waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <cjkC5sy5G.Ko4@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:   >This was obviously a lot different than the ordinary FBI adventure. > >I believe that the Federal officers had a conflict of interests here. > >Throught out the whole affair, it seamed to me that they were chiefly >concerned with saving face rather than saving lifes.  Its true that >The BD were resisting arrest and that they should have surrendered >when they first realized that these where federal officers.  But they >didn`t.   I'm not sure what you mean by 'saving face' unless you are confusing the FBI with the BATF who are the ones who were in charge of the original search warrant.   >But when they didn`t, the FBI should not have treated as a hostage >situation, it wasn't. > >I think  more discussions, possible independant negotiators, and >family intervention should have been used. > Independant Negotiators? What was there to negotiate? Any sort of plea bargin has to be brought to the court, the negotiators can't negotiate charges or sentences. FBI negotitators did make a deal for the Dividians to come out. Koresh showed he was not negotiating in good faith and there is no reason to believe independent negotiators would have done any better.
UN Resolution 666 guarantees humanitarian aid will get into Irag during the Gulf War.  Is this war over? Is aid getting in, or are they still trying to smoke out Saddam?  Is this the Middle East?  Are we talking religious war here?  Am I ranting?
In article <1rc1f3INN7rl@emx.cc.utexas.edu>  bill@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) writes: >If you would like to understand better the sort of behavior >that we saw in connection with the Waco tragedy, I'd strongly >recommend reading _When Prophecy Fails_, by Leon Festinger, >Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter (available as a Harper >Torchbook). It goes a long way towards explaining how a  >belief system can be so strong as to withstand even overwhelming >disconfirmatory evidence. At least, read the first chapter. >Interestingly, just as the Branch Davidians had roots in the >Seventh-Day Adventist movement, the SDAs themselves had their >roots in the Millerite movement of the first half of the 19th >century--a movement that expected the end of the world in 1843, >was disappointed when it did not take place, and wound up as >a church.
In article <1993Apr13.025426.22532@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >In article <47749@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> shopper@ucsd.edu writes: >> >>Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of christian-owned >>corporations and companies?  One that I know of is WordPerfect. > >I believe that WordPerfect is actually owned by the Mormons. Sorry, but Mormons aren't generally considered to be Christians.
In article <C4uzus.FKp@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes: >lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes: >> Unlike kleptomaniacs and adulterers homosexuals hurt no one by having sex >> with the same sex.  > >What about the homosexual whose family does not accept that decision and >is hurt (emotionally) by it?  Good question.  I don't have a nice concise answer, though.  What about the child whose parents are crushed emotionally because he/she starts a carerr doing something they greatly dislike.  It is the same kind of harm, and is probably "caused" by the same thing:  The desire of the child to be  true to his or her self.  What is more important, being true to yourself or burying that truth within you in order to maintain peace in the family?  hard question, no good answer.
In article <1993Apr20.220340.2585@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: > >armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons >to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.  Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably more persuasive than having devotions with him.
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes: :  :   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. :
RE: Red, wwhite, and black, the colors of the Imperial German war-flag --
caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell) writes: >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. > 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.   The fact that there appears to be an abuse in the early Church of people eating too much (a very real concern with some Passover meals) and not treating the meal with respect, shows the simplifying of the ritual to just bread and wine to be a way of dealing with the inherent problems of people's human nature, and trying to keep the essentials of the remembrance aspects.
In article <1993Apr16.193723.19050@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes: > >How does one falsify any origin theory? For example, are a forever existing >universe or abiogenesis strictly falsifiable?  The same way that any theory is proven false.  You examine the predicitions that the theory makes, and try to observe them.  If you don't, or if you observe things that the theory predicts wouldn't happen, then you have some  evidence against the theory.  If the theory can't be modified to  incorporate the new observations, then you say that it is false.  For example, people used to believe that the earth had been created 10,000 years ago.  But, as evidence showed that predictions from this  theory were not true, it was abandoned.
