waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr18.020655.14233@news.cs.brandeis.edu> deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes: >Okay, I'll bite. I should probably leave this alone, but what the heck... > >In article <1993Apr14.124301.422@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>,  >gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes: >>In article <TT3R2B5w165w@brewich.hou.tx.us> popec@brewich.hou.tx.us >>(Pope Charles) writes: >> >>>Rhoemer was the name of the guy responsible for much of the uniforms,  >>>and props used by the early Nazis in their rallies and such. >> >>The name is Roehm, not Rhoemer.  And Hitler does claim that he came up >>with the Swastika business. > >But didn't he credit the actual flag design to a party member - some dentist or >other? I believe he gives such credit in Mein Kampf. > >>>He was killed in an early Nazi purge. He and many of his associates >>>were flaming homosexuals well know also for their flamboyant orgies. >> >>I have been trying to find if there is any actual evidence for this >>common assertion recently.  Postings to such groups as soc.history and >>soc.culture.german has not uncovered any net.experts who could provide >>any.  > >Well, I'm no expert, but all of the histories of Nazi Germany assert this. They >make reference to several scandals that occurred long before "the night of the >long knives". The impression that I got was that homosexuality in portions of >the SA was common knowledge. Also, a book (by a homosexual author whose name >escapes me at the moment) called "Homosexuals in History" asserts that Roehm >and Heines were homosexuals, as well as others in Roehm's SA circle.  [Rest deleted.  Can anybody out in a.p.h help out?]  Find out about "the night of the brown shirts".
muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:  >In article <sbuckley.735337212@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes: >>>... bad thoughts these. >> >>  well it depends on whether you take the literal dictionary definition of >>cult and say all faiths are cults, or if you take a more social-context >>view of "cult which allows you to recognize mainstream religions as  >>socially-acceptable and cults as groups that involve techniques of brain- >>washing and all the other characteristics that define oppressive [probly not >>the *best* word] cult behaviour.  >Yeah, but implicitly the social-context view provides a justification >for the dictionary definition of a cult; those who follow the mainstream >pretend while those in cults act based on the very same impulses.  Now >who is to be taken seriously ? ;-).
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...!) ?? >  > 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? >   > 							-Voltaire >
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:  >In article <1993Apr15.010329.23133@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >>[Followups set out of talk.abortion...] >> >>In article <C5Fuo2.FF8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: >>>Am I reading this thread wrong or is this just another bemoaning of the fact >>>that Christianity has a code of objective morality? >> >>Please define this "objective morality". >> >>While you're at it, please state the theory of creationism.  >Still searching for an irrelevant issue in which to mire a pro-lifer, I see. >Slimy tactic.  >								- Kevin  Well, when you crosspost to talk.origins, what do you expect?
In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote: >  > In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: > >So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire > >on their house, killing most of the people inside. >  > We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been > the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and > people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly > disinterested observers.  Well, looking at the videos it seems that this fire started in various places at the same time, which would indicate that this was a planned action. I'm sure FBI and BATF didn't *deliberately* start a possible fire, having a sniper kill Korresh would have been a far easier  method. Looking at the careful operation, and use of tear gas that as I know don't start fires, it is less likely that this  was the case.  Sorry, but my bets are on fanatical people keen to start Armageddon -- theirs.  Cheers, Kent
[ There are actually some talk.abortion related comments below, believe it or   not... ]  frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > In article <930422.113530.7w1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk# mathew <mathew@mant > is.co.uk> writes: > #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? >  > I've just come from responding another of your posts, where some pennies > have dropped for me.  But it would clarify further if you would answer > from the point of view of any disinterested observers - perhaps an > observer as likely to be in position A as in position B (where A and B > disagree) in the future, and have his or her conclusion now binding on > them at that time.  Well, if our observer X is as likely to be in A's position as B's, and if he agrees that both A and B are making appropriate observations and inferences regarding the situation, then I would expect him to conclude that there is no right answer.  Hopefully there would be some other factor which would allow him to make some judgement regarding which answer to accept.  If, on the other hand, he disagrees with the principles of either A or B, I suspect he would make a decision in favour of the other one.  It is unfortunately the case that not all moral arguments have answers from all perspectives.  For instance, I am completely unable to come to any conclusion regarding whether abortion should be allowed or not, from my perspective.  In an ideal world, all living things would have a right to life; but in an ideal world, women would have the absolute right to do what they like with their own bodies.  Clearly there is no way to resolve in favour of both these principles.  Therefore I agree with the compromise solution of allowing abortion up to a certain time after conception, and deciding on the time based on various (sometimes ill-defined) criteria.  This is also a sensible move, I think, because it lets people make their own decisions (within reason).  And for what it's worth, I am reasonably happy with current UK abortion law.  Similarly, the situation in what's left of Yugoslavia is a horrible mess, and I really can't see my way to any sort of conclusion.  There, I don't even know enough to imagine what sort of compromise one might manage.
