waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <9157@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes: }For those missing the context of this thrilling discussion between }Jim and I, Jim wrote the following to me in e-mail after I pointed out  Hate to shatter your self image of perfection that  you appear to hold, but your language is wrong: Jim and me.  }I pointed out that I did, in fact, agree that both Robert Weiss and }Jim Meritt took quotes out of context.  Hence, I find it difficult to }understand why Jim thinks I am a hypocrite.  Needless to say, I don't }have time to reply to *every* article on t.r.m. that takes a quote }out of context.    Of course not - just the ones you disagree with.  Q.E.D.  }>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for }>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a }>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context? } }Jim replied by saying  }>Did I either ask or assert that? } }But today we find four articles from Jim, one of which has the subject  So?  As of then, and pointing out a specific instance.  Wrongo again.  }>Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of }>something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual }>may be held responsible for that action? } }Which is, of course, a complete red herring.  Taking quotes out of }context isn't a crime.  I don't have time to read every article on }t.r.m., and I'm certainly under no obligation to reply to them all.  So?  Check the newsgroups?  }Does "silence is concurrence" imply that Jim thinks that because I }didn't respond to Weiss' articles I must condone Weiss' taking quotes }out of context?  Jim doesn't want to give a direct answer to this }question; read what he has written and decide for yourself.  Telepathy again?  You claim to know what I "want".  }But back to the context of my conversation with Jim.  Jim's next  }gambit was to claim that he was using inductive logic when he }concluded that I was being a hypocrite.  I challenged him to provide }the details of that logic that led him to an incorrect conclusion.  No.  YOu asked specifically what was wrong with yours.  }Today we find another obscure article (posting it twice didn't help  Maybe to the ignorant.  I accept your classification.  }More red herrings.  Could Jim mean that he has read an uncountably large }number of my articles?    Do you know what "uncountably large" means?  It does not appear so.  }Could Jim mean that because I "axed" his articles, }but not Weiss' articles, he wants to conclude inductively ... }Well, I can't see where he is going with this.  I am not suprised.  }But I can help him with his induction.  I've written roughly 80  That does not appear to be the case.  The appearance of your "Argument" is more like that Captain Kirk would have gotten from Mr. Spock - written by a stagehand at Paramount.  }Think hard about this Jim.  See the pattern?  Think harder.  Run it }through your induction engine and see what pops out.
In article <C64H4w.BFH@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>  bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote: >: [34mAnd now . . . [35mDeep Thoughts[0m >: 	[32mby Jack Handey.[0m >: [36mIf you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and your >: friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag would be >: to pretend you were swimming.[0m >Keith,  >As you must know by now there are no Escape Sequences here (ANSI or >otherwise). Once you enter here, your terminal beomes dumb. There's >something significant about all this ...  You are in the village. Many happy returns! Be seeing you!
>> There are a few groups that continue to believe Christians have to >> worship on the Sabbath (Saturday).  The best-known are the Seventh-Day >> Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.  They argue that Act 20:7 is not a >> regular worship service, but a special meeting to see Paul off, and >> that I Cor 16:2 doesn't explicitly say it's a regular worship service.  Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Christians are required to observe the Sabbath, whether it is on Saturday or Sunday.  The Sabbath was part of a Covenent between God and the Israelites and is not required for Christians.
