waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
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?  Only my common sense.  The fire was caused by either Koresh and his followers or by the FBI/ATF/CIA/KGB/and maybe the Harper Valley PTA.  Since you are throwing around the evidence arguement, I'll throw it back.  Can you prove any government agency did it?  (Please don't resort to "they  covered it up so that proves they did it" or any wild theories about how the government agencies intentionally started the fire.  The key words are proof and evidence.) proves they did it"  > >> All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff. > >I'd like to point out that the Bible says "Do not commit murder." The NKJ >translation mistranslates.  Self-defense was never considered murder.  The  Please explain how Koresh was defending himself from those children who burned.
In article <1qh4m5INN2pu@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) wrote: > Not exactly.  The prophesy clearly implies that people would > still be living in the area, but by the same token it would > never be "rebuilt".  Obviously , if people are still there they > would live in houses, correct?  Their "nets" implies a fishing > village.  This is exactly what it has become -- a far cry from > its original position of stature .  Let's see, if Alexander destroyed Tyre, and people move back, and they construct houses, and after a while 14000 people live there and still call it Tyre, it is not considered to be rebuilt. Instead it's considered to be 'just-some-people-that-got-together-for-fishing- and-they-needed-houses' place.  > So far I've seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000. > Let's assume the latter one is correct.  By modern standards > we are talking about a one-horse town.  Sigh, I was never born in a city then (my home town has 10.000 people). I have to consult my city and inform them that it's from now a fishing village. When this city (Kristinestad) was founded in the 17:th century about 1000 people lived there, so the norms were even more bizarre for dumb Swedish queens who founded cities along the coast of Finland.  I would like to know why Paul thought is was worth mentioning the  small fishing place of Tyre in Acts. Again, maybe he was a keen fisherman and wanted to visit the shores of Tyre? :-)  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr20.143400.569@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: > Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call > themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD's contradicted scripture > in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps > you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any > true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any > association with the BD's.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any > further ties with this cult, which was what they were.  Well, if they were Satanists, or followers of an obscure religion, then I would be sure that Christians would in unison condemn and  make this to a show case. But when we are dealing with a fanatical Revelation preacher that kills ultimately everyone, including the innocent children, then it seems that we are dealing with Christians  and christians (note the spelling).   > Do you judge all Muslims by the acts committed by Saddam Hussein, a  > supposedly devout Muslim?  I don't.  Saddam is just a dictator using > the religious beliefs of his people to further his own ends.  And does not this show the dangers with religion -- in order  word a mind virus that will make mothers capable of letting their small children burn to ashes while they scream?  Cheers, Kent
In article <sandvik-190493200858@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: |> In article <1993Apr19.165717.25790@ra.royalroads.ca>, |> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: |> >  |> > It is true what you stated above:  Jesus' saving grace is available to |> > everyone, not just Jews.  In other words, everyone can have salvation but |> > not everyone will.  This option is now open to people other than just |> > Jews.  Of course, if the Jews don't accept the deity of Christ, I would |> > hardly expect them to accept anything that Christ said.  But I don't feel |> > any animosity towards them.  Even though they persecuted Jesus and his |> > disciples and eventually crucified Him, I bear them no ill will.  If anything, |> > I feel pity for them.  Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins and |> > so the Jews were merely fulfilling prophesy.  Jesus knew He had to die even |> > before He began His ministry.  That demonstrates the great depth of His love |> > for us. |>  |> Jesus certainly demonstrated the great depth of his love for the |> children who died today at the Davidian complex. |>  |> Sorry, but the events today made me even more negative concering |> organized religion. |>   I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT Jesus Christ as he claimed.  God be with you,  Malcolm Lee  :)
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.    None of which excuses the gross incompetence and disregard for the   safety of the children displayed by the feds.   As someone else   pointed out, if it had been Chelsea Clinton in there you would    probably have seen more restraint.
