waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor) writes: : : Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed : : for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the  : : character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out : : the rest the hard way. : :  :  : Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.
In article <1r67ruINNmle@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes... >  >rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes: >  >[Discussion on Josephus inserts] >  >Thanks.  Am I correct, then, in assuming that that Josephus >did in fact write about Jesus, but Christian copists embellished it? >  >Jack  That is indeed the present consensus.  Contrary to what Dr. Fox has been saying, however, present consensus is *not* that the longer passage in Josephus about Jesus was inserted, but only that it was modified.    There is no question that it was *at least* modified (based on what Origen says--that Josephus did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah), but I don't think the argument that it appears "out of context" is a very good one.  (I haven't looked at the context for a while; perhaps somebody could give some of the sentences which precede and follow the Jesus passage.)
In article <sandvik-210493225220@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: = In article <1993Apr21.231552.24869@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, = brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote: =  = Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you  = have to feel guilty, and then there's this single personality = that will save you from this universal guilt feeling. =  = Brian, I will tell you a secret, I don't feel guilty at all, = I do mistakes, and I regret them, however I've never had this = huge guilt feeling hanging over my shoulder.  I will tell you another secret.  I get this burning sensation in my hand every time I hold it over a candle.  The pain does not fill my entire body, and I'm told the longer I hold it here, the less it'll hurt (it'll eventually burn up the nerves, or so I'm told).  So I suppose I should just ignore the pain, because holding my hand over the candle is something I just want to do. I've got the right, don't I?  Your body feels pain to let you know something is wrong.  It's your body's alarm system informing you that something needs your attention.  A fever tells you that you are sick, and need some sort of care.  Guilt can be seen as that "emotional or spiritual" alarm, just informing you that there is something that you've done that "requires your attention".  It doesn't require a "personality type" to become a believer.  It requires someone who is willing to listen to themselves, their body & soul.    = All I know is that I don't know everything. And frankly speaking = I don't care, life is fun anyway. I recognize that I'm not  = perfect, but that does not hinder me from have a healthy = and inspiring life.  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 didn't matter that for the first decade of my marriage, my wife and I will have the worry that possibly that last sneeze meant something *much* worse than a cold.  =  = There are humans that subscribe to the same notion. The nice = thing is that when you finally shake off this huge burden, = the shoulders feel far more relaxed!  The nice thing about pain killers, if you take enough, you won't care about  the fever, shortness of breath or pain.
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...!) ??  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? 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.   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...?  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?   Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.  I just want to point out that this is not sarcasm, I mean it.  		 	How should one deal with a man who is convinced that 		 	he is acting according to God's will, and who there-      Jokke		fore believes that he is doing you a favour by 		 	stabbing you in the back?
JOB 26:7  He stretcheth out the north over the empty  place,  and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
In <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:  >If one is paying for a PRIVATE health insurance plan and DOES NOT WANT >"abortion coverage" there is NO reason for that person to be COMPLELLED >to pay for it.  (Just as one should not be compelled to pay for lipposuction >coverage if ONE doesn't WANT that kind of coverage).  You appear to be stunningly ignorant of the underlying concept of health insurance.  >dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu
Brian Kendig writes:  >You just don't get it, do you?  >In fact, I believe your religion is imaginary . . .  You have clearly demonstrated that you do not even know what my religion is in order to make that assumption.  >Please offer me an argument that's more convincing than "you just >don't believe 'cos you don't want to."   How I can present any argument when you put your hands over your eyes and devise new irrevelant excuses each time?  The fact remains, you want to argue about something that you do not know anything about. Do you not have to learn a topic first before you can reasonably debate the topic?    Which brings us about to the start of this thread.  You began perverting Bible verses, interpreting them without investigation. For if you desired to investigate, you would have changed your tune immediately.   Thus it is clear to me.  You do not believe what I am saying because "you don't want to" check it out.  > Everything you've said so far could apply equally to any religion > why do you believe yours is the real one?  Then you must have also ignored every other post I have written to you.  This would seem to go along with your character.
