waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Jenny Anderson (jennya@well.sf.ca.us) wrote:   : medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba) entirely missed my point in my previous : posting, in which I wrote:  : COMMENT:  : Shortly after that post, I realized two things:  I was running a fever of : over 102, and that I probably should not have gone directly from reading : alt.slack to posting on this august newsgroup.  : >: >it is not ad hominen to point out that Mr Archer willingly prints blatant : >: lies : >: >in defense of Bible inerrancy, and thus is worthless as an expert witness.  : >: Okay, Im game, give us a listing of blatant lies from _Encyclopedia of : >: Biblical Difficulties_ or other Archer writings.  : >That would be interesting.  If only a very short list can be generated, : >I think it is more likely that Mr. Archer, with his inerancy mindset is : >not always impartial and made a doozy of a mistake.  (IMHO I also think : >that this mindset tends to generate these sorts of mistakes...)  : >On the other hand, if a long list can be generated, it is more likely : >that Mr. Archer intentionally uses deception in hs books. (Why should : >he be deceptive just with Tyre?)  : So, Archer is just sitting around, rubbing his hands and plotting how next : to deceive?  OK, lets _see_ the list...  This was an open question.  I assumed that if Mr. Archer is a chronic liar, someone whould have documented it.   This assumption is based on how talk.origins regulars have documented numerous cases of Creationist deceptions (such as Duane Guish and his friends).  No long list of Archer mistakes has yet been given, so this may be just an isolated incident...
In article <24APR199300033703@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes: >In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes... >                                                           ^^-- name? >>(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.   > >Other than it tells quite a lot about the Man himself.                                                I'm curious.  Are you referring to Koresh as "the Man"?  Why the  upper case M?                                                                                      > >>It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people. > >Are you the spokesman for "most people?"                                                            I never claimed to be a spokesman for "most people".  It is an assumption on my part that people with normal values and morality would be more  concerned with human life than sermon structure.                                          > >You missed the point -- which is that the Prophets, the Psalms, and  >Revelation, all together, provide a very rich view of a very special >event -- a wedding.                         >                                               Are burning children part of this very special event?                                                   >	                         >My comment stems from the realization that we who love the Lord, are >human and imperfect. Whatever we "preach," no matter how eloquent, or >how corrupted -- is of little difference. Those who know the Master's >voice will recognize Him -- a gem-stone amidst rock. Such is also the  >lesson of the "stumblingblock." For those who have an ear to hear. 	                                                  What about those who do not know the Master's voice?  Does the Master not care about them?  Eloquent, but corrupt, preaching may be of little difference to you.  But I suspect it made a big difference to all of those who died in the compound.
Jim Burhill writes:  >Would you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the >events surrounding Jesus' life?  >No.  There are two problems here:  Brian Kendig writes:  >(1) Peter died two millenia ago.  The original letters he wrote have >long since decayed into dust.  If he were alive today and I could  Do you question the existence of Alexander the Great, Tilgrath Pilisar III, Nero, Caligula, Josephus, Cyrus the Great, Artexerxes?   Their documents have decayed to dust too.  Brian, why another excuse?   >(2) Even if Peter did witness the miracles of Jesus two millenia ago, >that doesn't mean that your deity is what the Bible says it is (God >might just be Satan, trying to convince everyone that he's a nice >guy), or even that your deity is still alive and active in the world >today.  Peter wrote a bit of the Bible.  What Peter says about God is what the Bible says.      Consider the Bible a court recording.  Over the period of thousands of years, various people come up and testify of their experience with the living God.  Up comes Abraham the wealthy rancher.  Up comes Moses, once the high official of Egypt.  Up comes Elijah, a priest.  Up comes David, a mere shepherd who became King.  Up comes the pagan King  Nebuchanezzar.  Up comes the pagan King of Persia, Cyrus.  Up comes Nehemiah, cupbearer to the King of Persia.  Then Matthew, an IRS agent takes the stand.  Up comes Luke, an M.D.  