- my background is far more traditional, mostly working, working, working. Maybe there's a clear indication that the way you lived your life produced a certain  amount of anxiety that needed to be released. Religion was one possible medicine. While my more stable environment didn't and  still does not produce the situation where I feel such guilt.  This is just one possible explanation why you feel this burden, while I haven't felt it so far.  Regards, Kent
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.]  >>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.  I should have thought better of someone posting from a UChicago address. How can you manage to say such nonsense without shame?  Muslim students might have a complaint, if they are prevented from setting out their rugs and doing the proper ablutions before prayer at the times specified in the Qu'ran.  Jews would probably like the opportunity to daven with tefillim and whatever else *they* require, at *their* appropriate times. I do not see THEM complaining (though Muslims and Jews have a case that no Christian I have ever heard has been able to make.)  The "Christian" insistence on a PUBLIC, UNIVERSAL, ENFORCED "moment of prayer^H^H^H^H^H^Hsilence" is nothing but the Inquisition "naturalized" into the American context.  It is offensive to the Gospel of Christ.
In article <sandvik-160493205355@sandvik-kent.apple.com>,  sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...  >(stephen) wrote: >> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) quotes ML...  >> >> 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?  >  >Most religious Jews with the exception of the Messianic ones and  >atheists/agnostics, Malcolm.  KS, I see you're wanting Malcolm's response. Allow me one last inter- jection then please:  Distinguishing among the religious Jews, you've excepted the Messianic for obvious reasons. Specifically, are you saying it's these religious  Jews, who trace their lineage back to Abraham by blood and orthodoxy,  rather than by faith, who won't agree?  Orthodox Jews?    As to the a/a (if I understand your direction), the issue remains  unproven I suspect, considering how atheists and agnostics so often  look to reason. Atheist, it is reasonable to conclude will not agree. For agnostics, a poll seems in order. Who knows?  Myself, I'm not so  sure the atheists can be counted out.   For the orthodox, I wonder how many would follow Moses, or Abraham, or David in accepting God's Word? Is the particular covenant to which one adheres, more important than God promisimg? I reckon for many it depends on the ongoing dialogue. Under these considerations, you might  understand why I think it's premature to assert who will and won't agree.
Please excuse the length of this post, but for personal reasons,  I must go on at some length.  In article <1r9dd7INNqfk@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes: |>  |> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes: |>  |> >   For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog, |> >and they list the following books by Francis Hitching: |>  |>  |> I believe I've just discovered an anthopological parallel.  In my many |> "discussions" with the fundies, their main tactic is to discredit |> my sources.  They shrilly bleat: |>  |>      "Barclay's claims are bogus; McKenzie's arguements are a sham, |> Oehler position is specious, Jouon's ideas are fiction, Darby is a |> fraud, Howard is a counterfeit, Rotherham's claims are vapid." |>  |> Ahha...Now with the Branch Athiests zealots we have the following: |>  |>      "Hitching`s claims are bogus, Gorman argument's are a sham, |> Jastrow's position is specious, Stanley's ideas are fiction, Durant |> is a fraud, Thorpe is a counterfeit, Hoyle's claims are vapid." |>  |> Are we witnessing the founding of a new major religion.... or has |> it really been there all along?!     [...more deleted...]      Perhaps it would be instructive to see what my original post had to say:  In article <1993Apr22.121931.2533@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes: |> In article <1r4dglINNkv2@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes: |> |>  |> |>  |> |> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes: |> |>  |> |>  |> |>  |> |> >  Neither I, nor Webster's has ever heard of Francis Hitchings.  Who is he?  |> |> >Please do not answer with "A well known evolutionist" or some other such |> |> >informationless phrase. |> |>  |> |> He is a paleontologist and author of "The Neck of the Giraffe".  The |> |> quote was taken from pg. 103. |> |>  |> |> Jack |>  |>     For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog, |> and they list the following books by Francis Hitching: |>  |>     Earth Magic |>  |>     The Neck of the Giraffe, or Where Darwin Went Wrong |>  |>     Pendulum: the Psi Connection |>  |>     The World Atlas of Mysteries      [followed by my signature]      I was extremely careful in this posting not to say anything which was not factual.  I made no judgement about Hitching or the quality of  the quotation attributed to him.  I have not read any of the books  listed (although I did glimpse briefly at "Earth Magic", I saw nothing  that I would care to comment on).  It was solely in response to an inquiry by Warren about Hitching, and your assertion that he is a paleontologist.  I do not know whether he is or is not a paleontologist. I do not claim to know anything about him, except this listing of his publications.      However, I get the decided impression that I am being included among the "Branch Atheists" on the basis of this post.  If that  impression is mistaken, please let me know.  Otherwise, I should let you know that the implications are very offensive to me, and I  would certainly appreciate a clarification of your posting.
