waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5yy8I.EBn@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes: > >In article <1993Apr23.171256.5541@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu(The_Doge) writes: > >|> >|>	Deleted: vast quantities of carefully-annoted spew from "David Koresh" >|>	I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Mr. Tice needs a hobby. > >He has one. He spent last summer telling everyone who doubted the word >of the great Perot that they were bigotted perot-bashers, right up to the >moment he chickened out on them. He then kept quiet for a bit and then >came back when Perot re-entered. > 	This seems appropriate, somehow...>:-)> > > [....] >Then there is the rumour that Loresh in fact survived the fire in a secret >hideyhole and rose again on the third day only to be spirited away by >FBI agents and disposed of in order to prevent a cult following. > 	Hah!  I have it on the very *best* authority (mine) that Koresh is whooping it up in a time-share condo in Dallas with Elvis, JFK, and (of course) J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, who also owns the place and everything else in Texas. 	Look for "koresh" sightings in the Weekly World News and National Enquirer in the coming months. 	************************************************************ 	*  	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"		   * 	************************************************************
In article <1qvibv$b75@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony  Alicea) writes: > >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.  > >No it isn't.  > >  I guess the San Jose Mercury news is wrong then, and if so, why is the DA  involved?
In article <9601@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether) writes: |>  |> Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to  |> bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..." |> :  Remember the armor of God?  The sword that Christians wield is the Word of God, the Bible.  God be with you,  Malcolm Lee  :)
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.  Think on that.
TEXT 44                         bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam                            tayapahrta-cetasam                         vyavasayatmika buddhih                           samadhau na vidhiyate    bhoga--to material enjoyment; aisvarya--and opulence; prasaktanam--for those who are attached; taya--by such things; apahrta-cetasam--bewildered in mind; vyavasaya-atmika--fixed in determination; buddhih--devotional service to the Lord; samadhau--in the controlled mind; na--never; vidhiyate--does take place.                                    TRANSLATION  	In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.                                    PURPORT  	Samadhi means ``fixed mind.'' The Vedic dictionary, the Nirukti, says, samyag adhiyate 'sminn atma-tattva-yathatmyam: ``When the mind is fixed for understanding the self, it is said to be in samadhi.'' Samadhi is never possible for persons interested in material sense enjoyment, nor for those who are bewildered by such temporary things. They are more or less condemned by the process of material energy.  Bhagavad-Gita As It Is Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami          ---------------------------------------------------------       |                Don't forget to chant:                   |       |                                                         |       |  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |       |       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |       |                                                         |       |    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |       |          (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
And he went out to meet Asa, 	And said unto him, 	Hear ye me, Asa, 	And all Judah and Benjamin; 	The LORD is with you, while ye be with him; 	and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; 	but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.
In article <1qvnu9$a8a@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> hawk@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu writes: >Greetings!  Could anybody here give me any information about New Age religion? >About the history, the teachings, ...???  Or may be suggestions what books I  >should read in order to get those info?  Any help would be greatly appreciated.   Contact:   WATCHMAN FELLOWSHIP            P.O. Box 171194            Holladay, UT 84117-1194
[ NOTE: talk.origins removed from crossposting, as this had no business   going there in the first place. ]  In <1r4b59$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu> ray@engr.LaTech.edu writes:  > If I make a statement, "That God exists, loves me, etc." but in no way > insist that you believe it, does that place a burden of proof upon me.        No, but you're not achieving anything either. If you don't want to argue the point you're stating, why do you bother stating it?  > If you insist that God doesn't exist, does that place a burden of proof  > upon you?        No. Read the (alt.atheism) FAQ to find out why.  > I give no proofs, I only give testimony to my beliefs.        Well enough; if I feel interested, I might even listen.  > I will respond to proofs that you attempt to disprove my beliefs.        I won't; the task is impossible, and I don't have to do it in the first place. Why should I even bother to change or disprove your beliefs?        - Mats "Strong apatheist?" Andtbacka
(hudson) >/These people hurt their own bodies.  Why can't they hurt other peoples bodies >/too?   > (me) >Because other people might not *want* to be hurt, Hudson.  And hurting >them against their will is a violation of choice.  /(hudson) /So. Why is someone elses will such a big deal if morality is all relative.   I don't believe I ever said that morality was all relative.  What I said was that I can make my mind up on my own, thank you, and that  you don't have the right to tell others what to think.  I think that you will find that in most moral systems, there is  a respect for human life and the dignity of the person.  It is all the stuff besides these points that forms the core of the disagreement between  primitive moral absolutists like yourself and the rest of us.    /(hudson) /Maybe (the insane lover of pain might reason) if other people experienced /enough pain, they might learn to enjoy it, too.    Fine.  There is still the clinical definition of crazy.  And this also involves a violation of free will, because the insane lover of your little example would be inflicting pain on a non-willing subject.  Try again.     (hudson) >/You have to have other premises to derive this.   > (me) >No, you don't.  That is a patently false statement.  /(hudson) /You have to have some sort of premise about choice or self-awareness.   No, you do not.  I demonstrated to you the example of the football team which doesn't require premises about freedom of choice or  sentience/self-awareness.
keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes: > 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. >  Did you by any chance see the pictures of the agents in flak jackets climbing up on the roof and breaking windows.  You call that peaceful?  If you believed, as these people did, that they would be attacked by evil forces from the outside, found the scores of agents breaking into your compound what would you do?  Your beliefs always determine your actions.  The beliefs may be wrong from my point of view but they are yours all the same.  To make it more practical.  If I attempted to stick you with a needle you would try to stop me because you believe it would hurt, or that I do not have that right.  If you did not you would ignore me.  You certainly would it you saw me sticking the needle in a tree.  Koresh may have been misguided, only God knows.  But the Jews at Masada died for what they believed, the three Hebrews preferred to die in the furnace rather than bow down, Daniel preferred to die in a lion's den rather than stop praying to his God, and as a Christian I am prepared to die for my faith.  Koresh was not dying for now reason.  He had a cause.  Why should he give up the children to forces he was convinced were evil.  The events are bizarre but they match his beliefs.
In article <JOSHUA.93Apr20190924@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>, joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) wrote: >   > I would really appreciate if when someone brought something like > this up they didn't back out when someone asked for details. > josh
PSA 145:9  The LORD is good to all: and his  tender  mercies  are over all his works.
kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:  >I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in >which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a >secret ceremony involving a bull.  He stands naked in a pit covered >with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on >the scaffolding.  They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the >worshipper in the pit with blood.  This is supposedly some sort of >rite of passage for members of the bull cult.  I wonder if this is >related to the Mithras cult? > >I don't know where Rutherford got his information for this chapter. >The book is historical fiction, and most of the general events which >take place are largely based on historical accounts.  There is a rite like this described in Joseph Campbell's _Occidental_Mythology_.  He also described levels of initiation, I think 6?  I don't know where Campbell got his info, but I remember thinking he was being a little eclectic.  >I also wonder what if any connection there is between the ancient bull >cults and the current practice of bullfighting popular in some >Mediterranean cultures.  Quite a bit.  If you haven't read Campbell, give him a try.
In article <79899@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:   I would like to add my support for a misc.taoism discussion group. I applaud the enthusiam shown by the person posting <79899@cup.portal.com>  "Thyagi@cup.portal.com" (I read in alt.magick), but I differ with him/her in believing that at least some minimal parameters  should be agreed upon.  Thyagi wrote:  > I recommend that the depth of generality, indeed, of AMBIGUITY, in this > newsgroup (misc.taoism) be maximized.  Calling the Tradition old or new > is rather unnecessary, and only leads to foolish squabbles.  There is no > doubt that Nature is a splendid teacher, whether she appears in the words > spoken by a tree or by a stream, a microbe or a star.  Let us not limit > 'misc.taoism' to 'philosophy'.    But if we don't limit it to *something*, the discussion degenerates into a big amorphous glob.   Other questions Thyagi proposes are:  > 1) What is this 'actual process of reality'? > 2) Why is Taoism based upon an assumption? > 3) Why does this assumption concern knowledge and what can be known? > 4) What is the value of not knowing? > 5) What is 'a Tao'?  What does it mean to be 'Tao'd'?  It seems to me that these questions more properly fall into the category of "general metaphysics". I would prefer any misc.taoism to deal more closely with topics and works more closely associated with at least "semi-orthodox" Taoism: with established classic works  definitely included and works like Mantak Chia's argued about!   