waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr20.142356.456@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: > >In article <C5rLps.Fr5@world.std.com>, jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) writes: >|> In article <1qvk8sINN9vo@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes: >|>  >|> It was interesting to watch the 700 club today.  Pat Robertson said that the >|> "Branch Dividians had met the firey end for worshipping their false god." He >|> also said that this was a terrible tragedy and that the FBI really blew it. > >I don't necessarily agree with Pat Robertson.  Every one will be placed before >the judgement seat eventually and judged on what we have done or failed to do >on this earth.  God allows people to choose who and what they want to worship.  I'm sorry, but He does not!  Ever read the FIRST commandment?  >Worship of money is one of the greatest religions in this country.
He sounds really cute, Morte!  Kinds like _pete's dragon_, maybe smaller, maybe a different species.. winge'd?  (shakespear wing-ED)  I've always hat a horde of mice to turn to for fun & sort of that kind of mouse in Cinderella (walt disney).  I grew up sort of as an only child, part time.. my siblings were 10-8-6 years older than me, so i was pretty commonly a different sort of charater in their games (read: non speaking hot cocoa-goffer, stand in (still silent) bad guy/good guy/etc), so my mice were playmates, more than advisors.  Could curt, or whomever has a good list of books please post such list, in all sorts of fields, like jungian, condensed buddist/etc philosophies, multiple personailty disorders, or good fiction that has well worked imaginary friends?
In article <1993Apr23.163823.24226@ads.com> wmoore@ADS.COM (William Moore) writes: >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.  I have a copy.  Why are you interested?  Lance
In article <C50KDr.Duz@acsu.buffalo.edu>  psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes: >	I will hear what God the LORD will speak: >	for he will speak peace >	unto his people, and to his saints: >	but let them not turn again to folly.
In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com>  sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >Ignorance is not bliss!  Ignorance is STRENGTH!
In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes: >       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring >        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if >        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and >        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian, >        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts >        are very much in harmony.      Bill, I find it rather remarkable that you managed to zero in on what is probably the weakest evidence.    What is probably the most convincing is the anti-Christian literature put out by the Jewish councils in the second century.  There are enormous quantities of detailed arguments against Christianity, many of the arguments still being used today.  Despite volumes of tracts attacking Christianity, not one denies the existance of Jesus, only of his activities.    I find this considerably more compelling than Josephus or the harmony of the gospels (especially considering that Matthew and Luke probably used Mark as a source).
On a slightly different note:  There are two buildings in NY state with big 666 numbers on the roof :)  One in Manhattan and one near Garden City. The Garden City one is a nice black unmarked building...
In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:  >Objective morality is morality built from objective values.   And organized religion is a religion built from organized values. And Ford Tempo is a Tempo built from Ford values. And rational response is response built from rational values. And unconditional surrender is surrender built from unconditional values.     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^           uncle!
muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:   >Mr. Clinton said today that the horrible tragedy of the Waco fiasco >should remind those who join cults of the dangers of doing so. >Now, I began scratching my head thinking (a bad sign :-), "don't the  >mainstream religions (in this case Christianity...or the 7th day  >adventist in particular) just keep these guys going ? Isn't Mr. Clinton  >condemning his own religion ? After all, isn't it a cult too ?"   A good point.  What helps to keep such things going is the public attitude that one should have "faith""; that some authority from on high should not be subjected to mere reason.  Couple this with a variety of personality quirks, mojor and minor mental illnesses, and ego of would-be leaders, and you get all the variety of cults and  religions that people subscribe to.
I addressed most of the key issues in this very long (284 lines) post by Dean Kaflowitz in two posts yesterday.  The first was made into the title post of a new thread, "Is Dean Kaflowitz terminally irony-impaired?" and the second, more serious one appeared along the thread  "A Chaney Post, and a Challenge, reissued and revised"  both only in talk.abortion, but I am posting its contents into talk.religion.misc as soon as I exit here.  This should be enough for us to thrash out for the next week or so.  The second post really grapples with the main bones of contention between us. The first is more lighthearted and tells about such things as  KaflowitzDebatingPoints [tm], which he continues to rack up on both talk.abortion and talk.religion.misc, while setting follow-ups to  talk.abortion alone.  His lame excuse for the latter policy is that he gets a prompt as to where to set follow-ups, and does not follow talk.religion.misc much; this suggests that he is being hypocritical in not also setting his Newsgroups line to talk.abortion alone.