In article <sandvik-160493205451@sandvik-kent.apple.com>  sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >In article <1993Apr16.181605.15072@ra.royalroads.ca>, >mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: >> This brings up another question I still have to ponder:  why is there so  >> much anti-Semitism?  Why do people hate Jews?  I don't hate Jews.  I consider >> them to be like anyone else, sinners we all are. >I don't know, I don't care about ethnical rights and wrongs myself, >but it's evident that Christians consider Jews no longer to be the  >sole selected group of God's people -- while Jews consider this to >be the case.  Christian anti-Semitism comes from the obvious fact that the Jews should know the Hebrew Scriptures better than anyone else, yet they did not convert to Christianity en mass, thus rejecting "Christian Love."  >No wonder this caused anti-Semitism. One might even >wonder that if Christianity didn't do this separation, would anti-Semitism >have even started?
In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes: >For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure, >or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,  I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.  >I've enclosed a partial list of the sources he cites or quotes >he exactly used. As a Christian sermon, it's pretty good, if not  >inspired. > >Though I differ in part on some of his conclusions, the argument  >he presents is well backed -- which is why it's taken me this long >to work through -- still ongoing.  > >If you thought it was rambling -- that says far more about you than >it does Koresh. There is a very definite relationship between the  You've made me curious.  What does this say about me?  >First Seal in Revelation 6, the entirety of Psalms 45, and the >most of Revelation 19 -- which demonstrated one of his major points  >about how the writings in the Prophets (including David), and in  >the Psalms, and in Revelation are all telling the same story when  >you understand how they're related (ie have the key). The largely  >explain each other.   Charles Manson used revelation as well.  Do we see a pattern here? I wonder of Koresh liked the Beatles?  > >The sequence following is keyed to the Koresh tape, should you care >to check it out. You can almost see the note cards he used when  >doing the analysis.  > 	[long list of Biblical references which 	 impressed me tremendously but were deleted 	 in the interests of common sense.]  Koresh was a nut, okay?  Just because he found ways for the Bible to backup his rantings does not make him any less of a kook.  > >Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed >for the message he carried.   I'll type this very slowly so that you can understand.  He either set the fire himself or told his followers to do so.  Don't make him out to be a martyr.  He did not "get killed", he killed himself.  > >In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption. >Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten? >  The evil was inside the compound.  All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.  >Oh yeah, one last point for the believers -- Philippian 2:14-19.
In article <1993Apr22.003024.25620@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote: > My hope is that Brian 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.    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.  Cheers, Kent
In <Pegasus-130393124328@fp1-dialin-7.uoregon.edu>, Pegasus@AAA.UOregon.EDU (Laurie EWBrandt)  wrote: >  > [irrelevant inserts from previous postings deleted] >  > 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. ...  legends are ususally defined as > tales concerning other times and places that do not give the same extensive > emphasis to supernatural themes. Legends, more often than myths, are retold > purely as entertainment." from Peter B. Hammand's .An introduction to > Cutural and Social Anthropology. second ed Macmillion page 387. This makes > the Bible a Fibber Magee's closet, over stuffed with a little bit of every > thing gleened by a wandering people. > Pegasus        Now doesn't this sound a lot like the "colorful (or otherwise) story       from antiquity that somehow tries to (or does) explain natural pheno-      mena"?  I think I hear what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that      I know what you mean.  The possibility exists that what _looks_ like      "myth" on the surface may be after all much more than "just" a story.                    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: > >So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids, >died today?  No, and Im especially unhappy that these 70+ people died in an assault on private property with government armored vehicles.  I am also unhappy (or actually, very suspicious) that the FBI was dismissing out of hand any chances that they might have accidentally set the blaze  themselves. I mean, I guess we are just supposed to believe that ramming modified tanks into the walls of a building and injecting toxic gases into the building are just routine procedures, no WAY anything could go wrong.
Frank, I tried to mail this but it bounced.  It is fast moving out of t.a scope, but I didn't know if t.a was the only group of the three that you subscribed to. Apologies to regular t.a folks.  In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:  >Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round,  >as you would wish it.    You must be using 'values' to mean something different from the way I see it used normally.  And you are certainly using 'Science' like that if you equate it to "the real world".  Science is the recognition of patterns in our perceptions of the Universe and the making of qualitative and quantitative predictions concerning those perceptions.  It has nothing to do with values as far as I can see. Values are ... well they are what I value. They are what I would have rather than not have - what I would experience rather than not, and so on.  Objective values are a set of values which the proposer believes are applicable to everyone.  >If there is no such thing as objective value, then science can not  >objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.  I don't agree. Science is useful insofar as it the predictions mentioned above are accurate.  That is insofar as what I think *will be* the effect on my perceptions of a time lapse (with or without my input to the Universe) versus what my perceptions actually turn out to be.  But values are about whether I like (in the loosest sense of the word) the  perceptions :-)  >Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said >to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.    I don't see why. 'Usefulness' in science is synonomous with 'accuracy' - period. Tarot predictions are not useful because they are not accurate - or can't be shown to be accurate. Science is useful because it is apparently accurate.  Values - objective or otherwise - are beside the point.  No?