TEXT 45                          trai-gunya-visaya veda                         nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna                      nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho                           niryoga-ksema atmavan    trai-gunya--pertaining to the three modes of material nature; visayah--on the subject matter; vedah--Vedic literatures; nistrai-gunyah--transcendental to the three modes of material nature; bhava--be; arjuna--O Arjuna; nirdvandvah--without duality; nitya-sattva-sthah--in a pure state of spiritual existence; niryoga-ksemah--free from ideas of gain and protection; atma-van--established in the self.                                    TRANSLATION   The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.                                    PURPORT   All material activities involve actions and reactions in the three modes of material nature. They are meant for fruitive results, which cause bondage in the material world. The Vedas deal mostly with fruitive activities to gradually elevate the general public from the field of sense gratification to a position on the transcendental plane. Arjuna, as a student and friend of Lord Krsna, is advised to raise himself to the transcendental position of Vedanta philosophy where, in the beginning, there is brahma-jijnasa, or questions on the supreme transcendence. All the living entities who are in the material world are struggling very hard for existence. For them the Lord, after creation of the material world, gave the Vedic wisdom advising how to live and get rid of the material entanglement. When the activities for sense gratification, namely the karma-kanda chapter, are finished, then the chance for spiritual realization is offered in the form of the Upanisads, which are part of different Vedas, as the Bhagavad-gita is a part of the fifth Veda, namely the Mahabharata. The Upanisads mark the beginning of transcendental life.   As long as the material body exists, there are actions and reactions in the material modes. One has to learn tolerance in the face of dualities such as happiness and distress, or cold and warmth, and by tolerating such dualities become free from anxieties regarding gain and loss. This transcendental position is achieved in full Krsna consciousness when one is fully dependent on the good will of Krsna.  Bhagavad-Gita As It is Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami          ---------------------------------------------------------       |                Don't forget to chant:                   |       |                                                         |       |  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |       |       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |       |                                                         |       |    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |       |          (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
In article <pww-180493195323@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes: >In article <1993Apr18.210407.10208@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin >Darcy) wrote: >> The phenomenologist Husserl, for one, considered Intentionality to be the >> primary ontological "stuff" from which all other ontology was built -- >> perceptions, consciousness, thoughts, etc. Frank is by no means alone in >> seeing intentionality (or "values", as he puts it) underlying all human >> experience, even the so-called "objective" experiences, such as  >> measurements of the natural world, or the output of your DES chip. > >And others of us see it as intellectual masturbation.  I'll defer to your greater firsthand knowledge in such matters.
