waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <RN652B5w165w@tweekco.uucp>, alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard) wrote: > Judging from postings I've read all over Usenet and on non-Usenet > BBs conferences, Barney is DEFINITELY an endangered species. Especially > if he runs into me in a dark alley.  Please, please don't make Barney to a modern martyr/saviour mythical figure. I detest this being, and if humans will create a religion in his name, then life will be unbearable :-).  Cheers, Kent
I give up.  What's new about yet another interpretation of the odl Adam and Eve story?       -- Michael
In article <1r3570$hkv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: |> In article <1r2ls3$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> #|>  |> #|> #This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people |> #|> #is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged |> #|> #to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so |> #|> #we have to bear the moral consequences of that. |> #|>  |> #|> Since both statements, to all intents and purposes, say effectively |> #|> the same thing,  |> # |> #Are you serious?  Two statements, one of which says that use of force |> #in the given situation is moral, and the other of which says it is |> #not moral "say effectively the same thing?" |>  |> Yes, when you tag on the "Unfortunately, ...", then to all intents and |> purposes you are saying the same thing.  Then delete the "unfortunately".   Now tell me that the two statement say effectively the same thing.  And to save everyone a couple of trips round this loop, please notice that we are only obliged to use force to preserve self.   We can choose *not* to preserve self, which is the point of pacifism.  |>  |> #Would you say this of any two statements, one saying "X is moral" and |> #the other saying "X is immoral?"   How would you decided when two  |> #statements "X is moral" "X is immoral" actually conflict, and when |> #they "say effectively the same thing". |>  |> What they prescribe that one should do is a pretty good indicator.  And in this case they don't prescribe the same things, so.....  |>  |> #|>                  and lead one to do precisely the same thing, then  |> #|> either both statements are doublespeak, or none. |> # |> #They might lead you to do the same thing, but the difference is what |> #motivates pacifism so they obviously don't lead pacifists to to the |> #same thing. |>  |> That's not true.  You could formulate a pragmatic belief in minimum  |> force and still be a pacifist.  If the minimum is 0, great  - but one is |> always trying to get as close to 0 force as possible under that belief. |> Not the same as 'force is immoral, period', but still tending to pacifism.  If you don't think the use of force is immoral, why minimise its use?
In article <1r69b7INN539@lynx.unm.edu> cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes: >In article <1r4b59$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu>, ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes: >********NOTE: FOLLOWUPS go to alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins! > >[deleted] >> If I make a statement, "That God exists, loves me, etc." but in no way >> insist that you believe it, does that place a burden of proof upon me. >> If you insist that God doesn't exist, does that place a burden of proof  >> upon you?  I give no proofs, I only give testimony to my beliefs.  I will >> respond to proofs that you attempt to disprove my beliefs. > >If you say X statement and give it the authority of fact, I will respond >by asking you why. You aren't obligated to say anything, but if your >intent is to convince me that X statement is true, then yes, the burden >of proof is upon you.   If what was being discussed could be established or disproven by  experiment and observation, then I would agree with you, Chris.   The burden of proof would belong to Bill. But the source document for Christianity, the Bible, simply assumes God exists and makes it clear (to us Calvinists, anyway :-)) that when a person is in fellowship with God, it is because God has taken the initiative in revealing Himself to that person. So from a Christian point of view, the burden of proof belongs to God. Bill is being consistent with what the Bible teaches in relating his own experience with God, but it would be an error on his part to assume that there is a direct, causal relationship between his testimony and someone else becoming convinced that God exists and that he needs to be reconciled to God.  > >If you are merely giving testimony to your beliefs, then you are an egotist.  Please excuse me if I missed an earlier part of this thread in which Bill came across like an egotist. What I saw was simply obedience to the scriptural command to "always be ready to give a reason for the joy that is in you".
But as many as received him, 	to them gave he power 	to become the sons of God, 	even to them that believe on his name:
In article <C62B7n.6B4@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: |> In <1ren9a$94q@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)  |> writes: |>  |> >In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike  |> Cobb) writes: |> >>Why is the NT tossed out as info on Jesus.  I realize it is normally tossed |> >>out because it contains miracles, but what are the other reasons? |>  |> > It is not tossed out as a source, but would it be regarded as |> >unbiased and independant?  |>  |> This brings up another something I have never understood.  I asked this once |> before and got a few interesting responses, but somehow didn't seem satisfied. |> Why would the NT NOT be considered a good source.  Contradicting itself on facts, for example.