In article <bskendigC51CqB.K0r@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:  >Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two >contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat >denials.  I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are >indeed two different accounts of creation.  That is because two creation stories is one of the worst examples of  a difficulty with the Bible.  "were formed" can also be translated "had been formed" in chapter two without any problems.  So the text does not demand that there are two creation stories.
In article <1993Apr5.165709.4347@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes: >>But there is a base of true absolute morality that we can stand on. > >Note that if the majority of people remain unconvinced, this idea >probably isn't worth very much in a pragmatic sense.  Maybe not to you.  But to those who stand on this base, He is  precious.
I responded to Jim's other articles today, but I see that I neglected to respond to this one.  I wouldn't want him to think me a hypocrite for not responding to *every* stupid article on t.r.m.  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes: >From my handy dictionary: [dictionary definitions of "not" "disagree" and "agree" deleted] >Please operationally differentiate between "not disagree" and "agree".  Oh, but I'm weary of trying to wade through Jim's repertoire of  red herrings and smoke screens.  Let's see what we get when we run all four articles posted by Jim today through the 'discord' filter (a Markov chain program that Steve Lamont was kind enough to send me):  	Taking action? A white geese be held 	as an accomplice to be held as 	a decision upon the door 	A black and white goose waddles past 	the eyes of the door.  	Hits it with the confidence interval for  	that individual is held responsible  	for that, that individual  	may be held as a  	getaway car may be held  	as an uncountably large number  	of the driver of something  	and agree.  	A black goose  	waddles past the person imprisoned?  	White goose waddles past the  	confidence interval for the population  	of geese be axed,  	fine. 	And white goose  	waddles past the door.  Does running Jim's articles through 'discord' make them more coherent?  Less coherent?  Or has 'discord' turned Jim's articles into an angst-ridden poem about making choices in a world filled with uncertainty, yet being held responsible for the choices we make?  Do the geese symbolize an inner frustration with ambiguity, a desire that everything be black and white, with no shades of gray?  Does the "getaway car" tell us that to try to renounce the existential nature of our being is not to "get away" from responsibility for our actions, but rather to take the role of the passive accomplice, the "driver" of the getaway car, as it were?  Does the juxtaposition of man and machine, car and driver, reveal a subtext: an internal conflict between determinism and moral responsibility?  Or am I reading too much into a collaboration between Jim and a random number generator?
In article <C5Hr14.Jxw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 Student) writes: >My definition of objective would be absolute, or fixed, rather than >  >  subjective, or varying and changing. >  Lets see what the dictionary has to say:  objective adj. 1. As having to do with a material object as distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance. 3.a. Uninfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on observable phenomenon.
pboxrud@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul D Boxrud) writes:  >     I wasn't sure if this was the right newsgroup to post this to, but I guess >the misc is there for a reason.  Here goes...  I am getting married in June to  >a devout (Wisconsin Synod) Lutheran.  I would classify myself as a strong  >agnostic/weak athiest.  This has been a a subject of many discussions between >us and is really our only real obstacle.  We don't have any real difficulties  >with the religious differences yet, but I expect they will pop up when we have  >children.  I have agreed to raise the >children "nominally" Lutheran.  That is, Lutheran traditions, but trying to >keep an open mind.  I am not sure if this is even possible though.  I feel that >that the worst quality of being devoutly religous is the lack of an open mind.    just a point, i suppose, if open mind means believing anything can be true or we can't for sure know what is definitely true, i'm happy to not be open minded.  if, however, open mindedness means being respectful and tolerant towards other beliefs, respecting the rights and intelligence and wisdom of people of other beliefs and giving equal time to alternative ideas, i try my very best to be open minded.  just a thot in passing.... :)  >     Anyway, I guess I'll get on with my question.  Is anyone in the same  >situation and can give some suggestions as to how to deal with this?  We've  >taken the attitude so far of just talking about it a lot and not letting  >anything get bottled up inside.  Sometimes I get the feeling we're making this  >much bigger than it actually is.  Any comments would be greatly appreciated.   >Also, please e-mail responses since I don't get a chance to read this group >often.  :-(    not being married, i cannot say too much to you, but from my perspective having mutually exclusive faiths would be a big enough roadblock for me in considering marrying someone.  making it much bigger than it is?  i suppose that depends on how serious each of you is in your beliefs.  lukewarm atheists and christians for whom religion is of nominal importance probly would feel the issue isn't very big.  i suppose the more important your beliefs are to each of you, the more important the issue is.