I think "neo-Taoism" should be excluded or get its own group (what I mean by this is "Humpty-Dumpty Taoism", in which Taoism means whatever  a poster says it means.) This "alt.taoism" could also be a refuge  for debates about what "Taoism *REALLY* means" or speculations on sexual alchemy, etc..  e.g. (from Thyagi again): > Taoism does what the hell it wants, I tell you. > Taoism doesn't exist.  'Taoism' is no more real that 'Tao'.  Decide, now. > Real or not real?  Exist or not-exist?  When shall we be certain  Kent gloomily predicts (quoting from Thyagi's article):  > However most traffic in  > the group will likely concern the philosophical, secular taoism > averred by Alan Watts and Niels Bohr, and yogic taoism as it pertains > to medical, sexual and martial techniques.  I think that discussions of this nature are not completely out of place. What's happening is that that the term "Taoism" is becoming completely polluted and trivialized like the words "magic", "Alchemy",  "Zen," etc., by writers appropriating the word to mean whatever they  want. This is seen by the spate of new age books entitled "The Tao of" this, that, and everything else. (With respect to some exceptions like the books by Jou, Tsung-Hwa.)  Any other comments/ideas? I look forward to seeing them. On balance, I say let misc.taoism rip and let the chips fall where they may. If it just gets filled up with college freshmen asking about the Tao of Sex then it will have been a failure and people will post to these groups just as they do now.  --
In article <7912@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes: >[Many good points deleted. Anyone who missed it should see the original.] >Lists like this that just toss a bunch of quotes together to >make a bible verse salad just don't cut it.  Those of us who >want to argue against inerrancy should find this sort of thing >as embarassing as the fundies should find Josh McDowell.  True, except that I've known few fundies who had enough sense to be embarrassed by Josh McDowell.  (Okay, maybe a cheap shot. But I'm in that kind of mood.)
In article <1r7houINNop9@titan.ucs.umass.edu>, cma@titan.ucs.umass.edu (COLIN MA) writes: >I just started reading this newsgroup and haven't been following the >thread. I'm just curious:  How did this thread get started with >"Albert Sabin" and changed into something else?  What was it about >Sabin that initiated a religious discussion? > >Colin  Its just variation within a thread.  The variation at times has been so great that speciation has occurred.  So Albert Sabin is the common ancestor of several threads, some of which have themselves speciated.  On a separate topic, I subscribed to t.o. just recently.  Albert Sabin existed at that time, so I have no clue as to its origins.  Maybe the abiogenesists have an answer.  I might also point out that evolution is aimless.  Thus why Albert  Sabin evolved into a religious discussion is probably unexplainable.
In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: >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. >-- 	Nor, to point out the obvious, are the deluded, siege-mentality followers of a religious nut-case who thought he was Jesus Christ or possibly The Big Guy. 	Personally, much as I regard the BATF and FBI as ConDupes, I'll take their word over a bunch of silly pinks who were stoopid enough to lock themselves up with a goofball like "David Koresh" in a makeshift arsenal. 	************************************************************ 	*  	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"		   * 	************************************************************
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 04:21:09 GMT, dmcgee@uluhe.soest.hawaii.edu (Don McGee) said: DM> Fact or rumor....?  Madalyn Murray O'Hare an atheist who eliminated the DM> use of the bible reading and prayer in public schools 15 years ago is now DM> going to appear before the FCC with a petition to stop the reading of the DM> Gospel on the airways of America.  And she is also campaigning to remove DM> Christmas programs, songs, etc from the public schools.  If it is true DM> then mail to Federal Communications Commission 1919 H Street Washington DC DM> 20054 expressing your opposition to her request.  Reference Petition number  DM> 2493.  False.  This story has been going around for years.  There's not a drop of truth.  Note that I don't care for O'Hare (O'Hair?) myself, but this is one thing she's not guilty of.
