waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes: >}So stop dodging the question.  What is hypocritical about my >}criticizing bad arguments, given that I do this both when I agree >}with the conclusion and when I disagree with the conclusion?   > >You are the one who has claimed to possess the fruits of precognition, >telepathy, and telempathy.  Divine it yourself.  Another dodge.  Oh well.  I'm no match for your amazing repertoire of red herrings and smoke screens.    You asked for an apology.  I'm not going to apologize for pointing out that your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument.  Nor for saying that your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of scholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists, just as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies.  Nor for objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context.  Nor for pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling your red herrings and smoke screens what they are.  I'm still not sure why you think I'm a hypocrite.  It's true that I haven't responded to any of Robert Weiss' articles, which may be due in part to the fact that I almost never read his articles.  But I have responded to both you and Frank DeCenso (a fundie/inerrantist.)  Both you and Frank have taken quotes out of context, and I've objected to both of you doing so.  I've criticized bad arguments both when they were yours and I agreed with the conclusion (that the Bible is not inerrant), and when they were Frank's and I disagreed with the conclusion.  I've criticized both you and Frank for evading questions, and for trying to "explain me away" without addressing the objections I raise (you by accusing me of being hypocritical and irrational, Frank by accusing me of being motivated by a desire to attack the Bible.) I don't see that any of this is hypocritical, nor do I apologize for it.  I do apologize, however, for having offended you in any other way.  Happy now?
In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: > These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had > expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a > direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God > is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable. > Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to  > God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the > age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is > repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just > for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile > alike.  Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.  Cheers, Kent
In article <visser.735284180@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:  >	Please get an explaination of exactly what this "non-toxic" tear >gas was and what the delivery system was.  I refuse to believe any  >explaination provided by the FBI/ATF without lots of facts. > >	I do not believe that there is such a thing as "non-toxic" tear >gas. >  You are correct. See today's (4/21) Washington Post. The gas the FBI used is most certainly fatal in high concentrations. Of course, non-toxic tear gas is an oxymoron; the whole point of tear gas is that it is toxic, and its toxic effects cause people to seek fresh air.
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 06:30:24 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU >>>>> (Frank Crary) said:  pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:  pmy> ...Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ pmy> would have with weapons.  fc> Didn't Christ tell his disciples to arm them selves, shortly fc> before his crusifiction? (I believe the exact quote was along the fc> lines of, "If you have [something] sell it and buy a sword.")    "If you have a purse" it was.  fc> Certainly, Christ said,  fc> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to fc> send peace but the sword.  For I am come to set a man at variance fc> against his father, and the daugher against her mother..."  fc> [Matthew 10 34-35]    Yes, He said this, but the sword that Jesus brought was the sword of the Word of God, which divides between those that believe, and those who do not, even right down a family.  Mark -- Mark TOWFIQ | Business/Urgent: towfiq@Microdyne.COM  +1 508 392 9953 (fax 9962) 	      Other:   towfiq@Justice.Medford.MA.US  +1 617 488 2818
In article <zxmkr08.733955549@studserv> zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (C ornelius Krasel) writes: >In <f1q4yUc@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes: > >>In article <1pk2d0$7q1@access.digex.net> >>huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes: >>>In article <f1n#0EP@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes : >>>}Do you have any examples of ritual cannibalism, particulary amongst the >>>}primates? >>>Why the "ritual" qualifier? > >>I was thinking of instances were a particular food or foods or drinks >>are used to symbolize or ritualize cannibalism. Do you know of any human >>cultures that have this type of mythology? For example, where one might >>eat a food as representative of the body of a god, thus ritualized >>cannibalism in the absence of the original. > >I know of ritual cannibalism among tribes in Papua-Neuguinea (?). >They used to eat the brain of killed opponents. Sometimes these brains >contained infectious agents which lead to a disease called "Kuru". >Since cannibalism was banished by the government, the number of Kuru >cases has dropped sharply. > Oh, yeah?  Well---*I* know of ....  Anyways, cannibalism is much more commmon than those who feel that it is wrong (and then point out that the fact that western civilisation doesn't do it is PROOF positive that we are more advanced) would have us believe.  Cannibalism is often used in funeral ceremonies as a way of keeping the deceased loved one alive.  Many other cultures (including many American Indian cultures) eat/ate the flesh of slain enemies, often as a way of showing respect for the valor of the departed.  Hearts are often favored for this, as it contains the spirit.  Have you ever read or seen "Alive", which is the story of the Argentinian boys soccer team that crashed in the Andes and then ate the bodies of those who died in order to survive?  Finger lickin good.  How about the Twighlight Zone episode "To Serve Man"?  If you want more info on this, a good place to start is on sci.anthropology  Now send me $20 and eat my flesh,
Blessed are those 	who hunger and thirst 	for righteousness, 	for they will be filled.