In article <1rbh3n$hav@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes: >In article <1993Apr24.002509.4017@midway.uchicago.edu> >eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:  >>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone* >>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?  >>Non-religious reasons for having a "moment of silence" for a dead >>classmate: (1) to comfort the friends by showing respect to the >>deceased , (2) to give the classmates a moment to grieve together, (3) >>to give the friends a moment to remember their classmate *in the >>context of the school*, (4) to deal with the fact that the classmate >>is gone so that it's not disruptive later.  >Yeah, all well and good. The fact is, though, that the pro-school >prayer types have tried to use a moment of silence as a way >to get prayer back. At my high school for instance, our dear >principal ended the moment of silence with "Amen."  I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require  opposing a moment of silence.  >I'll back off when they do.  Does anybody else besides me see a vicious circle here?  I guarantee you the people who want school prayer aren't going to back off when they can't even manage to get a quiet moment for their kids to pray silently.
In article <1quim9INNem8@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes: > > >rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes: > >>Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the >>Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical >scholar I mean >>an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let >the >>chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may >otherwise be >>defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find.  >They are >>not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others). > >I've seen this claim about the "Josephus insert" flying around the >net too often to continue to ignore it.  Perhaps it's true.  Was >there only one Josephus manuscipt?  If there were, say, 100 copies, >the forger would have to put his insert into all of them.  By the >same token, since Josephus was a historian, why are biblical scholars >raising the flag?  Historical scholars , I would think, would have >a better handle on these ancient secular documents.  Can you give  >researchers documents (page numbers, etc)? > >Jack  I became aware of the claim years ago.  So I decided to check it out, on my own.  But, then, that was in BN times (Before Net).  So, here are some  references.  See Robin Lane Fox's _The unauthorized version_, (p.284) where  Lane Fox writes, "... the one passage which appears to [comment on Jesus'  career] is agreed to be a Christian addition."  In my Re:Albert Sabin response (C5u7sJ.391@sunfish.usd.edu) to Jim Lippard (21 April 93), I noted that consensus is typically indicated subtly as in Elaine  Pagel's _The gnostic gospels_ (p.85), to wit:  "A comment *attributed* to Josephus reports ... [emphasis mine]".  Scholars sometimes do not even mention the two Josephus entries, another subtlety reflecting consensus.  So far as I can deduce, today's consensus is built on at least three things:  1) the long passage is way out of context, 2) Origen did not know about the long passage, and 3) the short and long passages are contradictory.  I don't know the references wherein the arguments which led to consensus are orginally developed (does anyone?).  Biblical scholars as I defined them include theologians and historians.  The former, like the latter, incorporate historical, social, technological and ideological contexts as well as theology.  So the distinction is blurred.  I  didn't elaborate on that.  Sorry.  (In turn, historians are compelled to incorporate theology).  Can't say about the number of copies.  These were, however, BG times (Before  Gutenburg).  A hundred first editions seems exceedingly high; counting on one  hand seems more reasonable.  Perhaps those mss. without the long insert (if any, because anything is possible) have been destroyed.  Such a practice is  certainly not foreign to religions.  Anyway, all we have are mss. which have  the two entries.  Lippart (in the message noted above) talks about an Arabic  ms.  But here the ms. date is critical.  :-)
In article <1993Apr10.195513.17991@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes: >In article <cocoaC5797E.43y@netcom.com>, cocoa@netcom.com (little 'e') writes: > [deleted] >> Here tis.  Someone just told me that the Old Testament books were translated >> into Greek a long time ago > >   Yes, that's a famous version called The Septuagint.  It was a translation >made by Greek Jews. > >> and that the originals were destroyed in a fire soon afterward. > >   I don't know what you're referring to here.  When the Jersusalem Temple was >destroyed, some manuscripts may have been lost, but I think our extant Hebrew >manuscripts are as good as our Greek ones.  I don't know about any "originals".  The person who was telling me about the Septuagint version said that the Greeks had a wonderful library in Alexandria that was full of manuscripts/scrolls and that it was burned soon after the Septuagint version was translated  (perhaps to conceal some changes in the different versions, or perhaps just as part of the typical burning of valuable things that occurs during changes in power groups, he/I dunno).  >> So, I was just wondering, since I imagine some Jewish people somewhere must  >> have had copies of the earlier Hebrew versions, is the Hebrew version of the  >> Old Testament very different from the Greek derived version?  >   No.  There are a few famous discrepancies (Isaiah's prophecy about a "young >woman" was changed into a "virgin", which was how the New Testament writers >read it), but not many.  