waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ... >Plus questions for you:  why do subjectivists/relativists/nihilists get so  >het up about the idea that relativism is *better* than objectivism?   To the degree that relativism is a more accurate decription of the truth than is objectivism, it provides more power and ability to control events.  Assuming, for the moment, that morals _are_ relative, then two relativists can recognize that neither has a lock on the absolute truth and they can proceed to negotiate a workable compromise that produces the desired results.  Assuming that there is an absolute morality, two disagreeing  objectivists can either be both wrong or just one of them right; there is no room for compromise.  Once you beleive in absolute morals, you must accept that you are amoral or that everyone who disagrees with you is amoral.  Given a choice between a peaceful compromise or endless contention, I'd say that compromise seems to be "better".
cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:  >Once again, where's your proof? Suicide is considered a sin by Branch >Davidians.  Also, Koresh said over and over again that he was not going to >commit suicide.  Furthermore, all the cult experts said that he was not >suicidal.  David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire >was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities >knocked over a lantern.  In two places at once? Bit of a coincidence, that.  Whatever the faults the FBI had, the fact is that responsibility for those deaths lies with Koresh.  P.
Walter-  I tried several times in the past to communicate with you and Susan, but you ignored me, and I don't honestly believe my letters were mean.  Rather I thought they were thoughtful and compassionate, but I see now what I should have seen then.  Call me naive.  I give up on this group.  As my Lord advised, that if you are unwelcome in a city then brush the dust of your feet and go on.  If anyone cares about the topic they write to me direct, if not, well, may God bless you as well.
In <1rbh3n$hav@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:  >At my high school for instance, our dear >principal ended the moment of silence with "Amen."  An extremely good example of "circumstantial evidence!" Every time these right-wing control-freaks start spouting about prayer in schools, I get this nagging commentary from the Sermon on the Mount [Matt: 6:5-6] "And when you pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street corners for people to see them.  I tell you solemnly, they have had their reward.  But when you pray, go to your private room and, when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in that secret place."  But no. THEY want PUBLIC prayers, the better to manipulate children.  "Amen" indeed.  >When the pro-school-prayer types stop trying to sneak religion >in, I'll stop opposing everything that even looks remotely >like religion, thank you.  I hope you don't mind if I say "amen" to this? :-)
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes: 	>dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes: >>Exactly.  Sunday worship is in honor or the *SUN*, not the *SON* of God. > >Same thing, isn't it? It's pronounced the same? What other heavenly >beings are resurrected? The moon? That would by lunacy, at least to a >sunday worshiper.  I have heard that the sabbath was originally determined by the phases of the moon, and had elements of moon worship.  Early stuff, Egyptian in nature.
The Nicene Creed  WE BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.  He suffered and was buried, and the third day rose again according to the Scriptur      es, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.  And he shall come again with glory to judge  both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
In article <1993Apr16.232149.22105@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu wrote: > Sorry, but Mormons aren't generally considered to be Christians. > >-- > >=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC= > >=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???= > >="Do you have some pumps and a purse in this shade?  A perfume that whispers, = > >='please come back to me'?  I'm looking for something in Green."-Laurie Morgan=  Sorry, but it doesn't matter what _you_ think, I am a Christian, who happens to belong to the LDS Church.  [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints].  I don't usually read t.r.m.  It is truly informative to stop by, and see that there are still people in the world like those that forced my ancestors into the deserts of Utah, and then out of the country entirely.  (My grandmother was born in Mexico, where her family had moved to escape religious persecution in the US).  I'm willing to admit that members of other churches are Christians, if they believe in Christ and (try to) follow his teachings, even though they have different interpretations of  the bible.  And yet these other churches often go out of their way to define whether or not I am considered to be Christian.  Could someone mail me a set of rules/beliefs that must be followed to be a Christian?  Does this set of rules exclude other large bodies of believers?    I know, this is a waste of everyone's time, this has probably been discussed N times, etc.  I guess I'm more sensitive to this 'demonization' after what went on in Texas.