In article <1r1i41$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: > >Just maybe you won't be home.  Then you can come home to something  >like this: > >    "Well, it's been a rough month," begins Johnnie Lawmaster.  "I > just get laid off, and my divorce became final.  But I just wasn't > ready for what happened this particular Monday."  [horror story about FBI ruining a guy's life for the hell of it omitted]  >So if you don't want your tea party to be held in awkward silence, make >sure your lawyer isn't there, there's a good chap.  So, is this a real story or a work of fiction?  How about some sources?  When, where, and in what newspaper did you get all this from?  Or is it all hypothetical?
(U28698@uicvm.uic.edu) wrote: : Marian CATHOLIC high school, outside of chicago: :  : 666 south ASHLAND avenue. :  Actually, Satanism is technically inverted Catholicism.
In article <1993Apr22.133142.23772@ifi.uio.no>, joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes: |>  |> Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does |> god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ?? |>   He is God.  |> In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live |> according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god |> make that desicion?   He is God.  |> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every |> one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is |> that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be |> created.  |>  God granted you the gift of life whether you were sinner or saint.   |> Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which |> has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to |> expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...? |>  The scientist creates the living creature to examine it, poke and prod it and learn about its behaviour.  He will kill it if it becomes a threat.  For example, let's say the scientist creates a Tyrannosaurus Rex and it breaks free of its confines and starts devouring the population.  The scientist would not hesitate in killing it.  God creates us to be His loving companions.  He knows whether we are true in  our love for Him or not.  And He lets us know the consequences of rejecting Him. God cannot abide by sin.  By rejecting God, a person becomes an enemy of God, one that must be killed by Him.  Note:  I say that God and God alone is worthy to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.  We are not called to carry out such duties because we are not worthy.   |> Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so |> righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep, |> unable to do otherwise that follow the rest?  |>  God is God.  Who are we to question the Creator?  If you doubt God's doing in certain situations, do you claim to know a better solution?  Would you be playing the role of God?
In <1pdj4bINNrtr@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)  wrote: #     Are there any places in the Bible where the commandment "Thou  #     shalt not kill" is specifically applied?  That is, where someone  #     refrained from killing because he remembered the commandment.    No, for the excellent reason that there IS no such commandment.    Aside from that, please note that the Abrahamic literary tradition   is strong on narrative, light on dialog, and virtually nonexistent   w/r/t introspection.
jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes: ... >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.  Does it matter that the study (yes, singular) that showed LSD causing birth defects also holds true for aspirin?  Does it matter that this study is flat-out wrong, and LSD does not give you a greater risk of having children with birth defects?