In article <1993Apr23.111105.7703@ifi.uio.no>, joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes: > In article <C5u5nv.JGs@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes: > > In <C5sqyA.F7v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes: > > |Probably not.  But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it. > > Please cite your evidence that he was intending to use it. > Well, he would be pretty stupid not to, I mean what's the use of spending > thousands of $$ on something you won't use? (sorry if I'm stepping on the toes > of any members of some "rifle-association" here...). Rifles bought for > hunting, I can understand, rifles bought for killing people, or for "just > keeping" I cannot. > Just for the record, I am myself a collector of medieval armour & weaponry, > and I don't just have it hanging around, I use it... (obviously, only in > fencing practice with friends...)  Well, let me see if I can explain it.  It's similar to collecting coins, or stamps, or campaign buttons, or coke bottles, or juke boxes, or model trains, or just about anything else that is collected (and just about everything is collected).  In all cases, you might consider it something of an aberration; I mean, what purpose does it serve?  Not much really; it's just a hobby.  The collector yearns for diversity (not much use in having TWO of the same thing, except for trading/selling it), historical significance (this was the thingy used by so-and-so), technical significance (this is the only one that does such-and-such like this; this is the first one to do it this way), rarity, and so on.  Some people use their collections, other people do not.  As you state, you use your collection.  In one sense, this diminishes the value of your collection as the items suffer wear and exposure.  In another sense, it can enhance your own enjoyment of your collection.  Some people collect firearms that they do not use; other people use some or all of the firearms they collect.  It's just personal preference.  Oops, 'personal preference' ... I guess we're not supposed to have that any more, are we?
In article <ss.113@apmaths.uwo.ca>, ss@apmaths.uwo.ca (SULTAN SIAL) says: > >In article <93111.195217A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes: > >[stuff about Mithras deleted] > >>Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem. > >I thought that Saturnalia was celebrated by the Romans at that time.  Was >Mithras connected with this? >  I also heard the Romans had a large Solar festival on this day because this day, about 3 days after the Winter Solstice, was when you could notice a change in the shadows and be sure that the Sun was indeed returning. In fact, I remember the latin phrase Natalis Solis Invicti (sp!) associated here.  I can't say for certain when Saturnalia was, since I can't locate my Master Holiday List. I think it was 2 weeks or so however.
If you would like to understand better the sort of behavior that we saw in connection with the Waco tragedy, I'd strongly recommend reading _When Prophecy Fails_, by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter (available as a Harper Torchbook). It goes a long way towards explaining how a  belief system can be so strong as to withstand even overwhelming disconfirmatory evidence. At least, read the first chapter. Interestingly, just as the Branch Davidians had roots in the Seventh-Day Adventist movement, the SDAs themselves had their roots in the Millerite movement of the first half of the 19th century--a movement that expected the end of the world in 1843, was disappointed when it did not take place, and wound up as a church.  Bill
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: > In article <m0njXCg-0000VEC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes: >  > >Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people > >to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away? >  > Certainly we should not use a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus. > But we shouldn't water down the gospel to draw people in.   Very well put.  And, in the case of someone who calls himself a Christian brother yet continues in his sin (and claims that his sin is not a sin at  all, but perfectly acceptable), what should be done?  Should Christians  just ignore a sinful lifestyle in order to not offend the person?  By  reaffirming that the lifestyle is sinful according to the Bible, are  they using "a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus"?   Frankly, I find the occurance of a homosexual Christian attempting to  pass himself off as a 'straight' Christian in order to have other  Christians accept his chastisement better a *lot* more serious than  people reaffirming that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin.