In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >In article <sandvik-140493230024@sandvik-kent.apple.com# sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >#In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank >#O'Dwyer) wrote: >#> Objective morality is morality built from objective values. ># >#You now pushed down the defintion of objectivity into realm of >#objective values. So you need to explain that as well, as well >#as the objective sub-parts, the objective atoms, quarks... >Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round. You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you should explain what you think "science has it's basis in values" means. The reason why people DO science is that they value it's results. That does not mean that science has it's basis in values. Any more than DES stops working if I stop valuing my privacy.  >So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them >from subjective values, before we go any further. See above.  -Ekr
In <30192@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:  >In article <C5y93B.708@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: >>In article <930423.103637.3O4.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> 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. >>>Speaking as someone who also knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say: >>>Go ahead, punk, make my day.  My degree can beat up your degree. >> >>Simple.  Take out some physics books, and start looking for statements which >>say that there is no objective physics.  I doubt you will find any.  You might >>find statements that there is no objective length, or no objective location, >>but no objective _physics_?  (Consider, for instance, that speed-of-light-in- >>vacuum is invariant.  This sounds an awful lot like an objective >>speed-of-light-in-vacuum.)  >Or, you can try not confuse a construct with the constructor.  If you take >a look at Quantum Mechanics, many objective observations can be made >as well.  However, Physics is not objective.  Bohr said the randomness >of atomic motion is inherent in the motion itself.  Einstein said that  >nature is deterministic; it is our method of observation that inserts the >randomness.  They were talking about the exact same results.  But neither of them claimed to have experimental evidence that proved  them right. In a similar vein, there is as yet no experimental evidence for supersymmetric particles; so some physicists believe in them, and some don't -- but all agree that either there is an objectively true answer to the question.  >Depends on how you look at it, I guess. -- Mark Pundurs
In article <1r3qab$o1v@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >In article <930421.102525.9Y9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >#> In article <930420.100544.6n0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew >#> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >#> #This is complete nonsense.  Relativism means saying that there is no absolut >#> #standard of morality; it does NOT mean saying that all standards of morality >#> #are equally good. >#>  >#> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others? >#> How so?  How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference? >#  Either Frank O'Dwyer or mathew said:  [...stiff deleted...]  >#Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail?  How come you can answer that when >#Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference?  [...stiff deleted...]  Speed is a quantifiable measure resulting from a set of methods that will result in the same value measured no matter the reference.  A  bullet with zero velocity sitting on a table on a train moving 60mph will be moving at a speed of          (a) 0mph to someone on the train.         (b) 60mph to someone stationary next to the train.  The reference frame makes the speed relative.  But what's interesting here is that every person on the train will see a stationary bullet. Every person off, a bullet moving 60mph.    I know of no train where all the people on it, every time it is filled, will see a moral problem in exactly the same way.
Mr. Esam Abdel-Rahem writes:  >I urge you all to vote NO to the formation of the news group ''AHMADYA.ISLAM''. >If they want to have their own group, the word ISLAM shouldnot be attached to  >the name of such group. We don't consider them as Muslims.   Dr. Tahir Ijaz comments on Esam Abdel-Rahem's statement:  >But the problem is We consider ourself to be Muslims, even though you don't. >Luckily, faith is determined by what one believes and is a personal matter. >You cannot declare the faith of someone else.   Mr. Jawad Ali then comments on Tahir Ijaz's statement:  >You are not considering the consequences of your argument.  The converse >would be that the problem is that Muslims dont consider Ahmadies to be >Muslims.  Who one considers to be one's co-believer is also a personal >matter.  It would be just as wrong to tell the Muslims who should be >included in their self-defination.   The argument by Jawad Ali is funny, He writes: "The converse would be that the problem is that Muslims dont consider Ahmadies to be Muslims"  Which is a wrong statement. In the light of Dr. Ijaz's statement, the above statement should be corrected: ".......................................is that (some) non-Ahmadi Muslims don't consider Ahmadi-Muslims as Muslims"  So, the problem does not get solved:-) Who is a muslims and who is not? Humans cannot decide. Humans may not declare others faiths. Its that  simple. I don't understand, why the mere use of the word "ISLAM" is becomming such a big issue. I have seen numorous postings on the net on this subject, and all they say, "No, NO, you cannot use ISLAM as  the name of your newsgroup". ??   I haven't seen a single posting stating what right do they have in declaring the name of other's faiths? Who gives them this authority? Quran? or Hadith? or something else? I want to know this!   Just a small reminder to all my Muslim Brothers, Did _EVER_ the  Holy Prophet of Islam (Muhammad PBUH), say to anyone who called himself a Muslim:  No, You are not a Muslim ! ???????  NEVER! I challenge all my Muslim brothers to produce a single  such evidence from the history of Islam!  Hence, if the Prophet Muhammad could never do that to anyone, how could the Muslims, Mullahs or even Governments of today do it to anyone. Do you consider yourself above the Holy Prophet  Muhammad (PBUH) ??    Sincerely, Nabeel.
