waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: > >So what is your beef against Jesus?  First and foremost, I honestly do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a man who lived and died two thousand years ago.  I know your Bible provides wonderful stories of the things he said and did, but I simply do not believe that he still exists as an entity that has any bearing on this universe or the lives in it, and I similarly do not believe that the god that you worship exists or has ever existed.  Period.  I view religion in general and Christianity in specific as a 'cultural virus' that has been passed down from generation to generation because people are often too afraid to think for themselves and claim responsibility for their own fate, so they brainwash themselves and their children into believing the popular myths, and it goes on from there.  And eventually Christianity becomes a given -- if so many other people believe in it, it must be right, no?  I don't believe in any "life after death".  I believe that when I die, I die, so therefore it's up to me to try to bring meaning and purpose to my life in the meantime.  I don't believe that it's a good thing to humble myself and view pride as a sin -- pride, in moderation, is a constructive thing.  I see nothing at all wrong with homosexuality and nothing inferior about women, and my priests lost a lot of my trust when they patronizingly tried to explain the 'faults' of these opinions to me.  I don't believe in 'loving everyone', especially people I've never met; while I try to show respect to everyone, my love and admiration is something not easily earned, and I do not feel guilty about denying my respect and consideration to someone who has abused it.  If you want me to take your religion the least bit seriously, stop trying to show me how the Bible "makes sense".  Start trying to show me that this Jesus person is somehow still influencing anyone's life here on Earth.
In article <1993Apr19.131102.7843@rchland.ibm.com>  xzz0280@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (R. J. Traff) writes: >|> In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>  >|> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes: >|> >question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the >|>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >|> >fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"  Please >|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I don't believe most Christians believe they are *above* the Law.  However, >we are not saved by adherence to the Law.  The Law exists to tell us what >is sinful.  We all sin.  Hence we are "all" above the Law where "all" in this case refers to Christians.  >Jews believe that their sins are atoned for with >blood sacrifice of animals as described in the Old Testament.  When was the last time you heard about a Jewish animal sacrifice?  >Christians  >believe that their sins are atoned for by the blood sacrifice of Jesus.  The blood sacrifice of an innocent man?  >This does not make the Law 'irrelevant'.  Then why don't Christians follow it, why don't they even follow their own Ten Commandments?  >Breaking the Law *is* sinful, >and we are to avoid sinful ways, but sinning, by itself, does not jeopardize >salvation.  So, in short; Hitler is in heaven and Gandhi is in Hell?  >Note that I'm not a theologian.  But this is the gist of several >sermons I've heard lately and some Bible studies I've been through.
So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire on their house, killing most of the people inside.  I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what they were doing, and it's their own actions.  What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside, including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful conditions.  If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions.  You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all.  I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think  the actions today would produce a good picture of your  religion?   Kent
>DATE:   24 Apr 1993 11:53:48 -0500 >FROM:   Russell Turpin <turpin@cs.utexas.edu> > > >The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of >Oregon, are historical evidence.
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?  (I remain deliberately neutral on the cause of the fire: I wouldn't put it past Koresh to have torched the place himself.  On the other hand, if the propane-tank-accident story is correct, I wouldn't put it past the FBI to try to cover its ass by claiming Koresh did it.  I hope your government does a VERY thorough investigation of the whole debacle, and I'll be disappointed if a few heads don't roll.  The authorities seem to have botched the original raid, and in the matter of the fire, are guilty of either serious misjudgement, or reckless endangerment.)
ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  That's Ruby Rose and Gold Cross, in rough translation.  The G.'.D.'. is a Rosicrucian order, as are all derivative groups.  Of course, real Rosicrucians never admit to being Rosicrucian.  Enjoy the journey!                       --Br'anArthur                                       Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
In article 260493115730@raven.aims.unc.edu, fhunt@med.unc.edu (Freb Hunt) writes: > > Is there some relation between the name 'Cybele' and the phenemenon of the > > 'sibyl'?  Your paragraph above seems to indicate there might be.  The OED gives the etymology of "sibyl" as coming from the ancient Greek   	sigma iota beta upsilon lambda lambda alpha  	( S i b ih l l a )  which is claimed to come from the Doric   	sigma iota omicron beta upsilon lambda lambda alpha  	( s i o b ih l l a )  which (if I read it properly) in turn came from the Attican (Athenian)  	theta epsilon omicron beta omicron upsilon lambda eta  	( th eh o b o ih l ae )  I don't know much about Attis, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this God was tied to the Athenian capital  	Alpha tau tau iota kappa upsilon sigma 	(a t t i k u s)
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?