On 26-Apr-93 in Re: What part of "No" don't.. user Steve Novak@advtech.uswe writes: >> = eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes: >>> = Steve Novak writes: >  >>>Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who >>>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which >>>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to >>>have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment >>>of silence"? >  >>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone* >>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it? >  >The whole point is, maybe everyone _doesn't want_ to participate. >  >[...] >>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is >>utterly idiotic. >  >Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it that is >supported by taxpayer money is the only way to keep christianity from >becoming the official U.S. religion. >  >Not noticing that danger is utterly idiotic. Please provide evidence that having a moment of silence for a student who died tragically costs taxpayers money.
In article <30187@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes: [ deleted ] >What is the fact of evolution?  There is a difference between calling evolution >a fact and talking about the theory of evolution providing facts (I happen to >think the latter is more accurate). [ deleted ]    Evolution is both fact and theory.  The THEORY of evolution represents the scientific attempt to explain the FACT of evolution.  The theory of evolution does not provide facts; it explains facts.  It can be safely assumed that ALL scientific theories neither provide nor become facts but rather EXPLAIN facts. I recommend that you do some appropriate reading in general science.  A good starting point with regard to evolution for the layman would be "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" [pp 253-262] by Stephen Jay Gould.  There is a great deal of other useful information in this publication.
In a previous article, shades@sorinc.cutler.com (Darrin A. Hyrup) says:  >They [Thelema Lodge] don't have an internet address, but they do have a CIS >address which can be reached via uucp/internet.  It is 72105,1351 so I guess >that would be '72105.1351@cis.com' or something like that. > 		......@compuserve.com
In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: > I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very > sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch > Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac > cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man, > the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT > Jesus Christ as he claimed.  The interesting notion is that (I watched TV tonight) Koresh never claimed officially to be Jesus Christ. His believers hoped that  he would be, but he never took this standpoint himself.  He was more interested in breaking the seven seals of Revelation, and make sure that Armageddon would start. Well it did, and 19 children died, and no God saved them.  Kent
In article <1993Apr21.225146.20804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:  >       The macroevolutionary tree is full of holes.  (Please show me a few >        intermediate forms between reptile and bird.)  Are you so ignorant that you have never heard of _Archaeopteryx_?  >            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //  The special creation "theory" is nothing but holes. Please show me a species poofed into existence by your god. I have never seen this.