Well, perhaps this is the answer then.  [deleted] >   If you go to a Jewish bookstore, you'll get a Bible translated by Jews, so >there will be some differences in interpretation, but the text they're  >translating *from* is basically the same. > >   If you want to read "the original", you can buy an Interlinear Bible.  That >contains the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, with an English >translation written underneath each word. > >   If you want a Bible with a possibly-more-original basic text, you can try >to find a Samaritan bible.  (Good luck!  I've never seen one.)  The Samaritans  >(no, not the Good Samaritans) have their own version of the 5 Books of Moses. >They claim the Jewish bible was altered by Ezra.  Thanks for the tips.  Now I just have to find someone to teach me Samaritan :)  Just me,  little 'e'  (so, is a "good Samaritan hard to find?" or "is a hard... " Oh, finish this yourself.)
In <dlphknob.734986640@camelot> dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu writes:
In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:  >Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed >for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the   Seems to be, barring evidence to the contrary, that Koresh was simply another deranged fanatic who thought it neccessary to take a whole bunch of folks with him, children and all, to satisfy his delusional mania. Jim Jones, circa 1993.  >In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption. >Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten?  Nope - fruitcakes like Koresh have been demonstrating such evil corruption for centuries.
In <hfk5iji@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:  >markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes: >|In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:  >|>There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that. >|Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say:  >|Bullshit.  >Oh, lawdy.  If that experience didn't teach you that your >perceptions are always going to get between you & "reality",  It sure did!  >I don't know what will.  Have you read anything about how >your brain works?  About various sensory illusions you can >be tricked by?    I have; and all the above teach me that accurately perceiving reality  is a tricky business -- _not_ that there's no reality.  >--- >C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us >"Last Friday, April 16, 1943, I was forced to interrupt my work in the >laboratory in the middle of the afternoon and proceed home, being affected >by a remarkable restlessness, combined with a slight dizziness." >--Albert Hofmann -- Mark Pundurs
judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- objectively subjective) writes:  >Question:  Is there any effective difference between:  >"Objective values exist, and there is disagreement over what they are"  >and  >"Values are subjective?"  >I don't see any.  The first means that some aspect of reality contains objective values. The second means that values are a reference to some preference of the individual.  In the first case, it is possible that some future discovery might invalidate certain views re what objective values are.  --
> Tell me are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending.  Tell me are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending.   > I have fire insurance that I hope I never have to use.  A fire insurance is not an offensive weapon.  > I have a spare tire in my trunk that I hope I never have to use.  A spare tire is not an offensive weapon.  		 	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?
In article <1993Apr22.125956.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes: >In article <1r477q$1vk@sbctri.sbc.com>, tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion) writes: >  >> Please explain how Koresh was defending himself from those children who >> burned.   > >Who ever said he was? What is obvious is that he was defending himself, and his >followers, from the government.  Whether you think he was right or wrong in >this is another question.  If he was right, then he had the moral right to kill >those kgBATF agents. >--Ray Cote >  The killing of the ATF agents is a separate issue.  My point is that many children died because of Koresh defending himself.  Did he have what you call the "moral right" to keep those children in a dangerous enviroment in order to defend himself?
In article <9304141620.AA01443@dangermouse.mitre.org> jmeritt@mental.mitre.org writes:  >Leviticus 21:9 >And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the >whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.  >Deuteronomy 22:20-21 >...and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall >bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of the >city shall stone her with stones that she die...  >Deuteronomy  22:22 >If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall >both of them die...  >Deuteronomy 22:23-24 >If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her >in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the >gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die...  >Deuteronomy 22:25 >BUT if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, >and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.  IF it were'nt for the sin of men, none of this killing would have been  necesarry, He is KIND and LOVING, but also RIGHTEOUS,  SIN MUST BE PUNISHED.  Before Jesus, man had to take the sins on himself. But Jesus died and took it all upon Him, so now we also have a FORGIVING GOD.