In article <1qm069$fm8@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: |> In article <1qkndq$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> #In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: |> #|> In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: |> #|> #	You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define  |> #|> #what "objective values" are. |> #|>  |> #|> Really?  You don't know what objective value is?  If I offered the people |> #|> of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that  |> #|> sound like a good deal?   |> # |> #You mean that if you can find a ridiculous price, the rest of |> #us are supposed to conclude that an objectively correct price |> #exists? |>  |> I said nothing about the price.  I asked if the deal was good.  It isn't.  So it was a complete non-sequitur, is that it?     How does coming up with a derisory deal tell us anything about the existence of "objective" values.  You're asking us to accept that the deal you offered would be turned down, and we believe that, not because we appeal to objective values but becasue we know, or think we know, something about people.  All the people we know exhibit *subjective* values that would lead them to reject a deal of $1 for all of the land in America.  Great.   Now, so what?
In article <8846@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes: }m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes: }>}(a) out of context; }>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep }>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK? }>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither. } }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?  Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?  }>BTW to David Josli:  I'm still waiting for either your public }>acknowledgement of your }>telepathy and precognition (are you a witch?) or an appology and retraction. } }Can you wait without whining? To pass the time, maybe you should go }back and read the portions of my article that you so conveniently }deleted in your reply.  You'll find most of your answers there.    Nope:  In particular: >once he realized that he had Example of telepathy?  >responding Jim's threa What threat.  Produce it.  >Jim again, still mystified More telepathy?  Or maybe just empathic telepathy, capable of determining emotional states.  >Jim, trying to More telepathy.  How do you know "trying"?!?!?  >Jim, preparing to Precognition?  Substantiate.
In article <1993Apr21.211707.7828@ra.royalroads.ca>  mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: >In article <f2dutxH@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes: >|> In article <1993Apr20.144825.756@ra.royalroads.ca>  >|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes: >|> >If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.   >|> >Too easy?   >|> That would exclude most self-proclaimed "Christians."  >|> Do you follow the Ten Commandments? >As a matter of fact, yes I do or at least I strive to.  I will not >be so proud as to boast that my faith is 100%.  I am still human >and imperfect and therefore, liable to sin.  Thankfully, there is >opportunity for repentence and forgiveness. >God be with you, Malcolm Lee  :)
In article <C51puA.K2u@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes: > "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: > >    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must > >    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for > >    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants > >    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and > >    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It > >    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing > >    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity. > >    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect > >    to join.  There are just so many. > >      > >    Dean Kaflowitz > >  > > Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus > > Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a > > hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So > > convenient that it is burdensome at times. >  > Some Christians take a 10% discount off the Ten Commandments.  Sunday > cannot be substituted for the Sabbath.   Make that 20%.  Where did I see that poll recently about the very religious and adultery?  Was it this newsgroup or alt.atheism or some other place?
m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes: >joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes: >}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes: >}>}(a) out of context; >}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep >}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK? >}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither. >} >}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? > >Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?  (1)  Stephen said you took a quote out of context (2)  You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article      (call it A) that took a quote out of context (3)  But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the      lack of X  (a common creationist error) (4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the      conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A (5)  You asked Stephen to explain why you were wrong and they were OK,      or to acknowledge that he was being a hypocrite.   (6)  Both of the choices you give Stephen assume that he condoned      taking quotes out of context in A. (7)  I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins      "Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended      to follow from the sentence that preceded it. (8)  Therefore, I concluded that you believed that (2) implied that Stephen      condoned taking quotes out of context in A (9)  But we've already seen that (2) does not imply this (10) Therefore, you were incorrect to believe that (2) implied that Stephen      thought it was okay to take quotes out of context in A, and were       making an error of a kind that is frequently made by creationists.  Is that better Jim?   It's called an argument.  If you disagree with it, explain why the argument is not sound.  (I admit that my assumption in (7) may have been a bit hasty.)  If you agree with it, just say "yup."