In article <1993Apr22.213142.6964@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:    To you, it shouldn't matter if you do evil things or good things.  It is    all meaningless in the end anyway.  So go rob a bank.  Go tell someone    you dislike that he is a dirty rotten slime bag.  What's restraining you?
In article <1993Apr22.152720.24846@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (mark) writes: >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. > >	mark     Wow, look at alllthe pretty puddles!!!!    Jimmy crack koan, and I don't care, Jimmy crack koan and i don't care, Jimmy crack Koan and i don't care, Zen Master's gone away.....
In article <f2dutxH@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes: |> In article <1993Apr20.144825.756@ra.royalroads.ca>  |> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: |> >If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.   |> >Too easy?   |>  |> That would exclude most self-proclaimed "Christians."  |> Do you follow the Ten Commandments?  As a matter of fact, yes I do or at least I strive to.  I will not be so proud as to boast that my faith is 100%.  I am still human and imperfect and therefore, liable to sin.  Thankfully, there is opportunity for repentence and forgiveness.  God be with you,
The Roman Catholic conservatives are coming out in the open to line up with Pat Robertson and his ultra Right Wing Christian Coalition. Former Secretary of Education William Bennet, a Roman Catholic, stood beside the Christian Coalition's spokesman Ralph Reed at a March 3 conference in Washington.  The purpose of the conference was to publish results of a Christian Coalition poll which was designed to prove that the Republican party would lose major support if it backed away from the "Family Values" positons of the '92 convention.  Conservative Catholics have swung behind Robertson's organization with political expertise, legal assistance and high tech communications support.  The Catholic Campaign for  American, designed as a Catholic version of the Moral Majority, was founded by Marlene Elwell and Tom Wykes. Ms. Elwell has been with Robertson since the days of his Freedom Council in 1985 and worked for him in his presidential bid in 1988.  Ms. Elwell was hired by Domino's Pizza magnate, Tom Monaghan, in 1989 to manage Legatus, a "nonpolitical", Catholic businessmen's group. Membership is limited to Catholics who head corporations with a least $4 million in annual revenues.  Relying on a network of wealthy contacts at Legatus, Elwell and Wykes had little trouble forming and funding the Catholic Campaign.  The Campaign's list of national committee members includes U.S. Rep. Robert K. Dornan, Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum, the lovely Pat Buchanan and Rev. Richard J. Neuhaus.   Also on the national committee is Keith Fournier, a Catholic who heads Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice.  Another Catholic, Thomas Patrick Monaghan, senior counsel of Robertson's ACLJ, is also an active supporter of the Catholic Campaign.  The board of directors includes Frank Shakespeare, broadcasting exec and former U.S. ambassador to the Pope, Wall Street executive Frank Lynch, former Reagan official Richard V. Allen, Bishop Rene Gracida of Corpus Christi and Mary Ellen Bork, wife of unsuccessful Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.  In the Winter 1992 issue of _Campaign Update_ the organization's quarterly newsletter, 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."  Oh yes, the organization's "national ecclesisatical advisor" is Catholic politician Cardinal John J. O'Connor of New York.
In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:  >I worked at AMORC when I was in HS.  OK: So you were a naive teen.  >He [HS Lewis] dates back to the 20's.   	Wrong: 1915 and if you do your homework, 1909. But he was born LAST century (1883).  > >Right now AMORC is embroiled in some internal political turmoil.
What an exciting thread (finally!)  Mitra is Sanskrit for Friend, as such He started out as an avatar of Lord Visnu  mentioned first in the Vedas. Later he seems to have risen to chief prominence  worshipped by the Persians. Associated with the Sun but NOT the Sun, he is  the lord of contract honor and obedience, therefore naturally worshipped by  soldiers. He was ordered by the Sun to slay the bull of heaven and He reluct-  antly agreed because of His obligation...the blood of that bull spilled and  grew all earth life...then Mitra and the Sun sat down to eat.  Worship of Lord Mitra ended in Persia with the ascension of the Zoroastrians.  Hundreds of years later He was rediscovered and thrown into the Official Roman  Pantheon (tm) for some semi-tricky reason, I forget why. But all references of  Him ended abruptly when He was stricken from same, so apparently His worship  was some sort of vehicle for advancement in the bureaucracy, like membership  in the Communist Party was in the Soviet Bloc. The sociology of religion in  ancient times is fascinating!  Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.  I am not sure if the mystery cult really lasted after His was booted from the  Roman Imperial God Roster or what. It contained mostly soldiers, with 7 levels  of initiation. They worshipped underground in caverns in pews. The bull horns  in those temples were for scaring away or impaling evil spirits, I'm not sure  that they had Mithraic significance or not.  I don't know that the ritual meal was of a cannibalistic nature as is the  Christian masses. But eating deities goes way back to Old Kingdom Egypt.  Someone mentioned bullfighting. Did Mithraists sacrifice bulls? I forget. More  likely, for a religious source, might be the shower of bull's blood enjoyed  by the worshippers of Cybele on the Day of Blood? Cybele worship extended all  throughout even up to France bigtime.