Then Paul a Jew who use to kill Christians for fun.  Up comes John, a 17 year old boy.  Up comes Peter, a fishermen.  Up comes James, the brother of Jesus himself. Up comes hundreds of others.  You hear testimony from fishermen, IRS agents, priests, Kings.  The court hearing lasts thousands of years with people coming up and testifying about the God who calls himself "I am."   While you are listening to all this stuff, you realize that King David could have never known John, Solomon could have never known Matthew, Nehemiah could have never known Peter.  You realize that all these people are independent witnesses, and so, you rule out collaboration.  Yet all of the witnesses tell of the same God.   Each testifier tells of his own experiences with the living God.  Each experience is different, but each experience has enough cross-over to unmistakenly reveal that each one of these people is talking about the very same God. What Daniel did not know about God, the 3rd Highest Official of Babylon, God revealed to John 600 years later--but with a different perspective.  No two testimonies are identical.  Each testimony dares to venture off what is already known.  Yet each witness's testimony, even though different from those prior, consistently describes harmoniously fitting facets of the character of the same God.    Now.  As we stare gazing at the computer, you got this seeming fanatic on the other end of the net, saying, I know this God  "I am".  He has revealed himself to me too.  He also calls himself Jesus (John 8:58). Please believe me.  I am telling the truth.  It is wonderful to know him.
In article <1993Apr19.165717.25790@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: >  > It is true what you stated above:  Jesus' saving grace is available to > everyone, not just Jews.  In other words, everyone can have salvation but > not everyone will.  This option is now open to people other than just > Jews.  Of course, if the Jews don't accept the deity of Christ, I would > hardly expect them to accept anything that Christ said.  But I don't feel > any animosity towards them.  Even though they persecuted Jesus and his > disciples and eventually crucified Him, I bear them no ill will.  If anything, > I feel pity for them.  Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins and > so the Jews were merely fulfilling prophesy.  Jesus knew He had to die even > before He began His ministry.  That demonstrates the great depth of His love > for us.  Jesus certainly demonstrated the great depth of his love for the children who died today at the Davidian complex.  Sorry, but the events today made me even more negative concering organized religion.  Cheers, Kent
In article <?a$@byu.edu> $stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann) writes: >In article <1993Apr13.025426.22532@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: > >>In article <47749@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> shopper@ucsd.edu writes: >>> >>>Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of christian-owned >>>corporations and companies?  One that I know of is WordPerfect. >> >>I believe that WordPerfect is actually owned by the Mormons. > >Sorry, WordPerfect is own by A mormon not the LDS Church.  Slight semantical difference.  The LDS Church does own a heck of a lot however.  They are the largest land holder in MIssouri (where they think Christ will appear at the second coming).
In article <C61Kow.E4z@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes: >>Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.  If a Christian means someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus, it is safe to say that Jesus was a Christian. -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole     that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...    -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
I had said:  > Merlyn, you missed the point too.  Christianity is a relationship.  I have > a relationship with my God.  I <<know>> Him.   > > Consider your mother Merlyn.  You know your mother.  What would you think > of me if I asserted that your mother is 9 feet tall, murdered your father, > and sexually abused you when you were a kid?   Would you, who knows your > mother well, think was a blind arrogant idiot to proclaim such things?  Merlyn LeRoy says:   >This analogy is not good; for example, there are plenty of people who >"know" god as well as you do, but don't agree on things like: > >1) how many children he/she has >2) whether he/she approves of polygamy >3) whether Mohammed was one of his/her prophets > >Now, if you AND all these other people who ABSOLUTELY KNOW what god is >like can't agree on basic attributes like these, at least one of you >who "knows" what this god-thing is like must be wrong; therefore, >subjective certainty is worthless regarding knowledge of this god. > >On the other hand, I don't know any large groups of people who claim >absolute knowledge of my mother and who disagree about her basic >attributes.  This is the difference between real people and imaginary friends.