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.   > I'll type this very slowly so that you can understand.  He either set > the fire himself or told his followers to do so.  Don't make him out to > be a martyr.  He did not "get killed", he killed himself.  Once again, where's your proof? Suicide is considered a sin by Branch Davidians.  Also, Koresh said over and over again that he was not going to commit suicide.  Furthermore, all the cult experts said that he was not suicidal.  David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities knocked over a lantern.   > The evil was inside the compound.    Evidence please?  > All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.  I'd like to point out that the Bible says "Do not commit murder." The NKJ translation mistranslates.  Self-defense was never considered murder.  The reason why they were stockpiling weapons is because they were afraid the government would try something.  Their fears were obviously well founded. --Ray Cote
In article <nyikos.735335582@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) says: > >In <syt5br_@rpi.edu> rocker@acm.rpi.edu (rocker) writes: > >>In <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) >writes: > >>>If one is paying for a PRIVATE health insurance plan and DOES NOT WANT >>>"abortion coverage" there is NO reason for that person to be COMPLELLED >>>to pay for it.  (Just as one should not be compelled to pay for lipposuction >>>coverage if ONE doesn't WANT that kind of coverage). > >>You appear to be stunningly ignorant of the underlying concept of health >>insurance. > >Are you any less stunningly ignorant?  Have you ever heard of life >insurance premiums some companies give in which nonsmokers are charged >much smaller premiums than smokers? > >Not to mention auto insurance being much cheaper for women under 25 than >for men under 25, because women on the average drive more carefully >than most men--in fact, almost as carefully as I did before I was 25.  As many people have mentioned, there is no reason why insurers could not offer a contract without abortion services for a different premium. The problem is that there is no guarantee that this premium would be lower for those who chose this type of contract.  Although you are removing one service, that may have feedbacks into other types of covered care which results in a net increase in actuarial costs.  For an illustrative example in the opposite direction, it may be possible to ADD services to an insurance contract and REDUCE the premium.  If you add preventative services and this reduces acute care use, then the total premium may fall.
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?
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.    It isn't.   It's usually treated as being about as reliable as any other single, uncorroborated source of information about a person for whom there is no other evidence.  |> I realize it is normally tossed out because it contains  |> miracles, but what are the other reasons?  What do you mean when you say it contains mirables.    I just opened mine and not a damned thing happened.   Is there some special way to do this?
f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:  >In article <watson.735759766@mariner.sce.carleton.ca>, watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes: >> Question for those of you who seem to be fundamentalists (Stephen >> Tice, the Cotera, Joe Gaut, et al)(apologies if I've mislabelled any >> of you, I've only started reading t.r.m since the BD disaster.  But I >> know the Cotera is a fundy) and are defending Koresh and his beliefs >> as an example of True Christianity under persecution from the the Big >> Bad Secular State: what is your opinion of his reported sexual habits? >> If the reports are accurate, what IYO does this say about the quality of >> his Christianity?  Or are the allegations just part of the Big >> Cover-Up?  >Thank you, Steve.  It is refreshing to have someone accuse me of being >a Christian.  I only hope enough evidence can be garnered to get a >conviction.  I am not certain what you mean by the "fundy" part as the >term fundamentalist has a wide variety of uses.  If you refer to  I use it to refer to those Christians who take a more conservative-literalist approach to the Bible, as distinct from "liberals".  >those who actually believe Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God and >wish to follow in his way, then I plead guilty.  But what does it  I would use the word "Christian" (unqualified) to describe someone to whom the above definition applied.  BTW, it applies to me.  [deletia: Joe Gaut indicates his interest in the BD disaster is from a civil liberties issue, not an attempt to justify Koresh's beliefs and/or practices.]  I agree with Joe about this: if some group wants to believe in whatever god or Invisible Pink Unicorns and go off and live together and have group sex, or no sex, or sex only for the leaders (but NOT with children), then, as much as I might believe them to be misguided, I think they should have the legal right.  And I hope the investigation will start by determining whether the feds had any *legitimate* reason for going after Koresh in the first place (before moving on to consider the wisdom of various tactics used).  [Joe goes on to dispute the child-abuse allegations.  I'll (provisionally) accept this, unless someone has evidence to support the allegations?]  Actually I wasn't thinking about the (alleged) child abuse, but about the reports that he had sex with, and fathered children by, several women in the cult.  I agree this is not a legal matter - consenting adults and all that - but Stephen Tice seems to be defending Koresh's beliefs and practices from specifically *Christian* perspective, not a civil liberties perspective.    I think my question is not really aimed at Joe (and possibly not at Ray Cote either, who seems to also be taking the political angle), but at Stephen Tice.
> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes: >> royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree) writes:  >> >In article <keng.735334134@tunfaire> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes: >> >[lotsa stuff taken out] >>  >> >Bottom line: due process was not served.  No peaceful attempt to serve >> >a warrant occurred. >>  >> The peaceful attempt to serve the warrant was met with gunfire. Due process >> was not served because the Branch Davidians wanted it that way. >>  >> *You* think on that.  I am not exactly known as a Flower Child Pacifist, but lets call cowpoop cowpoop.  "The peaceful attempt to serve the warrant" consisted of the following actions, in order:  1) BATF agents forcing their entry of the "compound" through second story windows.  2) BATF agents loosing some grenades (allegedly "stun" or "flash" grenades) which promptly detonated.  *After* which, according to the tapes I have seen, the B-D started shooting back.  Now exactly how is it that someone breaking into private property and tossing grenades around is considered "peaceful" by *anyone*? You *think* on that.  (Which is not to say I do not still hold my previous and entirely correct notions about what should be worn and what arms should be used in assaulting a building.)
In article <19APR199310484591@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes: >Now that chemical-warfare and the use of juggernauts have been >used against innocents -- so likewise are those involved subject >to their own judgments. The same goes for those who lead others  >into captivity -- whether behind strands of barbed-wire, or webs  >of deceit. >  Yeah. Innocents. People who hoard $250K worth of high-caliber automatic weapons and kill law-enforcement agents really fit the bill here. The only innocents were the 20+ children who were prevented from leaving a burning building by their self-appointed messiah-following parents. A burning STARTED by the  Davidians.   >Such is the patience and faith of the saints. > >So let them continue -- for the one-who-rewards them according >to what their works shall be -- comes quickly.  > >The evidence continues to mount, which all seems to follow  >step-by-step quite logically to me.  > >   | >-- J -- >   | >   | stephen >  Is this subject line a veiled threat against U.S. Government agents or possibly Executive office leadership (i.e. Clinton)? I've considered you a bit of a loon, before, Stephen, I guess this pretty much confirms it.   Nice religion you have there.  The only ones who should be killed are those who don't agree with us. Sheesh.   --  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Hyatt                                  I'm a diehard Saints fan, so i've    thyat@sdf.lonestar.org                     suffered quite enough, thank you!    Arlington, TX                                                                                                                                                    Help! I'm being repressed!  -M.Python                                          -------------------------------
>Capser, before you deceive everone into thinking that the latter-day >saints have undergone undue persecution through the years for just >believing in their religion, perhaps you would like to tell us all what >happened in the Mountain Meadow Massacres and all the killings that were >done under the Blood Atonement Doctrine, at the command of Brigham Young?  Why don't you tell us, Tony?  I'm sure what you THINK you know adds up to a lot more than what Casper has.  Doesn't it frustrate you to consider how many intelligent, thoughtful  people you have prepared for the Mormon missionaries with your rant?  The more you talk, the better we look.  Nothing makes the truth look better than a background of falsehood.  Sic 'em, Tony!