In article <1993Apr17.162105.3303@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) writes:  >Ifone simply says "God did it", then that is not falsifiable.  	Unless God admits that he didn't do it....  	=)   ---      " I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
In article <1993Apr21.164554.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>, parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes: > I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.  The FBI and > the BATF could not let a man like that live.  He was a testimonial to their > stupidity and lies.     >  	[...deleted...]  Unfortunately, I think you've got it figured pretty well.  I also ask myself the question "Why did they plan for so many months.  Why was this so important to them?  What was the government really up to? Why did they seal the warrant?  Were they after Koresh or were they after       the first and second amendments, among others?  >  > We waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran.  We gave these > people 51 days.   >
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:  >Someone in the government actually believed Koresh knew the "seven >seals of the apocalypse", and ordered the invasion so that they'd all >be dead and unable to talk about them in public.  Everything we need to know about the seven seals is already in the bible.  There is no "knowledge" of the seals that Koresh could have.  Unless the FBI were to kill all publishers of the bible, it would seem the story of the seven seals would be bound to leak out.
>...in other words faith in a .357 is far stronger than faith in a  >God providing a miracle for his followers. Interesting. Now, if  >David Korresh was God, why couldn't he use lightning instead of  >semi-automatic rifles? It seems even he didn't trust in himself. > >Cheers, >Kent >--- >sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.  In the hands of a defender, a .357 _is_ a miracle from God.  He helps those  who help themselves.  Or haven't you ever heard that one before?
In article <yag12B3w165w@anarky.tch.org> melchar@anarky.tch.org (Melchar) writes:   > >> [I've read many things like this in the past, yet not quite so >> blatant a comparison of Christian and Pagan, Roman myth/practice. >> Is it all historical?  How often has Merlin/Myrddin been associated >> with Roman gods?  How often has he been associated with Mithras? >> Does anyone know where Mithras originated?  In Asia?  What part?] >> >> Thyagi@HouseofKAos.Abyss.com > >      Mithraic worship predates Xianity but in many ways is similar.  It >was a mystery cult, (worship in which not all the information was >available to all members:  tests had to be passed & at each stage, new >info was offered to the worshipper [similar to the Masons......in more >than one way]) -- of Mithras, a sun deity.  He was cyclic (went down to >darkness, was reborn), inspired hope; fought against the darkness; was >popular and charismatic....... >      The worship originated in Persia & was linked to the Ahura-Mazda   Wow, this is news to me---it started in Tarsus--you know, where Paul of NT fame was from.  Not to be nasty, but get a clue, read _The Orgins of the Mithraic Mysteries_ by DUlansey!   Hey hasn't anyone read Manly P Hall's works?  Perhaps it might be worth a try....
In <18275.459.uupcb@ozonehole.com> anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau)  writes: >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>> >LM>>LM>True.  But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of >LM>>LM>her body for another 9 months.  I see this as being unbelievably cruel. >LM>> >LM>>Life is not a "violation". > >LM>But forcing someone to harbor that life in their body *is* a violation. > >Letting a mother force a child from her body, in order to end that >childs life is the ultimate violation.  I happen to take the violation of a person much more seriously than the "violation" of a mindless clump of cells smaller than my thumb.  Your mileage may vary.