>In article <C5w7CA.M3s@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes: >>If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art >>automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal." >>[Carl Stern, Justice Department]  In article <1r7hmlINNc6@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >Yeah.  In a fire that reportedly burned hotter than 1000 degrees-- hot >enough to make the bodies still unidentifiable-- the authorities found >a gun that was recognizably fully-automatic and state of the art. >Isn't that CONVEEEENIENT?  Convenient?  It seems very appropriate that this is cross-posted to alt.conspiracy.  Assuming the most favorable interpretation of your '1000 degree' measurement (that the temperature is in Centigrade, rather than the more common -in the US- Fahrenheit), you are still laboring under at least 2 misconceptions:  1.  You seem to believe that steel melts somewhere around 1000 C.     Actually, the melting point of most iron alloys (and steels are     iron alloys) is in the neighborhood of 1400 C.  Even if the gun     were found in area which achieved the 1000 C temperature, the steel     parts of the gun would not be deformed, and it would still be     trivial to identify the nature of the weapon.  2.  A fire is not an isothermal process.  There are 'hot' spots and     'cold' spots, though 'cold' is purely a relative term.   So the     weapon was not necessarily situated in a hot spot, as you seem to     imply.  And, even if it was, so what?  It would not have melted     anyway.
In article <79615@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:  >"To all whom it may concern - > >"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 >which shows the seeker after truth a Royal Road to discover >The Lost Mysteries of Antiquity, and to the Unveiling of the >One Hermetic Truth. > >"This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient >Order of Oriental Templars.  Ordo Templi Orientis.  Otherwise: >The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.    Up to this point, I was kinda hoping that this was a joke. Still, it would make a great premise for a bad syndicated TV show- "These are the adventures of the Oriental Templars... dedicated to truth, justice, and good karma! (Dramatic music in the background.)"   No doubt I've just horribly offended someone.
In article <2855@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) wrote: > In article <1993Apr20.220340.2585@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: > >armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons > >to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.   > Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at > night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably > more persuasive than having devotions with him.  ...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
In article <1r1et6INNh8p@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes: : : pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes: : :::Didn't Christ tell his disciples to arm them selves, shortly  :::before his crusifiction? (I believe the exact quote was along the :::lines of, "If you have [something] sell it and buy a sword.") : ::This from a guy who preached love, deference of power to God and ::renunciation of worldly life in exchange for a life of the spirit? If ::Jesus did in fact command his disciples to arm themselves, I would ::take that as yet another reason to reject Christian doctrine, for ::whatever it's worth.  Like most religions, the doctrine has good and bad in it.  I would  certainly reject the current implementations of the doctrine. : :No.  The above is a classic example of taking a scripture out of context. :It's taken from Luke 22:36.  But note vs 37; "For I tell you that this :which is written must be accomplished in me, namely, 'and he will be reckoned :with lawless ones'...".  He then stated that two swords were enough :for the group to carry to be counted as lawless.    So having more than the politically correct number of weapons was cause to be arresed and killed even then, huh?  :Jesus' overiding message was one of peace (turn other cheek; live by  :sword die by sword; etc).  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..." : RJL
In article <1993Apr24.165727.8899@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: > In article <sandvik-210493230542@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: > |> 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.  I agree with your points, and I'm glad to hear that you subscribe to the notion of secular humanism, humans helping humans instead of hoping for a possible deux ex machina solution!  As for faith, you could always use such constructs to dampen your anger or sorrow.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1pr3d3$doh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> ST002649@brownvm.brown.edu (Alex Gottschalk) writes: >>>Well, I *WILL* do the math, and I get:  (6^6)^6=2,189,739,336 >>>This mean anything to anyone?  :^) >5*1=5 thus fitting in neatly with something else.
In article <Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu>  Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (LaurieEWBrandt) writes:  >    Lets add to those percentages 13-15% for the Orphaic docterians brought to >   the group by Paul/Saul who was a high ranking initiate. On the development >   of Orphaic Mysteries, see Jane Harrisons .Prolegomena to the study of Greek >   religion. Cambridge U Press 1922. and you can easly draw your own >   conclusions.  perhaps you can quote just a bit of her argument?