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:  [...]  >Ahha...Now with the Branch Athiests zealots we have the following:  I think you are mistaken in thinking Tom Scharle to be a atheist. You will find both atheists and Christians among your opponents on t.o. Calling your opponents them "Branch Athiests zealots" does nothing for your credibility.  >Let me try again.  Oh yes, do.  >"The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude >of evolutionary biology has inflamed passions.  There is lack of agreement >even within warring camps.  Sometimes it seems as if there are as many  >variations on each evolutionary theme as there are individual biologists."  >Niles Eldridge (yes he's a paleontologist); Natural History; "Evolutionary >Housecleaning"; Feb 1982; pg. 78.  Dear me. This is taken _so_ out of context that it's hard to know where to start... The quote starts with material from p 78, and ends with material from page 81!  On page 78, there's the bit that says (the parts left out in John King's "quote" are marked by <>): "<...> the doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology<'s last twenty years> has inflamed passions <and provoked some very interesting thought and research>."  Eldridge goes on immediately following the butchered quote: "In short, evolutionary biology has entered a phase of creativity that is the hallmark of good, active science."  The material that is on page 81 that is "quoted" by John King has been butchered even more severely:  "<I mention this only to illustrate the> **There is**[these words not in the original text-prl] lack of agreement even within warring camps <: things are really in uproar these days, and each of the "basic" ways of looking at evolutionary biology has its minor variants.> Sometimes it seems as if there are as many variations on each evolutionary theme as there are individual biologists."  Eldridge goes on: "But that's the way it should be; this is how science is supposed to operate."  >Jack  And just a few sentences down:  "When they [creationists] misrepresent the exuberant, creative doubt and controversy permeating evolutionary biology these days, they are actively promoting scientific illiteracy."  And that, John E. King, is precisely what you have done with Eldridge's article. Are you personally responsible for the butchery of the text or have you pulled it out of some creationist propaganda? You owe the people reading t.o an apology for posting such misrepresentation.
In article <C5v6rB.37F@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >I've seen referrences to "Creation vs Evolution" several times in a.a >and I have question. Is either point of view derived from direct >observation; can either be scientific? I wonder if the whole >controversy is more concerned with the consequences of the "Truth" >rather than the truth itself.  >Both sides seem to hold to a philosophical outcome, and I can't help >wondering which came first. As I've pointed out elsewhere, my view of >human nature makes me believe that there is no way of knowing >anyhthing objectively - all knowledge is inherently subjective. So, in >the context of a.a, would you take a stand based on what you actually >know to be true or on what you want to be true and how can you tell >the difference?  Translation of the above paragraph: "I am uninformed about the evidence for evolution.  Please send me the talk.origins FAQs on the subject."
In article <bskendigC5I9yH.ICp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:  >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.  Be warned, it is not my job to convert you.  That is the job of the Holy Spirit.  And I, frankly, make a lousy one.  I am only here to testify.  Your conversion is between you and God.  I am "out of the loop".  If you decide to follow Jesus, of which I indeed would be estatic, then all the glory be to God.
On 15 Apr 1993 22:34:40 GMT, Eric Sieferman observed:  : Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb. : Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.  : 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"?  :)
In article <C5n2xM.vsD@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis,  margoli@watson.ibm.com writes: >In <17858.459.uupcb@ozonehole.com> anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com  (Anthony  >Landreneau)  writes: >> >>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away. > >True.  But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of >her body for another 9 months.  I see this as being unbelievably cruel.  If she doesn't welcome the excruciating pain of labor, the selfish bitch deserves to die in childbirth.  She was probably lying about the rape anyway.
In article <sandvik-210493230542@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: |> In article <1993Apr21.145336.5912@ra.royalroads.ca>, |> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: |> > And does it not say in scripture that no man knows the hour of His coming, not |> > even the angels in Heaven but only the Father Himself?  DK was trying to play |> > God by breaking the seals himself.  DK killed himself and as many of his |> > followers as he could.  BTW, God did save the children.  They are in Heaven, |> > a far better place.  How do I know?  By faith. |>  |> It seems faith is the only tool available for emotional purposes |> due to the tragedy. As such it maybe fills a need, however I'm |> getting tired to see children dying in pain in Sudan due to lack |> of food, and assuming that God takes these sufferers to heaven |> after a painful death. |>   If the children are not being fed, whose fault is that?  You and I have plenty of food on our tables while others starve.  Why is that? God gave us this earth to manage.  I don't think we're doing a very good job of it.  The only consolation I have for those suffering children is that they will be received into the kingdom of Heaven where they will never thirst and never hunger again.  Peace be with you,  Malcolm Lee  :)
I'm greatly in need of Jurgen Moltmann's book God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation.  If you have a copy you're willing to part with, I'd love to hear from you soon.  You may call me at 312-702- 8367 or e-mail me.  Thanks.