waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5srEw.FCG@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes: ... >Give me a break!  What fireman should have to deal with a blaze like that >AND get shot at at the same time.  	Nearly all of them.  Witness LA>  Firemen are among our real 	heroes most of the time.  I wonder when they were actually 	aasked to come, or if they found out about the fire over the 	TV ....   	Shot at by whom?  prove it!  > >These people were breaking the law.  I agree these weren't the best tactics,  	When "law" replaces "justice" the system is dying or dead. 	Note that we had a small revolution 216 years ago on this 	point.  >they probably should have backed off, pulled the perimeter way back, and let >them sit there with no media attention until they decided to come out.  The  >only other alternative I see would have been to send in a couple of special >forces guys to capture or assassinate Koresh.  But remember, these fruit-  	Or perhaps just wait. 	Or maybeeven send in a few agents who are Christian to 		sit down and pray outside the line?  Try affinity 		rather than subversion?   >loops were putting their lives on the lines voluntarily.  Why should   	Chuckle.  SO would you if someone points a gun at you. 	At that point you can die or live; and if living means 	stayng in a building to keep badge carrying nuts off your 	kids, I suspect you might as well.  BOTH sides were wrong.  >law-abiding citizens have to put themselves in any more danger than necessary >when dealing with a nut?  Look at the man who jumped out of his Bradley to >grab a flaming women who was running back into the building.  Yeah, I would >have to say they were trying to save those people.  I don't think I would  >risk my life that much to save someone that stupid that obviously didn't >even want to be saved.  	Try again:  go see the movie Sophie's CHoice. 	Grow up.  > >-Tim
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:  ->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"
Kent: With all due respect, how can I take you seriously, when you have the NAMES wrong in the 1st place? E.g.:  > >The San Jose RC (Ordo Rosae Crucis)   	There is no such thing. The correct name is Ancient & Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, abbreviated AMORC.  >...and the Rocicrusian >order created by Max Heindel.  	There is no such thing either. It's the Rosicrucian Fellowship. And they clearly state that they DO NOT pretend to descend from the Order of the Fama Fraternitatis.  >In addition there are many splinter groups >all around Europe that all claim some connection with the original >group supposedly founded in the middle ages.  The Lectorium? And who else?  >Some Freemason groups >also have Rosicrucian-like separate groups, even if they are far >from the ideologies the RC groups have somehow in common.  These are NOT Rosicrucian "orders". They are Masonic study groups, none of which *claims* to be descendant of the original Order.  > >We might compete about how much time we have spent with this :-). Let >me start, I was part of the ORC for about 8 years. >Kent > What is ORC? If you mean AMORC, you didn't even learn the correct name?!
In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says: > >I guess the San Jose Mercury news is wrong then,...  				      ^^^^^ > 	No: It is old. You said AMORC *IS*, not *was*... :-) Nothing personal, OK? Good! :-)  	Maybe you didn't know that it's over by now. There is no more pending legal actions from no where, period. So yes, there was a situation and it has been resolved by BOTH parties. As long as humans  handle anything, it is subjected to "breaking" :-)  	BTW, Gary L. Stewart has a P.O. Box in TX calling his org ARC: Ancient Rosae Crucis. I guess he couldn't take the "MO" from AMORC :-)
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > (b) I am neither a Christian nor a theist, but I believe in objective > morality in preference to a relativist soup of gobbledegook.  Well, there are two approaches we can take here.  One is to ask you what this objective morality is, assuming it's not a secret.  The other is to ask you what you think is wrong with relativism, so that we can correct your misconceptions :-)
Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying things like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what exact body of theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"  Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant?  Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who see Biblical things differently from you?  Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really understands it?   Just curious,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: >  >Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature >will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older.  For >as surely as he grows hair on his head and teeth within his mouth, >he will show the signs of his innate sin by rebelling >against mommy and daddy with that loud proclamation "No."  That's not "showing the signs of his innate sin", that's testing the limits of his newfound independence.  A two-year-old will continually test you to see just how much he can get away with, just as a pet dog will.  If a child always submitted to your will in a docile fashion, would you praise him and suspect that he's the Second Coming of Christ, or would you seek professional help about his emotional development?