In article <1993Apr21.154750.24341@maths.tcd.ie>,  pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes...  >cotera@woods.ulowell.edu (Ray Cote) writes: >> 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.  Never lived out in the country I see. 4 years ago I had a place where I had to carry in propane every month, hook the bottle up  to copper line, to supply both the stove, and a type of water- heater called a flash-heater. A flash heater has a pilot lamp.  Here's the point. If the Davidians had their propane tanks hooked  up to copper (or some such) lines, run through the ceiling spaces -- when the FBI started wrecking the place, they could easily have ruptured the lines. Which then would start spreading out through the overhead. And since it was a country home, it wasn't necessarily built with non-flamable insulation.   It's probably more plausible than anything else, that the fire started mainly as a result of accident -- or willful negligence on the part of the FBI, which should have known better (ie. manslaughter).  It's certain that if the tanks hadn't been used that day -- the fire wouldn't have started.  >Whatever the faults the FBI had, the fact is that responsibility >for those deaths lies with Koresh.
In article <visser.735260518@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes: > In <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? >  > 	They cut off the water, there were no fire trucks present and > the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions. > 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. >  > 	Four ATF agents and 90 branch Davidians are now dead because of > crazy tactics on the part of the ATF and FBI. >  > 	Attorney General Vampira tells us that todays events were suppose > to "save" those in the compound.  Blowing holes in a building and > gassing those inside was supposed to "save" them? >  >  >  	Personally, I think it was Mrs. O'Leary's cow that knocked over that lantern...  :*)
>>>667 >>>the neighbor of the beast >> >>No, 667 is across the street from the beast.  664 and 668 are the >>neighbors of the beast. > >I think some people are still not clear on this: >667 is *not* the neighbor of the beast, but, rather, across the >street. It is, in fact, 668 which is the neighbor of the beast.  no, sheesh, didn't you know 666 is the beast's apartment?  667 is across the hall from the beast, and is his neighbor along with the rest of the 6th floor.  >Justin (still trying to figure out what this has to do with alt.discordia)  This doesn't seem discordant to you?
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?  	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.,  	Any takers? :-)  Fraternally,
In a previous article, jluther@cs.umr.edu (John W. Luther) says:  John:  	It not "good netiquette" to quote a complete article :-) NOTHING PERSONAL, Please! :-)  >I also appreciate your being amused >by such determined ignorance.  Without taking anything away >from your mirth, I want to say that these views sadden me. > 	This views sadden me too! Don't think that I don't care! Sorry if it seemed different. It IS serious stuff; but I have a 'sick' sense of humor though (some say... :-)  Tolerance!
In article <1993Apr24.171130.8975@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:  >In article <1993Apr22.133142.23772@ifi.uio.no>, joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:  >|> Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does >|> god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??   >He is God.  In other words, the right of might.  >|> In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live >|> according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god >|> make that desicion?   >He is God.  In other words, the right of might.  >|> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every >|> one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is >|> that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be >|> created.    >God granted you the gift of life whether you were sinner or saint.  In other words, he can do it, he did it, and your in no position to argue about it.   >|> Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which >|> has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to >|> expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?   >The scientist creates the living creature to examine it, poke and prod it and >learn about its behaviour.  He will kill it if it becomes a threat.  For >example, let's say the scientist creates a Tyrannosaurus Rex and it breaks >free of its confines and starts devouring the population.  The scientist >would not hesitate in killing it.  >God creates us to be His loving companions.  He knows whether we are true in  >our love for Him or not.  And He lets us know the consequences of rejecting Him. >God cannot abide by sin.  By rejecting God, a person becomes an enemy of God, >one that must be killed by Him.  Note:  I say that God and God alone is >worthy to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.  We are not called to carry out >such duties because we are not worthy.   In other words, you better do what this God wants you to do, or else!  >|> Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so >|> righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep, >|> unable to do otherwise that follow the rest?    >God is God.  Who are we to question the Creator?  If you doubt God's doing >in certain situations, do you claim to know a better solution?  Would you >be playing the role of God?