In article <1993Apr23.181843.20224@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote: > Kent, with regards to the information contained in the Bible (which > is the original context of this thread), Brian Kendig is inside a huge > wall.  Brian *IS* inside.  The Bible and the information contained therein > are outside the wall.   Brian Kendig proves this very sad fact by the > absurd things he says.  For example, "If I get through into the firey > pit, I will cease to exist."  The Bible doesn't say that.  He hasn't > a clue even to what Jesus said about hell.  That is but one example.  Looking at your discussion I would say that you both operate from your own reference frame. There's no inside and no outside, there are just two polarized views. As for statements inside the Bible, things are still not that clear, we don't have any indications for instance why Jobs was placed in the Old Testament, one of the  few books that actually talks about Satan. Jobs is very much out of line with the rest of the OT books, and there's a chance that someone added this book later into the group of OT scriptures.  > Now in your sense, Kent, of sensing reality--that is a different > matter.  And to you and to Brian, relativity does play a big role. > What we perceive to be true, depends on our vantage point.  Since I > have read the Bible, and Brian Kendig shows that he hasn't, he has  > a narrower perspective than mine  (at least in the respect > of knowledge of the Bible).   I am proposing to Brian, "Brian, come up here > and take a look from this vantage point."   But Brian replies, "I rather > not thank you.  I am content where I am.  Besides, the vista from up > there stinks."   And in the meanwhile, Brian ignores the facts that > he has never up there nor does he realize I had shared the same > plateau where Brian now stands.  This operates the other way around as well. You have to understand the mind of an atheist, agnostic, or as in my case, a radical relativist. If you don't understand the underlying concepts, it is  pretty hard to continue with a dialogue. I'm not a perfect Christian, however about 20+ years of Christian teaching should have provided me with a pretty good picture of the Christian mind frame.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr22.153528.10877@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: > Eternal damnation is the consequence of the choice one makes in rejecting > God.  If you choose to jump off a cliff, you can hardly blame God for you  > going *splat* at the bottom.  He knows that if you choose to jump, that  > you will die but He will not prevent you from making that choice.  In fact, > He sent His Son to stand on the edge of the cliff and tell everyone of what > lies below.  To prove that point, Jesus took that plunge Himself but He being > God was able to rise up again.  I have seen the example of Christ and have  > chosen not to jump and I'm trying to tell you not to jump or else you'll  > go *splat*. >   > You don't have to listen to me and I won't stop you if you decide to jump. > I only ask that you check it out before taking the plunge.  You owe it to > yourself.  I don't like seeing anyone go *splat*.  I'm for the moment interested in this notion of the 'leap of faith' established by Kierkegaard. It clearly points out a possible solution to transcendental values. What I don't understand is that it also clearly shows the existentialism system where any leap to any transcendental direction is equal.   In other words I might not jump off the cliff mentioned above, but at the same time I will decide to what direction I will go. Actually I will do it just now.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr21.182030.888@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: > The default condition, in the absence of a preponderance of >evidence either way, is that the proposition or assertion is undecidable. >And the person who takes the undecidable position and says that he/she >simply disbelieves that the proposition is true, is the only one who >holds no burden of proof.  This is why the so-called "weak atheist" >position is virtually unassailable -- not because it stands on a firm >foundation of logical argument, but because it's proponents simply >disbelieve in the existence of God(s) and therefore they hold no burden >of proof.  When you don't assert anything, you don't have to prove >anything.  That's where weak atheism draws its strength.  But its >strength is also its Achilles' heel.  Without assertions/axioms, one >has no foundation upon which to build.  As a philosophy, it's virtually >worthless.  IMO, of course.  Yes, as a philosophy weak atheism is worthless.  This is true in exactly the same sense that as a philosophy Christians' disbelief in Zeus is worthless.  Atheists construct their personal philosophies from many different sources, building non-god-based ideas in the same way as Christians build non-Zeus-based ideas of thunderbolts. Atheists no more *base* their philosophy on atheism than Christians base theirs on the nonexistence of Zeus.  The "weak atheist" position is logically extremely assailable -- any logical demonstration of the existence of a god completely destroys it as soon as the demonstration is made in the presence of a given weak atheist.  Atheists in this newsgroup are barraged regularly with attempts to provide such a logical demonstration, and they all fail miserably.  In fact, most of the people around here who claim the "strong (as opposed to mathematical) atheist" position do so on this basis: not only do we not believe in a god, but also all the arguments presented in favor of particular gods have to date proven unsound; therefore, one can say that those gods as argued by those arguments do not exist.  This doesn't apply to such philosophers' gods as are defined to be logically undemonstrable, but these are not the gods of popular religion, and the coherence of such claims is quite questionable.
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'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.