Gordon Banks quoted and added...  gb> In article <C50M5p.Eoz@acsu.buffalo.edu> gb> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes: gb> gb> > gb> >  Christians have professed for more than 1660 years the Nicene gb> >Creed, a statement of beliefs drawn from the truths of Scripture gb> >that was officially accepted by a council of church bishops gb> >and leaders at Nicea in 325 A.D. Christians still recite gb> >this creed regularly in public worship. gb> > gb> gb> So prior to 325 AD there were no Christians?  Or all of them really gb> believed the Nicean creed even before it was formulated?  Do you gb> really believe such an absurdity?  I'm afraid you do.         No.      I really don't. Honest.       The Nicene Creed, as I mentioned above, is a brief statement of      beliefs that are derived from Scripture. That this certain list      did not exist earlier does not indicate that the beliefs summarized       in in did not exist before the formula was derived.
In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >In article <pww-140493214334@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes: >#In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank >#O'Dwyer) wrote: >#> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.  >#But where do those objective values come from? How can we measure them? >#What mediated thair interaction with the real world, a moralon? Or a scalar >#valuino field?  >Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round,  >as you would wish it.  If there is no such thing as objective value, then  >science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head. >Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said >to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  You like those conclusions? >I don't.  I think that you are changing the meaning of "values" here. Perhaps it is time to backtrack and take a look at the word.  value n. 1. A fair equivalent or return for something, such as goods or service. 2. Monetary or material worth. 3. Worth as measured in  usefulness or importance; merit. 4. A principle, standard, or quality considered inherently worthwhile or desirable. 5. Precise meaning, as of a word. 6. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity. 7. Mus.  The relative duratation of a tone or rest. 8. The relative darkness or lightness of a color. 9. The distinctive quality of a speech or speech sound.   In context of a moral system, definition four seems to fit best. In terms of scientific usage, definitions six or eight might apply. Note that these definitions do not mean the same thing.  In my mind, to say that science has its basis in values is a bit of a reach. Science has its basis in observable fact. Even the usages of the word "value" above do not denote observable fact, but rather a standard of measurement. I would conclude that science does not have its basis in values, and so your statement above fails. In fact, if one concludes that a scientific set of measurements (values) are based on systems derived from observation, then it must follow that in a scientific context, there is no such thing as there is no such thing as "objective values."  Back to the present. This has nothing to do with a moral system anyhow. Just because the word "values" is used in both contexts does not mean that there is a relationship between the two contexts.  If one is to argue for objective values (in a moral sense) then one must first start by demonstrating that morality itself is objective. Considering the meaning of the word "objective" I doubt that this will ever happen.  So, back to the original question:  And objective morality is.....?  If you can provide an objective foundation for "morality" then that will be a good beginning.  >--  >Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That' >odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon
Rick Anderson writes:  > Are we to simply assume that you [referring to Robert Weiss] are the only > one who really understands it [Biblical Scriptures]?  No.  I also understand it. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, examining each book within, cross-comparing them, etc.  And I have come to same conclusions as Robert Weiss.
I would like to apologize for the typos in the previous post.  In retrospect I would also like to quote another source: Douglas C. Haldeman from his 1991 book _Homosexuality_  THERAPY INEFFECTIVE  Recently the founders of yet another prominent "ex-gay" ministry, Exodus International, denounced their conversion therapy procedures as ineffective. Michael Busse and Gary Cooper, cofounders of Exodus International and lovers for 13 years, were involved with the organization from 1976 to 1979.  The program was described by these men as "ineffective . . . not one person was healed."  They stated that the program often exacerbated already prominent feelings of guilt and personal failure among the counselees; many were driven to suicidal thoughts as a result of the failed "reparative therapy."  The previous article quoted in the last posting is from THE ADVOCATE, June 30, 1992 called "The Ex-Ex-Gay" by Robert Pela.  Some personal thoughts:  It is of no great astonishment that there is a concerted effort by a major portion of the Church to control and mandate change of a minority among its ranks.  This was the momentum behind the Spanish Inquisition, only all they required was a confession of faith (after much torture) and then, to save their souls they would dispatch them to heaven through death.  Even later, the Bible was used vigorously to defend slavery, oppression and segragation of African-Americans, even to the justification of lynchings. Today's scholars are just a bit more slick in their approach.  The tool is still coersion, but now it is mostly by means of brainwashing and mind control, convincing people that they should see themselves as less than God sees them, then maintaining a cultic hold on them until it is felt thier mind-conditioning is complete.  Sure, no one is "physically" forced to stay in this "reparative therapy" but sheer social pressure is enough for many to keep themselves in this new found bondage of self-hate.  As an abolitionist I advocate the abolishment of oppression and persecution against gays in all facets of civil life.  A person should be judged by the contibution, or non-contribution to the society in which they live, not by some high-brow standard of conformity imposed by those who haven';t a clue what is in their heart.  For those who seek more information about Gays and groups that accept them please contact your nearest chapter of PFLAG (Parents & Friends of Lesbians And Gays) who will be more than happy to assist you.  This is a group of people comprised of Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, their parents and friends who have formed a support group for help and understanding.  Try talking to a parent of a gay son or daughter and learn some "first-hand" real life and loving understanding.  God's love and understanding for Gay people is no less abundant.