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.
In article <C5uEED.48D@apollo.hp.com>,  nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes...  >In article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes: >>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes: >>> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes: >>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure, >>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast, >>>  >>> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his >>> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people. >> >>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths? >>  >>> Koresh was a nut, okay?   >> >>Again, I'd like to see some evidence. >  >  Nut or not, he was clearly a liar.  He said he would surrender after >  local radio stations broadcast his message, but he didn't.  Then he >  said he would surrender after Passover, but he didn't.  The rest of the story seems to be that the agreement for the broadcast was for prime-time, and that Koresh never even heard it played. Wasn't even tuned in to the radio when it aired -- so no reason to come out.  If later they had given him a copy of the grossly twisted newswire  transcript -- I'm certain Koresh would think he was at the mercy of evil itself.   As to coming out after Passover, wasn't that just one of the lawyer's speculations Peter?
In article <1r59na$e81@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >In article <1993Apr21.141259.12012@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes: >|> In article <1r2m21$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: ... >> Ok, so you don't claim to have an absolute moral system.  Do you claim >> to have an objective one?  I'll assume your answer is "yes," apologies >> if not. > >I've just spent two solid months arguing that no such thing as an >objective moral system exists. > >jon.  Apologies, I've not been paying attention.
In response to: Whitten@Fwva.Saic.Com (David Whitten):  I wrote:  >>There evidently was a feast of bread and wine associated with Mithras.  I >>have often wondered if Yeshua intentionally introduced this ritual to >>expand the appeal of his religion, or if it was appropriated by later >>worshipers.  And you responded:  >You could argue that if you wanted, but I think a more reasonable  >argument would point out the fact that the remembrance feast was >very similar to the Pesach (Passover) meal during Seder, a very >Jewish ritual.  Of course.  The feast WAS the Seder, and the accounts of it are very clear on this point.  The difference is the connection between the bread and wine and the body and blood of god.  This is an old association of the Tammuz/Osiris/Mithras line, and not really related to Judaism.  In any case, I didn't really intend to argue the point.  I saw a possible association and pointed it out, but I haven't the foggiest notion what really happened.
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. -- "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 <1993Apr21.141259.12012@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes: |> In article <1r2m21$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> >In article <1993Apr19.151902.21216@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes: > >Just as well, then, that I'm not claiming that my own moral system is > >absolute. > > > >jon. > > > >[list of references stretching from here to Alpha Centauri deleted.] > > Jon- > > [and I thought to impress with my references!] > > Ok, so you don't claim to have an absolute moral system.  Do you claim > to have an objective one?  I'll assume your answer is "yes," apologies > if not.  I've just spent two solid months arguing that no such thing as an objective moral system exists.
Actually if Mr X had something to gain by his claims his account of the events would nmot be the most respected. Case and point, the resurrection. By claiming that the resurrection actually happened the early preachers were able to convert many to Christianity. However, if you read Mathew 27:38 (?) and the case for the resurrected saints who walked around Jerusalem and appeared to "many People" you would realize that other historians (Josephus for one) would have reported on it all if it happened. The fact that the Bible speaks of events of such great magnitude that they would have been noticed taken with the fact that they are not reported on by historians could only mean that the bible contains many made up stories.
Brian Kendig says:  > 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 Kendig also declares:  > "Christ" means "chosen", the person chosen to fulfill the prophesies > of the Old Testament and bring about a new age of hope and spiritual > growth for mankind.  "Christ" is Greek for "Messiah".  "Messiah" means "Annointed One". "Annoint" means "to rub with oil, i.e. to anoint; by impl. to consecrate"     The major prophet Daniel uses the word "Messiah" in Daniel chapter 9.
Petri and Mathew,  Your discusion on the "reality" of atoms is interesting, but it would seem that you are verging on the question "Is anything real": that is, since observation is not 100% reliable, how can we say that anything is "real".  I don't think this was the intention of the original question, since you now define-out the word "real" so that nothing can meet its criteria. Just a thought.  Brian /-|-\