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > Specifically, I'd like to know what relativism concludes when two > people grotesquely disagree.  Is it: >  > (a) Both are right >  > (b) One of them is wrong, and sometimes (though perhaps rarely) we have a  >     pretty good idea who it is >  > (c) One of them is wrong, but we never have any information as to who, so >     we make our best guess if we really must make a decision. >  > (d) The idea of a "right" moral judgement is meaningless (implying that >      whether peace is better than war, e.g., is a meaningless question, >      and need not be discussed for it has no correct answer) >  > (e) Something else.  A short, positive assertion would be nice.  From whose point of view would you like to know what relativism concludes?  One of the people involved in the argument, or some third person observing the arguers?
In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes: >visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes: >> >>	They cut off the water, there were no fire trucks present > >They refused to bring in fire equipment for fear that the firemen >would be shot at. > >>and the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions. > >They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released >non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.  	Take a second look at "non-toxic, non-flammable":  		MACE (sold tothe public) is supposedly nontoxic. 		Whatthey do not tell you is that if you get mace directly 		on the linings of the lungs (such as a direct snort to 		the face) above certain quantities, it reacts similarly 		to a mustard gas inhalation.  			I know:  my father and grandfather were exposed 			to poison gas in WWI and WWII; Dad went through 			the side effects of any WEAPON, including those 			"non-toxic" aerosols.  		WHat the label ACTUALLY means is ::  			usually, it wont kill you 			it may give you permanent CSS asthsma 			but that's better than blowing a hole in your 				head ...  		ALL aerosols are flammable IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH OXYGEN 		AND HIT IT WITH THE RIGHT IGNITER.  SOme of the most 		non-flammable substances known will BOOM or SEARFLAME 		if you hit it with the right combo.   		Let's take one:  a trash can fire.  Makes black smoke; 		already burned right?  Can't go boom, right?  Wrong.  		Suck that smoke (made up of paper that has carbonized, 		or burned about 35% of the fuel in it) into an air 		conditioning return, mix with about 5:1 air, and light 		a match.  200 feet of conduit is about the same, when 		filled with that smoke mixture, as oh, say 200 pounds TNT  			THAT is why the fire codes say NO OPEN CEILING 			TILES IN BUILDINGS.  Because 3-5 stories of 			a building have blown OUT by "nonflammable _smoke_"  	So: 		Take a little "nonflammable aerosol" 		Mix with gasoline or kerosene fumes  			NO electricity, remeber?  A bit of heating 			on the WACO plains?  Boil water to drink 			since the water was cut off?  		liberally mix and allow to settle for 1-4 hours  		Fumes vent down into the bus underground, and the Davidians 		move the children UPSTAIRS to a saferoom (they had one, 		armor plated, remember?) to BREATH, because kids get sick 		and die from tear gas.  		and along comes a tracer, a spark, what have you:  			everyone burns to death.  Try thinking before opening mouth: it may not have happened the way the Gmen say it did.
[Note the "Followup-To" redirect(s) to alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc.]  In article <C5sqyA.F7v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) said in response to P.VASILION:  > But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.  You > don't really think he should have been allowed to keep that stuff do > you?  If so, tell me where you live so I can be sure to steer well > clear.  The public also has rights, and they should be placed above > those of the individual.  Go ahead, call me a commie, but you'd be > singing a different tune if I exercised my right to rape your > daughter.  He broke the law, he was a threat to society, they did > there job - simple.  (1) You have no evidence that David Koresh or his followers were "packing" that heavy weaponry with any intent to use for other that recreational and self-defense purposes.  (2) Your statement that "the public also has rights" is correct only is parsed as "the individuals who comprise the public also have rights." There is no separate rights-bearing entity known as "the public".  (3) Since the "rights of the public" of which you spoke are in fact only rights of individuals, the statement that the rights of the public should be placed above the rights of the individual has no meaning.  (4) You have artificially created an illusionary conflict of individuals' rights when you speak of "my right to rape your daughter." No person has the right to rape another person, therefore there is no conflict.  (5) How do you define "society?"  Do you hold that this "society" is a rights-bearing entity which is separate from any individual people?  How do you define a "threat to society?"  To what extent do you believe that a person loses his rights when he is declared (by whom?) to be such a threat?