In article <bskendigC5wrsM.Gyx@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:  >As long as we're trading secrets, let me tell y'all one: I got a >really bad feeling in my heart back when I was a Christian.  I >couldn't really pinpoint it, but something felt dreadfully cheap and >wrong about the whole affair.  I had been a devout follower, even a >Bible-banger, but eventually it started ringing terribly hollow to me. > >And I felt torn when I began to disagree with a lot of what the Bible >(and my priests) told me; this was what made me finally realize that >either I was very wrong, or else the Bible was very wrong.  And since >I felt reasonably sure of myself, I decided to start analyzing the >Bible very closely.  That was the catalyst to my break with my faith, >though it was a long and difficult effort.  Brian, have you checked out what your priests told you in the Bible to see whether they were telling you the truth?  Did you know that according to the Bible, there shouldn't even be such things as "priests" anymore?  Do you know why the preisthood was established in the Old Testament to begin with and the reasons why after Jesus, there were no priests--that is until the Roman Catholic Church  300 years later devised the doctrine of transubstantiation by ignoring the whole concept beyond the book of Hebrews?  You said you analyzed the Bible very closely.  I think you are lying.  For if you had, I would think you would have at least got the doctrine of hell straight.
Long time, no see.  			Andreas  --   		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
In article <1r66su$dm7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >In article <sandvik-210493213823@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >#Frank, unless you didn't realize it, you are just now involved >#in a debate where we have various opinions, and each entity >#has its own frame where the opinion is expressed. I think I  >#don't need to state the dreadful r-word.  >So, it's _sometimes_ correct to say that morality is objective, or what?  If you were able to prove that morality is objective, then it would be correct to do so. The problem is, by the very meaning of the words in question, to do so is oxymoronic. Of course you could redefine the words, but that would still not lend support to the underlying concept.  >After all, I could hardly be wrong, without dragging in the o-word.  This does not parse. How could you hardly be wrong without dragging in the o-word?  >For your part, when you say that relativism is true, that's just >your opinion.  Why do folk get so heated then, if a belief in relativism >is merely a matter of taste?  (to be fair, _you_ have been very calm, >I get the impression that's because you don't care about notions of >objectivity in any flavour.  Right?)  I have no problem with objectivity at all. It is my objectivity that has led me to conclude that morality is subjective.  >--  >Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That' >odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon
In <1rdlsf$vi@agate.berkeley.edu> isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:  |I merely point out that it IS a valid strategy which is used every day. |Furthermore, we don't know of any substitute strategy capable of apprehending |potentially dangerous and armed suspects.  Do you suggest that the police |always knock with guns holstered and never arrest any suspects until they have |been allowed to inspect the officers's badges?  Just what should the police do |when apprehending potentially dangerous and armed suspects?  How far can they |reasonably go to identiy themselves?  What do you suggest they can do which |can't be faked by the "competition"?  So instead you are asking individual citizens to place themselves at risk by assuming that everyone who claims to be a cop, actually is a cop. Around here the police have actually made public service announcements saying that if you are a lady driving by yourself at night and you see blue lights flashing behind you. Do not pull over until you reach a well lit, preferably occupied place, gas station etc.  |Even if you've got deadly enemies who may pretend to be cops, that's not an |excuse to murder police.  It wouldn't be murder, it would be self defense.