In article <C51nLs.7As@boi.hp.com>, hall@boi.hp.com (Hal Leifson) writes...  [...Dr. England's story deleted, it was a nice read the first time  through...]]  >now lead the Church.  I, for one, do not wish to be labelled "Christian", if  >those who profess themselves as Christians attack my beliefs because they are  >intollerent (for example) of the way my religion may interpret Biblical  >scriptures of the same source to have a different meaning and implication  >than mainstream Christianity would give it.   	It isn't so much a matter of 'interpretation' of Bible texts  that sets Mormonism apart from orthodoxy as it is a matter of  *fabrication*.  	About 20 years ago, _National Lampoon_ had some comic strips  in them that were drawn by Neal Adams. They were called "Son o' God" comics.  It was a parody of the Jesus in the Bible. In the comic, there were a  group of thirteen Jewish kids from Brooklyn, and when one of them said  the magic word, he turned into "Son o' God." He went from a myopic,  curly headed, yarmulke wearing boy to a replica of the stylizied  portraits of Jesus --- with long flowing brown hair and gentile  features.	  	Now, if someone were to profess faith in this NatLamp Jesus,  and claim that they were a Christian because they believed in this  NatLamp Jesus, we would have to say that this was fallacious since  this Jesus was a fabrication, and did not really exist.  	This is the exact same thing that the LDS do when they claim  that they are Christian. They profess faith in Jesus, but the Jesus  that they profess to have faith in is as much a fabrication as the  NatLamp Jesus was.
What are the consequences of the homophobic ranting of the self-righteous?  Well, I just noted this on another group, and thought I'd pass it along.  The context is talk.origins, and a report of yet another "debate" that was nothing but an attempt at mindless bullying and factless assertion by a standard-issue Creationist.  The writer reflects that the behavior reported reminds him of some Christian groups he has known.  I believe that the writer is a (non-homosexual) Christian:  +	There is a very effective technique used to promote +	unit cohesion among the Soldiers of the Lord.  It is +	called "witnessing"...  I've seen this process used well +	and poorly; the near devil worship I mention was a group  +	... that was using the witnessing to get people lathered +	up to go kill homosexuals or at least terrorize them off  +	campus as it was clearly God's will that they do so.  I have deleted the specifics of the location, as I do not believe it characteristic of the place (a state in which I spent my formative first 10 years), though it *does* have, unfortunately, a subpopulation that this remark fits to a tee.
In article <1993Apr15.202729.6649@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote: > Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7.  But one obvious reason > why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with > his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that > we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27).  The fact > that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise > from the dead.  It is an obvious point.  Do not overlook it. > Without this obvious point, I would have no hope > and my faith would be vanity.  Glad to hear this, just a note, Osiris, Mithras and many other cult gods resurrected as well, so there's a good chance for all of us to maybe end up in a virtual reality simulator, and live forever, hurrah!  Sorry, this was a joke, some sort of one anyway. I'm the first that connected Osiris with a virtual reality personality database. Time to write a book.   Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr21.231552.24869@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote: > Kent, I am not accusing you of evil things.  Jesus is accusing you. > And it is not only you that He is accusing.  He is accusing everyone. > Me, you and everyone in the world is guilty.  Whether one > sees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with  > whether we do evil things.  We do them regardless.    Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you  have to feel guilty, and then there's this single personality that will save you from this universal guilt feeling.  Brian, I will tell you a secret, I don't feel guilty at all, I do mistakes, and I regret them, however I've never had this huge guilt feeling hanging over my shoulder.  If things happen wrong, I will try to learn from the mistakes and go on.  This all is a very clear indication that you need a certain personality type in order to believe and adjust to certain religious doctrines. And if your personality type is  opposite, then you are not that easily attached to a certain world view system.  > So do you see Jesus's point?  Christians are not perfect.  Nonchristians > are not perfect.  Nonchristians do not want to come into the > Light of Jesus because they will see all the problems in their lives, > and they will not like the sight.  It is an ugly thing to see how far > we have fallen from Jesus's perspective.  Do you think you want to > know how really ignorant you are?  Do you think Brian Kendig wants > to know?  Do you think I want to know?  Ego verses the truth, > which do you choose?  All I know is that I don't know everything. And frankly speaking I don't care, life is fun anyway. I recognize that I'm not  perfect, but that does not hinder me from have a healthy and inspiring life.  There are humans that subscribe to the same notion. The nice thing is that when you finally shake off this huge burden, the shoulders feel far more relaxed!  Cheers, Kent
netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:  > In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen > >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. >   And I think we ought to hold Christ accoountable for all of his followers  who died at the hand of the Romans also. It was their own fault for believing.  God, this society reminds me more of the Roman Empire every day; I guess I'll just log off and go watch American Gladiators.