In article <93109.211935ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET (Casper C. Knies) writes: > >Please allow me to explain myself.  In 1838, the governor of Missouri, >.............. > > >Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet >Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu >UCS Computer Facilities
In article <C5p660.36t@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes... >In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes: >>|> >|>  >>|> However, one highly biased account (as well as possibly internally  >>|> inconsistent) written over 2 mellenia ago, in a dead language, by fanatic >>|> devotees of the creature in question which is not supported by other more  >>|> objective sources and isnt  even accepted by those who's messiah this creature  >>|> was supposed to be, doesn't convince me in the slightest, especially when many >>|> of the current day devotees appear brainwashed into believing this pile of  >>|> guano... >> >>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring >>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if >>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and >>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian, >>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts >>        are very much in harmony.   >  >Bill, I 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). >  >Why an insert?  Read it - I have, a number of times.  The passage is glaringly >out of context, and Josephus, a superb writer, had no such problem elsewhere  >in his work.  The passage has *nothing* to do with the subject matter in which  >it lies.  It suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears.  I think this is a weak argument.  The fact is, there are *two* references to Jesus in _Antiquities of the Jews_, one of which has unquestionably at least been altered by Christians.  Origen wrote, in the third century, that Josephus did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, while the long passage says the opposite.  There is an Arabic manuscript of _Antiquities of the Jews_ which contains a version of the passage which is much less gung-ho for Jesus and may be authentic.    There is no question that Origen, in the third century, saw a reference to Jesus in Josephus.  There are no manuscripts of _Antiquities_ which lack the references.  It is possible that it was fabricated out of whole cloth and inserted, but I don't think it's very likely--nor do I think there is a consensus in the scholarly community that this is the case. (I know G.A. Wells takes this position, but that's because he takes the very small minority view that Jesus never existed.  And he is a professor of German, not of biblical history or New Testament or anything directly relevant to the historicity of Jesus.)
In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes: > > >     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider >the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought >the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier, >would amuse you all... > > >     The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern  >Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President >of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX  >77706.  >  <much drivel deleted> >     "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His  >disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message." >Page 30.  >  >     "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity  >through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen  >in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31.  <more drivel deleted> >     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>, > > >Tony    A Laugh?  Tony, this religeous bigot scares the shit out of me, and that any one bothers to listen to him causes me to have grave doubts about the future of just about anything.  Shades of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, and Charlie Manson.  --Uncle Wolf --Member Highland Lodge 748 F&AM (Grand Lodge of California) --Babtized a Southern Babtist --And one who has beliefs beyond the teachings of either.
In article <1r9mflINNak4@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) wrote: >          An example is the FBI report that several of the bodies found  >        in the rubble had bullet wounds.  The local coroner, who is  >        independent of the FBI, has so far found no bullet wounds!   According to CNN last night (Saturday 4/24/93) he has now found bullets in two of the corpses, in the head (that would indicate that the bullets were aimed at killing the humans).  Cheers, Kent
In article <C5uvqo.GB7@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes: >In article <sandvik-190493200323@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:  >>I'm mostly angry why the Davidians didn't spare the children the >>awful suffering. See my other posting, I'm in a bad temper.  >Well, dozens of children left the compound between the original BATF assualt >and the FBI assault 7 weeks later. So if Koresh really wanted to kill >children, why did he let so many go?  Word is that the ones he let go were not his. ---  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  ---------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS +1 214 596 2915, a Wildcat! BBS-------      "Foot" the Bill:  let's get a new President.
In article <1993Apr21.211312.7767@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: > In article <9601@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether) writes: > |> Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to  > |> bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."    > Remember the armor of God?  The sword that Christians wield is the > Word of God, the Bible.  Sorry Malcolm, but I rather believe Jesus than you.  Cheers, Kent
trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes: > Can a theist be truly objective?  Can he be impartial >      when questioning the truth of his scriptures, or >      will he assume the superstition of his parents >      when questioning?   I think that if a theist were truly objective and throws out the notion that God definitely exists and starts from scratch to prove to themselves that the scriptures are the whole truth then that person would no longer be a theist.   > It usually all has to do with how the child is >      brought up.  From the time he is born, the >      theist is brought up with the notion of the >      "truth" of some kind of scripture-- the Bible, >      the Torah, the Qur'an, & etc.  He is told >      of this wondrous God who wrote (or inspired) >      the scripture, of the prophets talked about in >      the scripture, of the miracles performed, & etc. >      He is also told that to question this (as >      children are apt to do) is a sin, a crime >      against God, and to lose belief in the scrip- >      ture's truth is to damn one's soul to Hell. >      Thus, by the time he is able to read the >      scripture for himself, the belief in its "truth" >      is so ingrained in his mind it all seems a >      matter of course.  You're missing something here.  There are people who convert from non-theism to theism after being brought up in a non-theist household.  (I don't have any statistics as to how many though.  That would be an interesting thing to know.)  I think that religion is a crutch.  People are naturally afraid of the unknown and the unexplainable.  People don't want to believe that when they die, they are dead, finished.  That there is nothing else after that.  And so religion is kind of a nice fantasy. Religion also describes things we don't know about the universe (things science has not yet described) and it also gives people a feeling of security... that if they just do this one thing and everything will be ok. That they are being watched over by a higher power and its minions.  This has a very high psychological attraction for quite a few people and these people are willing to put up with a few discrepancies and holes in their belief system for what it gains them.  This is why I think it's kind of useless to try too hard to convert theists to atheism.  They are happy with their fantasy and they feel that other people will be happy with it too (they can't accept the fact that there are people who would rather accept the harsh reality that they are running from).  Anyway, I'm getting kind of carried away here.  But my point is that theism doesn't have to be ingrained into a child's mindset for that person to grow up as a theist (although this happens far too often).  Theism is designed to have its own attractions.  >  >     _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist >    _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian >   _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality >        _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility > _/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...