In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu  (Tony Alicea) writes:  >   Kent:  >	You say that  >   >There are about 4-10 competing Rosicrucian orders existing today, 			  ^^^^^^^^^ >   >most of them are spin-offs from OTO and other competing organizations >   >from the 19th century France/Germany. Maybe I should write an article >			    Please don't!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  huh? it might be interesting. he is relating the story as I have heard it, btw.  >   >about all this, I spent some time investigating these organizations >   >and their conceptual world view systems.  >	Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have >   probably spent more time than you doing the same.   >	None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the >   case.   huh? care to back that up?
In article <2017@tecsun1.tec.army.mil> riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes: >The second question is, "What makes Gerry think that the >Davidians' actions would have been different had another type of warrant >been in use ?"  Just taking a guess, perhaps it was that Koresh had peaceably been served with warrants before, and he did not shoot anyone but instead went with the police without fighting. -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole     that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...    -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
In article <1qme79$c0k@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes: >In article <1qm36b$gn2@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >>In article <1qktj3$bn9@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes: >>#In article <1qkn1t$59l@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > >>#Like I said before, DES works whether I value my privacy or >>#not. >> >>O.K., which DES?  The abstract function DES? that stops working in any  >>important sense if no-one cares for the importance of truth, mathematics,  >>meaning, information, etc.  A DES chip or DES s/w?  That stops working in any  >>important sense if no-one values science, objective reality, etc.   DES >>does not work in a value vacuum.  Nothing else does, either. > >This is just truth by blatant assertion. Your "in any important sense" >seem to be just weasel words. Imagine that I have a box which >accepts 16 bytes and uses the first 8 to ECB the second 8. >It still does a perfect job of DESing, whether or not any input >is being made at the time--whether or not anyone values mathematics..  If no-one looks at the results, or acknowledges their correctness, in what meaningful sense can the chip be said to "work"?? Does flibozity exist? By "flibozity", I mean a particular, extremely complex configuration of  physical phenomena, which no-one, absolutely NO-ONE cares about in the  slightest. Does it exist, Eric?  Getting back to the question of whether the DES chip "works", doesn't "work"  mean something like "achieving the desired/expected effect"? Note the way  intentionality subtly underlies that definition. Even if we take the  definition as "expected", instead of "desired", can you deny that conformance  to expectations is itself a value of sorts, namely the scientific values of  accuracy-of-prediction and reproducibility-of-results?  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.
In article <C5HqxJ.JDG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 Student) writes: >Hmmmm.  Define objective morality.  Well, depends upon who you talk to. >Some say it means you can't have your hair over your ears, and others say >it means Stryper is acceptable.  _I_ would say that general principles >of objective morality would be listed in one or two places.  >Ten Commandments  >Sayings of Jesus  >the first depends on whether you trust the Bible,   >the second depends on both whether you think Jesus is God, and whether >  you think we have accurate copies of the NT.  Gong!  Take a moment and look at what you just wrote. First you defined an "objective" morality and then you qualified this "objective" morality with subjective justifications. Do you see the error in this?  Sorry, you have just disqualified yourself, but please play again.  >MAC >
In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>  dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes: >... other good stuff deleted ... >You can worship every day of the week.  The issue is not whether >Christians are at fault for going to church on Sunday or for not going to >church on Saturday.  Attending a church service does not mean you have >recognized the holiness of that day (my apologies to  Paul Hudson).  The >question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"  Please ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >note that the commandment does not command you to go to church, only to >keep it holy unto the Lord by refraining from doing on it what only serves >to give you pleasure and satisfaction.  When are we going to hear a Christian answer to this question?   In paraphrase:
COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH writes  >it wouldn't be the first time a group has committed suicide to avoid the  >shame of capture and persecution.  This group killed itself to fulfill its interpretation of prophecy and to book a suite in Paradise, taking innocent kids along for the ride. I hardly think the feds were motivated by persecution. If they were, all Koresh would have had to do was surrender quietly to the authorities, without firing a shot, to get the American people behind him and put the feds in the hot seat. But no, God told him to play the tough guy. There's great strength in yielding, but few appreciate this.