In article <1r0ejoINNjfj@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanph872@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes: |> Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote: |> : What bothers me most is why people who have no religious affiliation  |> : continue to persecute Jews?  Why this hatred of Jews?  The majority of |> : people who persecute Jews are NOT Christians (I can't speak for all  |> : Christians and there are bound to be a few who are on the anti-Semitism |> : bandwagon.) |>  |> Do you even have anecdotal evidence to back this up?  The most blatent |> persecution of the Jews in history was of course done by the Nazis before |> and during World War II, a predominately Lutheran crowd.  Sure, many |> Muslims in the Middle East consider the Israelites to be a thorn in their |> side, but the most of the modern persecution of Jews has been at the hands |> of Christians (at least as far as I'm aware). |>  |> Rob Lanphier |> lanph872@uidaho.edu  Do you consider Neo-Nazis and white supremists to be Christian?  I'd hardly classify them as Christian.  Do they follow the teachings of Christ?  Love one another.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Love your enemies.  Is Jesus Christ their Lord and Saviour?  By the persecution of Jews, they are violating all the precepts of what Christ died for.  They are in direct violation of the teachings of Christ.  Even Jesus who was crucified by the Jewish leaders of that time, loved His enemies by asking the Father for forgiveness of their sins.  I am a Christian and I bear no animosity towards Jews or any one else. The enemy is Satan, not our fellow man.  God be with you,
In article <sandvik-180493131125@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >In article <f1682Ap@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) >wrote: >> In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com>  >> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >> >Ignorance is not bliss! >  >> Ignorance is STRENGTH! >> Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE! > >Huh, if ignorance is strength, then I won't distribute this piece >of information if I want to follow your advice (contradiction above). > > >Cheers, >Kent >--- >sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes: > >I'm curious to know what purpose people think these lists serve. >Lists like this seem to value quantity over quality, an "argument >from article length."  And the list you have here is of poorer >quality than most.  I agree, which is why I've asked for help with it.  The reason I'm working on this list is because I've recently had one too many Christians tell me "the Bible contains no contradictions whatsoever."  They believe that it's true, and that it describes reality perfectly, and even predicts history before it happens.  Before I can carry on any sort of meaningful conversation with these people, I've got to SHOW them, with concrete evidence, that the Bible is not nearly as airtight as they thought.  I hope to do that with this list.  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.
In article <2944756297.1.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes: |> >DATE:   24 Apr 1993 11:53:48 -0500 |> >FROM:   Russell Turpin <turpin@cs.utexas.edu> |> > |> > |> >The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of |> >Oregon, are historical evidence.   |>  |> Are you confusing Bhagwan Rajneesh (sp?) with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi |> here by any chance?  I think Bhagwan was in Oregon with all the Rolls |> Royces.  Maharishi Mahesh Yogi founded Transcendental Meditation and |> does the yogic flying stuff.  Bhagwan's group was a communal, free sex |> kind of thing.  I think they both had beards, though.  I think we should just let Bhagwans be Bhagwans.
Kermit Tensmeyer quoted from a few sources and then wrote something. I will attempt to construct a facsimile of what was previously said, and  then address Kermit's offering.  John Redelfs originally wrote...    jr> I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on his   jr> death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It   jr> requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his   jr> commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.  Tom Albrecht responded...    ta> So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.  John Redelfs wrote back that...    jr> Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.   jr> Refer to John 14:2.  I responded to John that...    rw>    I don't see the effort to equate salvation with paradise.   rw>   rw>    Rather, I see implied the fact that only those who are saved   rw> may enter paradise.  To which Kermit wrote...  kt> Incomplete reference: kt> kt> See also the discussion: Did Jesus go into Hell in the BibleStudy group kt> for the arguments that Paradise and Hell(sheol) are places after death kt> The discussion (no LDS were involved as far as I could see) argued using kt> standard Christian argument from the Bible that pretty much support the kt> LDS position. kt> kt>    Christ went to paridise after his death and burial. kt> kt>    He taught the prisoners and freed them from Darkness. kt> kt>    When he was resurrected, he had not yet ascended to his father. kt> kt> The arguement centered around what was or wasn't the proper biblical kt> terms for those places.       I respond.       The question that was raised was not if Jesus went to infernal Paradise      before entering into heaven. No one has made a point for or against       that issue, nor have they compared the LDS position against orthodox      belief. The infernal paradise is held to be Abraham's bosom (Luke 16),       the place of the righteous dead in sheol (equivalent to hades).       The point that was raised by John was that someone could not repent      on their death bed. Tom Albrecht pointed to a Biblical example that was      contradictory to what John's position put forward. The thief on the       cross was promised by Christ to be with Him in Paradise, the abode of       the righteous dead. John's position possibly needs to be reworked.      Kermit needs to address the topic at hand.