beb@pt.com (Bruce Buck) writes: : In article <1993Apr13.011033.23123@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal) writes: : >: >> Gilligan = Sloth : >: >> Skipper = Anger : >: >> Thurston Howell III = Greed : >: >> Lovey Howell = Gluttony : >: >> Ginger = Lust : >: >> Professor = Pride : >: >> Mary Ann = Envy : > : >Assorted Monkeys= Secular Humanism :  : Assorted Headhunters - Godless, Heathen Savagery : Russian Agent who looks like Gilligan - Godless Communism : Japanese Sailor - Godless Barbarism : Walter Pigeon - Godless Bird Turd : The Mosquitos (Bingo, Bango, Bongo, Irving) - Godless Rock'n'Roll : Harold Heckuba (Phil Silvers) - Hollywood Hedonism : John McGiver - Butterfly flicking : Tonga, the Fake Apeman - Deceit, Lust : Eva Grubb - Deceit, lust
>In <1qid8s$ik0@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:    >I recently have become aware that my health insurance includes   >coverage for abortion.  I strongly oppose abortion for reasons of   >conscience.  It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums may   >be being used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is   >murder.  I would like to request that I be exempted from abortion   >coverage with my health premiums reduced accordingly.  I share Dennis's outrage over a similar manner.  I have recently become aware that my health insurance includes coverage for illness and injuries suffered by Christians.  It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums may be used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is divine punishment for their sinful conduct.  In addition these folks are able to avail themselves of such alternative therapies as Lourdes, Fatima, Morris Cerullo, Benny Hinn, etc.  In any case as "Jesus Saves' I feel that there is no reason for them to be covering their bets at my expense.  I would like to request that I be exempted from Christian coverage with my health premiums reduced accordingly.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: On-line copy of Book of Mormon Summary:  Distribution: usa Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mtn. View, CA (415) 960-7300 Keywords: BOM, Book of Mormon, Mormon  Can anyone provide me a ftp site where I can obtain a online version of the Book of Mormon. Please email the internet address if possible.
In article <1993Apr21.180216.7431@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) wrote: >    Either way, I have evidence to support the theory that the BD's burned > themselves.  You made a serious implication that the FBI was responsible > for the fire and the "destruction of the people".  All you have done is > put doubt on who started the fire without providing any evidence to back > up your claim that the FBI was responsible.  Last night CNN reported that FBI has infrared pictures showing that the fires started in three places at the same time. That  would indicate something not resembling an accident.  Cheers, Kent
In article <30185@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes: [ deleted ] >Take light as another example.  There are two theories: particle and >wave.  Each one fails to predict the behavior of light as some point. >So which is it: particle or wave? [ deleted ]    Your information on this topic is very much out of date.  Quantum Electro- dynamics (QED - which considers light to be particles) has been experimentally verified to about 14 decimal digits of precision under ALL tested conditions. I'm afraid that this case, at least in the physics community, has been decided. Laymen should consult "QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard P. Feynman and for the more technically minded there's "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" by Feynman, Leighton and Sands (an excellent 3 volumes).  Case closed.
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > In article <1qg8bu$kl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon > Livesey) writes: > #And this "objective morality" is........? >  > And here, children, we have a person playing the "objective morality doesn't  > exist, show me one" game.  You can play this with just about anything: >  > And this "objective medicine" is.....? > And this "objective physics" is.....? > And this "objective reality" is.....?  Precisely.  There's no objective medicine; some people get marvellous results from alternative therapy, others only respond to traditional medicine.  There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.  There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.  > One wonders just what people who ask such questions understand by the term  > "objective", if anything.  I consider it to be a useful fiction; an abstract ideal we can strive towards.  Like an ideal gas or a light inextensible string, it doesn't actually exist; but we can talk about things as if they were like it, and not be too far wrong.
In article <1993Apr21.182606.6798@ra.royalroads.ca>  mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: >The only point I'm trying to make is that those who call themselves Christian >may not be Christian.  WOW! Are you serious! So not everyone who calls themself a Christian is a Christian? WOW! That does make things a bit more complicated doesn't it?  >I ask that you draw your own conclusions by what they do and what they say.  That seems like very good advice, given the above revelation.  >If they are not modelled after the example of Jesus >Christ then they are NOT Christian.  Like for example Matthew 5:14-19 right?  >If they have not repented of their sins >and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour then they are  >NOT Christian.  Um, where did Jesus say that he wanted people to worship him?  >These are the only criteria to being a Christian.