In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu  (Dennis Kriz) writes:  [ a lot of religious opinions and quotations from the Bible and from  many Catholic theologians and Papal Bulls ]  [ which, although introduced with a smiley, was not as funny as it might have been (notable exception: subject headers such as "ONE'S  DICK IS ONE'S INSTRUMENT OF REDEMPTION." ]  [ and indeed, the posting seemed to be more a vehicle for the religious text than for any "literary/moral analysis" ]  I am surprised and saddened. I would expect this kind of behavior from the Evangelical Born-Again Gospel-Thumping In-Your-Face We're- The-Only-True-Christian Protestants, but I have always thought  that Catholics behaved better than this.  Friend Dennis, I urge you to follow the example of your fellow Catholics, of who I count many dozens as my friends, and practice your faith through good example and decent living and respect for the common humanity of others. Please do not stoop to the level of the E B-A G-T I-Y-F W-T-O-T-C Protestants, who think that the best way to witness is to be strident, intrusive, loud, insulting and overbearingly self-righteous.  The imagery in the Song of Solomon is a little bit dated (get it?  Middle East - date palms - oh, never mind) but apparently acceptable,  on a steaminess level, to be accepted as part of the canon. From this fact I derive that erotica itself is not incompatible with Catholic doctrine.  Is there such a thing as Catholic erotica? Not necessarily a love story between people of that faith, but a love story that is not exploitative, does not seek redemption through penis size, pays proper respect to the dignity of each partner, and is still erotic enough to have a place on a.s.s.  I would submit that the _Darknites_ series of stories qualify, also most of the _Journal Entries_, and _Rings I and II_.  I would guess that your aim is to cut down on the pornography and increase the erotica. I actually agree with you that nearly all of the "I've got an enormous dick, and I shot my wad all over her face" stories are crap. I count them as noise, which makes my take on the signal-to-noise ration much lower than many other people's.  Since you are one of the few posters here who can actually write  decent prose, could you write a few stories for us instead of overwhelming us with commentary?    > Anyway, this is a big subject.  PLEASE add your comments, > additions and observations. >  > Sincerely, >  > dennis > dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu >  --  Thank you.
Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: : >But if entertainment (company) sell computer programs saying they are virus  : >safe. Doesn`t they have burden of proof that viruses don`t exist in their  : >floppies ?  : I don't think so.  The assumption is there.  If it turns out that : their software has a virus, then it is up to you to prove that fact : to a court to get any damages.  You are theoretically suppossed to  : be able to get damages for that, but you have to give some evidence : that the virus came from that software.  But since the computer : company is the defendent, they are uninvolved until proven guilty.  All right. I'm not and won't be lawyer. What about doctors? I going to fly aeroplane (or drive car). Doctors have to look for different kind of illnesses in me before I get permission to fly an aeroplane. They have burden of proof that "harmful illnesses don't exist in me", do they ?  (I'm just questioning my belief that believers have the burden of proof.)  : Please, not Pascal!  NOOOOO!! ;) Oh!  Are you those bug-generator C-programmers  ? :-) Turbo Pascal is the BEST and FASTEST for edit-run-edit-run cycles ! ----------------------- ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi -------------------   Kari Tikkanen      !   .  . -#- !      b        !   begin
In article <sandvik-210493225738@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >In article <C5uvvD.GDD@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, >rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) wrote: >> I am also unhappy (or actually, very suspicious) that the FBI was dismissing >> out of hand any chances that they might have accidentally set the blaze  >> themselves. I mean, I guess we are just supposed to believe that >> ramming modified tanks into the walls of a building and injecting >> toxic gases into the building are just routine procedures, no WAY >> anything could go wrong. > >My core point was, and still is, that 19 children died, and Mr. >Koresh could just have opened the door and asked the children to >go out before all this happened. You might blaim FBI, ATF, >President Clinton, Satan, Pepsi Coke or anything else, but >you can't avoid the fact that one single action would have  >saved small children from a dreadful and painful death.  1) Well, Mr Koresh allowed other children and adults to leave the compound during the course of the siege; why didnt these children leave then? I dont know myself, and certainly havent heard any answers on this here.  2) Yes, one simple non-action, ie NOT attacking the compound with modified tanks, would have prevented this tragedy. I bet you blamed the MOVE people for the deaths that occurred in adjacent row houses in Philadelphia, not the government which dropped the firebomb, right?
tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes: :  : Probably not.  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.  I understand that they had the neccessary licenses and permits to own automatic weapons.    : 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.  I haven't seen any proof (or even evidence) that the BD's had broken the law.  If you have proof (or evidence), let's hear it.  "The FBI said so" is NOT evidence.  :   : I'll support them all (except no. 2)
Dear netters  I am wondering about the accident of Koresh. I have heard different  explanations. Without any explanation about your opinions and believes,  please kindly tell me:       1)- What was Koresh talking about?. (Or  what was his message)      2)- What was the main reason that Government went in war with              Koresh? (Some say that due to Tax payment, ....)  Thanks in advance for your historical explanation.