In article <C5vGyD.H7s@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says: > >     "Orthodox" is a compound word. It comes from 'orthos' (straight, true, >     right) and from 'doxa' (opinion, doctrine, teaching). I use orthodox to >     refer to 'right teaching.' Right teaching is derived from letting God >     speak to us through the Bible. This can be from reading simple truths >     in the Scriptures and by using the Bible to interpret the Bible.    Thanks for the etymology lesson, but I actually know what "orthodox" means. You're avoiding my question, however, which was: From what body of theology does your version of orthodoxy come?  You seem to simply be saying that whatever *you* understand the Bible to say is "orthodox."  >ra> Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant? > >     I think that it is apparent from reading the Scriptures that are >     pertinent.    You are obviously mistaken, since many, many people have read the Bible and many do not agree with you on this point.  Once again, Robert, is your interpretation the only "correct" or "orthodox" one?  >ra> Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is >ra> challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to >ra> "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who >ra> see Biblical things differently from you? >  >     I seem to be seeing from you the notion that any difference in how one >     views the Bible is somehow legitimate, except, or course, for the stuff >     that I glean from it. Put forward a contrary view and perhaps we can >     have a discussion on that topic. But to decry something that I put >     forward, without putting forward something else to discuss, and to >     dismiss what I put forward while giving credence to other alleged views >     that have yet to be put forward is simply being contentious.     This whole string began as a response to your attacks on Mormonism; no one is attacking your personal beliefs, only your tendency to present them as "orthodoxy."  I don't much care *what* you believe about the Bible; just don't present you personal understanding as the only "orthodox" one.  > >ra> Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really >ra> understands it? > >     If you believe that something that I have drawn from Scripture is >     wrong, then please, show me from Scripture where it is wrong.  Simply >     stating that there are other views is not a proof. Show it to me from >     Scripture and then we can go on.     I have never attacked your specific beliefs -- that's *your* approach, remember?     Stating that other people who depend solely on the Bible have other views is indeed proof that the Bible can be interpreted many ways, which has been my whole point all along.  The specifics of your belief are your business; just don't pretend that they are anything more than your personal intepretation, and be careful about crying "heresy" based on your private belief system.  >============================= >Robert Weiss >psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
In article <C5x97x.1EA@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes: > >"No church will admit that I am right except  the  one  with  which  I  am >associated. This makes them witnesses against each other, and  how  can  I >decide in such a case as this, seeing they are all unlike  the  Church  of >Christ, as it existed in former days!" (p. 31). >  The idea of an apostacy did not originate with Lucy Smith or Joseph Smith or the Mormons.  The idea of a restoration was quite common in the early 19th century USA.  Alexander Campbell, founder of the group that now survives with the name "Disciples of Christ" preached that the primitive church had been lost and was attempting to restore it (although not be revelations).  Many Cambellites subsequently became Mormons, including co-founder Sidney Rigdon.  Actually, you can find such sentiments in many of the early protestants of the reformation, such as Martin Luther. --  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
In article <f2jjowk@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes: |> |> So, do you adhere to the Ten Commandments? |>  Jesus did and so do I.  Peace be with you,
In article <1r9dd7INNqfk@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes: >scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes: >>  For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog, >>and they list the following books by Francis Hitching: > >I believe I've just discovered an anthopological parallel.  In my many >"discussions" with the fundies, their main tactic is to discredit >my sources.  They shrilly bleat: [..]  Possibly the parallel just stems from your tending to use bad sources... Anyway, don't you think that similarity is rather shallow?  You're only looking at the surface, at the way of argumentation.   And now you should perhaps go a little deeper and try to find the difference, for example, find out whether you can find real science done by Hitching. If you can't, will you then admit that your attempt at quoting an authority has backfired?