In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:  >There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.  Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:  Bullshit.  >There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.  Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say:  Bullshit.  >> One wonders just what people who ask such questions understand by the term  >> "objective", if anything.  >I consider it to be a useful fiction; an abstract ideal we can strive >towards.  Like an ideal gas or a light inextensible string, it doesn't >actually exist; but we can talk about things as if they were like it, and not >be too far wrong.  How could striving toward an ideal be in any way useful, if the ideal  had no objective existence? -- Mark Pundurs
In article <1f2P02UA40zB01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes: >Capser, before you deceive everone into thinking that the latter-day >saints have undergone undue persecution through the years for just >believing in their religion, perhaps you would like to tell us all what >happened in the Mountain Meadow Massacres and all the killings that were >done under the Blood Atonement Doctrine, at the command of Brigham Young?  I recently watched a an episode of "The Old West" a TV show on the  Discovery Channel (or perhaps the A&E Network), the one hosted by Kenny Rogers.  This episode was all about the Mormons and how they settled Utah, etc.  A large portion of the broadcast was about the "Mountain Meadows Massacre". The program very specifically pointed out that Brigham Young knew nothing about the incident until long after it had happened (before telegraph), and it occured as a result of several men inciting a bunch of paronoid Moromn settlers into what amounted to a mob.  All participants in the incident were prosecuted and eccomunicated from the LDS Church.  I suggest you watch a rerun of that episode (they play them over and over)  and see what they (non-Mormons) have to say about it.   Lance
In article <bskendigC5qyJ2.GEw@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes: >b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:  >>One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just >>wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?  >So you believe that David Koresh really is Jesus Christ?  Well lets see - a long haired nut case with sexual hangups surrounded by a lot of gulible losers without a brain between them with a miserable and meaningless death to boot  Sounds like he fits the bill to me!  Joseph 'Remember David Koresh fried for you' Askew
A poster writes:  > In the Kingdom of God (Vaikuntha) the tigers do not eat other living > beings. In the material world, everyone is trying to consume everyone > else. Therefore we all (even tigers, who are by no means invincible) > should try to get out of the miserable material situation and return to > the Kingdom of God.  	Is the so-called material world "outside" the Kingdom of God? 	 > Right. But, unfortunately, acting like animals is the number one pastime > of modern human beings.  	Aha, animals are inferior, and humans are superior. 	Huh?  	[Isn't the desire to be superior so "overwhelming?"] 	[that humans constantly "put down" even innocent animals.] 	  ---raj
caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell) writes:  > 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.   >  > --  > -- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273 > Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232   Yes.  I cannot remeber which works I read about this in, as it was many  years ago.  This ritual was called The Tarobaullum I believe, (The  spelling may be off).  Pope Charles
In article <1993Apr15.071814.27960@wam.umd.edu>, judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- objectively subjective) writes: >> = <1qhn7m$a95@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >[culled from a discussion on Christianity and objective morals] > >Question:  Is there any effective difference between: > >"Objective values exist, and there is disagreement over what they are" > >and > >"Values are subjective?" > >I don't see any. >    Is there any difference in saying   "Absolute Truth exists, but some people think its a lie"  and  "Truth is relative" ?  I think there is:  in both examples, the first statement is a fundamental disagreement between at least two people; the  second statement is agreed upon by all.  To put it another way, someone who says objective values exist does not agree that values are subjective.
In article <1993Apr21.141714.5576@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:  [Jesus' comments about how Christians have to follow the OT deleted...]  >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.  Exodus 31:12-17.  How many people have you put to death for working on the Sabbath?  >If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made.  In the >following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon >the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended.  If you'll notice, He >also reams into the Pharisees for mucking up the Law with their own contrived >interpretations.  They knew every letter of the Law and followed it with their >heads but not their hearts.  That is why He points out that our righteousness >must surpass that of the Pharisees in order to be accepted into the kingdom >of Heaven.  People such as the Pharisees are those who really go out of their >way to debate about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. >They had become legalistic, rule-makers - religious lawyers who practiced the >letter of the Law but never really believed in it.    Leviticus 17:10.  How as that medium-rare steak last night?  >I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of >modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe >in it.  What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?  Leviticus 19:19.  What did you wear to work friday?  >Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's >perspectives and personal conduct.  And it demands obedience to God's will.  Deutromony 18:1.  I can you can now justify discrimination.  >Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not.  That is their >choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.  Right.  >God be with you,  She is.
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?  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