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: > >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.  Um, I think you and the Bible are the ones inside the wall.  There's a really wonderful world out here.  You really should peek out at it sometime.  The silly things you keep saying only reinforce the fact that we *are* on opposite sides of a very high wall.  I see how incredibly beautiful things are on my side, and I only keep telling you about it because I'd like to you come join me here.  >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."  I never said that.  I said that I would PREFER to cease to exist than to be tossed into any god's version of Hell.  >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.  You say to me, "Brian, come up here and take a look from this vantage point."  But you're in a valley, looking at a crayon drawing of a sun and a tree, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you're so immersed in it.  *I*'m the one trying to get you to come up HERE, don't you see?
--  Douglas C. Meier		|  You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  according to the rules of Centrifugal This University is too Commie-	|  Bumblepuppy. -Huxley, Brave New World Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:  >Is this Zeno's Paradox?  No.  Zeno's paradox is resolved by showing that integration or an infinite series of decreasing terms can sum to a finite result.  >Nothing can get out of a black hole because >the escape velocity is the speed of light. I don't know how time dialation >can prevent matter spiraling in from getting to the event horizon. Can any- >one explain how matter gets in.  Well, suppose a probe emitting radiation at a constant frequency was sent towards a black hole.  As it got closer to the event horizon, the red shift would keep increasing.  The period would get longer and longer, but it would never stop.  An observer would not observe the probe actually reaching the event horizon.  The detected energy from the probe would keep decreasing, but it wouldn't vanish.  Exp(-t) never quite reaches zero.  I guess the above probably doesn't make things any more clear, but hopefully you will get the general idea maybe.
In article <26APR199315363120@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: >In article <1993Apr26.022246.18294@scubed.com>, wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins) writes... >>>In article <C5w7CA.M3s@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes: >>>>If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art >>>>automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal." >>>>[Carl Stern, Justice Department] > >>In article <1r7hmlINNc6@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >>>Yeah.  In a fire that reportedly burned hotter than 1000 degrees-- hot >>>enough to make the bodies still unidentifiable-- the authorities found >>>a gun that was recognizably fully-automatic and state of the art. >>>Isn't that CONVEEEENIENT? > > >>Assuming the most favorable interpretation of your '1000 degree' >>measurement (that the temperature is in Centigrade, rather than the >>more common -in the US- Fahrenheit), you are still laboring under at >>least 2 misconceptions: > >>1.  You seem to believe that steel melts somewhere around 1000 C. >>    Actually, the melting point of most iron alloys (and steels are >>    iron alloys) is in the neighborhood of 1400 C.  Even if the gun >>    were found in area which achieved the 1000 C temperature, the steel >>    parts of the gun would not be deformed, and it would still be >>    trivial to identify the nature of the weapon. > >	Steel may not melt at 1000C, but it will weaken, expand and deform. >	If there is enough of a load on the steel, like the load on a steel >	roof truss, or the pressure exerted by steel parts in a machine >	trying to expand against each other, the steel can and will >	deform extensively. For the record, any weapon found in >	the cult compound should be indentifiable, but it may be >	impossible to do normal ballistics tests because of the  >	damage done to the weapon.  	 If, if, if....  Anyway, the question was if the gun was identifiable, which it is.  -Tim >  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
In a previous article, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) says:  >... or consider the thousands in Central America killed by those brave >CIA/NSC sponsored "Freedom Fighters." > >Thus far, Slick Willie is a piker.         ONLY if you weight Americans equal to SAlvadorans.