Hello.   I just read my first newspaper in a while and noticed an article on a 'messianic cult' leader named 'David Koresh'.  I'd like to know more about this and what is going on with them.  Please email me as I don't normally read this newsgroup.  Thanks.
In article <sandvik-200493235610@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: |> In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca |> (Malcolm Lee) wrote: |> > I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very |> > sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch |> > Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac |> > cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man, |> > the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT |> > Jesus Christ as he claimed. |>  |> The interesting notion is that (I watched TV tonight) Koresh never |> claimed officially to be Jesus Christ. His believers hoped that  |> he would be, but he never took this standpoint himself. |>  |> He was more interested in breaking the seven seals of Revelation, |> and make sure that Armageddon would start. Well it did, and 19 |> children died, and no God saved them. |>  |> Kent |> --- |> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.  And does it not say in scripture that no man knows the hour of His coming, not even the angels in Heaven but only the Father Himself?  DK was trying to play God by breaking the seals himself.  DK killed himself and as many of his followers as he could.  BTW, God did save the children.  They are in Heaven, a far better place.  How do I know?  By faith.  God be with you,
>  hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (Bill Hamilton) writes: > >cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes: > >>ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes:  > >********NOTE: FOLLOWUPS go to alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins! > > > >[deleted] > >[more deleted] > >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.  >  >[some interesting stuff, on the lines of the burden of proof belongs 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".   The remainder of my article deleted stated why. One would be an egotist to believe that someone CARED about what Bill R. thought he needed to say about God. Whether they did or not is irrelevant.
In article <79895@cup.portal.com>, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) wrote: > They are considered different and largely unrelated by a number of > sources.  I've seen documentation which links them through the figure > of H. Spencer Lewis.  Lewis was apparently involved with Reuss, who > was the O.H.O. of Ordo Templi Orientis for many years.  Apparently it > is also true that Lewis had a charter to form an O.T.O. body and then > created A.M.O.R.C. (as a subsidiary?  an interesting question).  If anyone is interested in the history of AMORC, I do think Spencer Lewis published books about the beginning and his mission. The  Alexandria bookstore (that's the name of the book store operated  by AMORC) should have a selection that should provide the interested reader more insight).   Cheers, Kent
In article <1rfg06$8mm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) wrote: > In the hands of a defender, a .357 _is_ a miracle from God.  He helps those  > who help themselves.  Or haven't you ever heard that one before?  I didn't know God was a secular humanist...  Kent
In article <1qknu0INNbhv@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes: >In article <f1VMPxk@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes: >>In article <bskendigC5H4o3.D5p@netcom.com>  >> >>Human blood sacrifice! Martyrdom of an innocent virgin! "Nailed" to a >>wooden pole! What is this obsession with male menstruation? > >Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb. >Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull. > >If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion, >do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been >reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not >on the Endangered Species List.   > >  How about Cockroaches?
In article <1r4cvpINNkv2@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes: >  > kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes: >  > > Let's say that we drop a marble into the black hole.  It races, ever faster, > >towards the even horizon.  But, thanks to the curving of space caused by the > >excessive gravity, as the object approaches the event horizon it has > further to > >travel.  Integrating the curve gives a time to reach the event horizon > of . . . > >infinity.  So the math says that nothing can enter a black hole.  Isn't that just a variation of the "Achilles & the turtle" paradox, which states that achilles could never possibly overtake a turtle?  		 	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 <markp.735230393@elvis.wri.com> markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:   >>Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call >>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes >>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All >>of which is subjective. > >Omigod, it's an operationalist! Sorry, Jim, but the idea that a theory >explaining a myriad of distinctly different observations is merely a >"model" is more than sensible people can accept -- your phobia about >objective reality notwithstanding.     The point about its being real or not is that one does not waste time with what reality might be when one wants predictions. The questions if the atoms are there or if something else is there making measurements indicate atoms is not necessary in such a system.   And one does not have to write a new theory of existence everytime new models are used in Physics.