John W. Redelfs (cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote: :  : I am a Mormon.  I believe in Christ, that he is alive.  He raised himself : [Text deleted] : : I learned that the concept of the Holy Trinity was never taught by Jesus : Christ, that it was "agreed to" by a council of clergymen long after Christ : was ascended, men who had no authority to speak for him. : If Jesus never taught the concept of the Trinity, how do you deal with the  following:        Mat 28 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven    and on earth has been given to me.     Mat 28 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing    them in¹ the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,     Mat 28 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.    And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."   Also Jesus speaking:     Act 1 5 For John baptized with¹ water, but in a few days you will    be baptized with the Holy Spirit."  I believe that you may have overlooked some key verses, that are crucial to the Christian faith.
I wasn't sure if this was the right newsgroup to post this to, but I guess the misc is there for a reason.  Here goes...  I am getting married in June to  a devout (Wisconsin Synod) Lutheran.  I would classify myself as a strong  agnostic/weak athiest.  This has been a a subject of many discussions between us and is really our only real obstacle.  We don't have any real difficulties  with the religious differences yet, but I expect they will pop up when we have  children.  I have agreed to raise the children "nominally" Lutheran.  That is, Lutheran traditions, but trying to keep an open mind.  I am not sure if this is even possible though.  I feel that that the worst quality of being devoutly religous is the lack of an open mind.       Anyway, I guess I'll get on with my question.  Is anyone in the same  situation and can give some suggestions as to how to deal with this?  We've  taken the attitude so far of just talking about it a lot and not letting  anything get bottled up inside.  Sometimes I get the feeling we're making this  much bigger than it actually is.  Any comments would be greatly appreciated.   Also, please e-mail responses since I don't get a chance to read this group often.  :-(
In article <C5soDA.3L8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes: >Ken Arromdee writes >>>Did they not know that these men were federal officers? >>Do you know what a "no-knock search" is? >Yes, but tell me how you think your question answers my question. If >the BDs didn't know immediately that they were dealing with feds >(uniform apparel, insignia), they must have figured it out in pretty >short order. Why did they keep fighting? They seemed awfully ready >for having been attacked "without warning".
In a previous article, alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid y!)) says:  > >Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that >AMORC is not a spin off of OTO?   Absolutely. Lewis didn't care for the 1921 O.T.O. charter from Reuss. He had in mind something completely diferent. Crowley and Lewis were very different persons, as you probably know.  >.. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin >off of AMORC??  No. My overstatement, sorry :-)
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: > >Consider your mother Merlyn.  You know your mother.  What would you think >of me if I asserted that your mother is 9 feet tall, murdered your father, >and sexually abused you when you were a kid?  I would just go fetch my parents, and show them to you, and thereby prove quite definitively that my mother is not named Merlyn, she is not nine feet tall, and my father is quite alive.  Then I would assert quite simply that your deity does not exist, and wait for a similar demonstration from you.