In a previous article, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) says:  >In article <1qb726$j9d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu< cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes: >< ><I learned that God loves his children who have never heard of him and has a ><plan for redeeming them too, even those who have died without a knowledge ><of Christ.  I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on ><his death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It ><requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his ><commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed. > >So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.  Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.  Refer to John 14:2. >--  >Tom Albrecht >
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.  Naw, the owners of WordPerfect are Mormons, and by Tony Rose's and Robert Weiss' standards, Mormons aren't Christians.  :-)
In article <bskendigC5L782.JM5@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:  >John 12:24-26: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat >falls onto the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it >produces much grain. >  "He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in >this world will keep it for eternal life. >  "If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My >servant will be also.  If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor." > >Why would I want an eternal life if I hate this one?  Again, you missed Jesus's point.  If you read the surrounding passages you would understand what Jesus means by "life in the world."  But as is, you bumbled around, asserted your standard axiom that the Bible is bunk, and came up with the wrong idea.  Also, you do not know exactly what Jesus means by eternal life.    Brian K., do you expect to jump in the middle of the quantum mechanics book and understand Hermite polynomials having not read the surrounding material?  Why do you such with the Bible?  For an idea what Jesus means by the world, look up references to it in your concordance.  For a good description, the whole Book of Ecclesiastes is game.  For  eternal life, check out John 17:3, John 3:15-16.  You will find that eternal life is quite different than what you think.  Eternal life starts NOW--an infinitely high quality of life living in fellowship with God.   >In short: even if your deity *does* exist, that doesn't automatically >mean that I would worship it.  I am content to live my own life, and >fend for myself, so when I die, I can be proud of the fact that no >matter where I end up, it will be because of *my* actions and *my* choices. > >If your god decides to toss me into a flaming pit for this, then so be >it.  I would much rather just cease to exist.  But if your god wants >my respect and my obedience, then it had better earn these; and if it >does, then they will be very strong and true.  If my diety exists, you would not just cease to exist.  Jesus talks of hell in Luke 16:19-31.     >You've got to understand my point-of-view: I see Christians spouting >Bible verse all the time as if it were some sort of magic spell that >will level all opposition.  Truth is, it's not.  Robert has never >demonstrated that he actually understands what the verses imply; he >just rattles them off day by day.  Some brazenly fly in the face of >common sense and reality, and I point these out where I can.   The truth is, is that it is not some sort of magic spell.  The truth is is that you do not understand it, and enjoy not understanding it.  >Christanity is a very nice belief set around a very nice book.    Wrong again.  Christianity is supposed to be relationship.  You do not even know what Christianity is and you are arguing against it.  >And in my opinion, you're bumbling about blindly making up entities >where there aren't any, and depriving yourself of a true understanding >and enjoyment of your life.  As long as you keep your beliefs to >yourself, I'll keep my beliefs to myself -- but as soon as you start >waving them around, expect me to toss in my opinions, too.
|> >One more thought.  The government claimed that they believed he had automatic |> >weapons on the premises.  |>  |> >        HE HAD A LICENSE FOR THE 50 CALIBER MACHINE GUN! |>  |> >THEY KNEW DAMN WELL HE HAD ONE. THEY ALSO KNEW HE HAD IT LEGALLY! |>  |> >Still, without the element of surprise they sent in agents to get him. |> >For all of this my President takes full responsibility.  What a guy! |> >I hope he gets it. |>  |> 	The .50cal gun was a semi-auto, and was thus legal. The BATF |> 	claims that the Davidians also possessed illegally modified |> 	AR-15's and illegal explosives. |>  |>  |>                   _____  _____ |>                   \\\\\\/ ___/___________________ |>   Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________ |> ________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/ |> \_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/ |>     \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/ |>                 \_ / /__________/ |>                  \/____/\\\\\\ |>  			 \\\\\\ |> 			  ------  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]  I imagine the authorities know the difference between semi and fully automatic and probably knew weather the guns were legal as they have access to any relative documentation (i.e. permits).  In addition the .50 caliber guns (plural) were semi-automatic rifles.
Is there evidence independent of the FBI that indicates that the Branch Davidians set the fire?  What have the survivors said?  Did the press see anything?  There is, unfortunately, precedent for the U.S. government saving children by roasting them alive.  (There is precedent for religious self-imolation as well.)