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.
Matthew Huntbach writes: sm[?]>a real Christian unless you're born again is a very fundamental biblical sm[?]>conversion and regeneration are 'probably' part of some small USA-based cult  >the "born-again" tag often use it to mean very specifically >having undergone some sort of ecstatic experience (which can in >fact be very easily manufactured with a little psychological manipulation), >and are often insultingly dismissive of those whose >Christianity is a little more intellectual, is not the result  Some of these "cults", which seems like a rather dismissive term to me, are pretty big here in the USA.  Most of them are quite respectable & neiborly & do not resemble Branch Davidians in the least; confusing them is a mistake.  What about "live & let live", folks?  I'm sure we can uncover a few extremist loonies who are Catholic -- the anti-abortion movement in the USA seems to have a few hard cases in it, for example.  >I've often heard such people use the line "Catholics aren't >real Christians". Indeed, anyone sending "missionaries" to >Ireland must certainly be taking this line, for otherwise why >would they not be content for Christianity to be maintained in >Ireland in its traditional Catholic form?  I have to agree Matthew with this; I have certainly encountered a lot of anti-Catholic-religion propaganda & emotion (& some bigotry) from members of certain religious groups here.  They also practice their missionary work with zeal among Catholics in the United States, but to someone who is or was raised Catholic such rhetoric is pretty off-putting.  It may work better in an environment where there's a lot of popular anti-clericalism.  Follow-ups set elsewhere, this no longer seems very relevant to Celtic issues to me.
In article <1993Apr1.024850.20111@sradzy.uucp>, radzy@sradzy.uucp (T.O. Radzykewycz) writes:  > >>swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes: > >>>  666, the file permission of the beast. >  > >radzy@sradzy.uucp (T.O. Radzykewycz) writes: > >> Sorry, but the file permission of the beast is 600. > >>  > >> And the file permission of the home directory of the > >> beast is 700. >  > boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan) writes: > >Hey, radzy, it must depend on your system's access policy. > >I get: > >	$ ls -lg /usr/users > >	total 3 > >	drwxrwxrwx 22 beast    system       1536 Jan 01  1970 beast > >	drwxr-x--x 32 boylan   users        2048 Mar 31 09:08 boylan > >	drwxr-xr-x  2 guest    users         512 Sep 18  1992 guest > >	$ su > >	Password: > >	root $ su beast > >	beast $ umask > >	111 > >	beast $ ^D > >	root $ ^D > >	$  >  > Just a minute.... >  > 	$ grep beast /etc/passwd > 	beast:k5tUk76RAUogQ:497:0:Not Walt Disney!:/usr/users/beast: > 	$ mv /usr/users/beast/.profile /usr/users/beast/.profile, > 	$ echo umask 077 >> /usr/users/beast/.profile > 	$ cat > /usr/users/beast/.profile > 	chmod 700 /usr/users/beast > 	mv .mailrc .mailrc, > 	echo beast logged in | mail radzy%sradzy@jack.sns.com > 	mv .mailrc, .mailrc > 	mv /usr/users/beast/.profile, /usr/users/beast/.profile > 	^D > 	$ chmod 777 /usr/users/beast/.profile > 	$ cat /usr/users/beast/.profile, >> /usr/users/beast/.profile >  > <waits a while, finally gets mail.> >  > I think you made a mistake.  Check it again. >   I see . . . you're not running Ultrix!  	:-)  				- - Steve