In article <f1VMPxk@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes: >In article <bskendigC5H4o3.D5p@netcom.com>  >bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes: >>psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes: >>>	But if we walk in the light, >>>	as he is in the light, >>>	we have fellowship one with another, >>>	and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son >>>	cleanseth us from all sin. >>	It can not be a light which cleanses >>	if it is tainted with the blood >>	of an innocent man. > >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.
After tons of mail, could we move this discussion to alt.religion? ============================================================= --There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan) --"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.") --Lecture (LEK chur) - process by which the notes of the professor become the notes of the student without passing through the minds of either.
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:  > b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes: > > > >One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just  > >wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take? >  > So you believe that David Koresh really is Jesus Christ? >   You know, everybody scoffed at that guy they hung up on a cross too. He claimed also to be the son of God; and it took almost two thousand  years to forget what he preached.  	Love thy neighbor as thyself.   Anybody else wonder if those two guys setting the fires were 'agent  provacateurs.'
lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:  > In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony > > > > > >     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. >  > >  > >  >  >    Not to worry.  The Masons have been demonized and harrassed by almost  every major Xian church there is.  For centuries now.  And still they  stand.  They wil withstand the miserable Southern Boobtists, I am sure. They may even pick up a little support as people start to listen to the  Boobtists and realize that subtracting the obvious lies and claims of  Satanism that the Masons sound pretty good by comparison.  One thing is  known.  A sizable proportion of Southern Babtists are Masons!  And the  Masons have already fired back in their own magazines against the  Boobtist Witch-hunt.   Since the Consrervatives have already been a divisive element with  their war on Boobtist moderates and liberals, they may now start in on  their Mason/Boobtist brothers and hasten their own downfall as more and  more Southern Boobtists realize their church can't stand being run by a  handful of clowns looking for holy civil wars and purity tests and drop  'em out of the leadership positions they have taken over.   So as far as I am concerned, the louder, ruder, and more outrageous  an Anti-Masonic Crusade these old goats mount, the better.  Pop some pocorn and get a center row seat.  The circus is about to begin. And, Oh Look!  HERE COME THE CLOWNS!   Pope Charles    Slack!
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 <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:  >In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round. >>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them >>from subjective values, before we go any further.   >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. -- Mark Pundurs
af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes: >PPS...Am I giving you too many clues?  Too many clues, not enough substance.  You ask a lot of good questions, though, but they are questions *you* should be worried about, not me.  I'm not the inerrantist here.  Let me know when you are ready to get serious.
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: >bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes: > >>Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two >>contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat >>denials.  I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are >>indeed two different accounts of creation. > >That is because two creation stories is one of the worst examples of  >a difficulty with the Bible.  "were formed" can also be translated "had been >formed" in chapter two without any problems.  So the text does not demand >that there are two creation stories.    Really?  I don't get it... Genesis first says that God created the earth, then the animals, then humans; then it turns around and says that humans were created before animals!  How can you escape this contradiction?
In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:   >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?    That happens to be a subjective example that the people of the US would happen to agree on.  Continue to move the price up;  at some point a few people would accept then more then more until  probably all would accept at a high enough number.  Endpoints of a subjective scale are not the given homes of  objective viewpoints.
Just a few cheap shots a Christianity:  Riddle: What is the shortest street in Jerusalem? Answer: The Street of the Righteous Poles.  Limrick:  There was an archeologist Thostle Who found an amazing fossil By the way it was bent And the knot it the end 'twas the penis of Paul the Apostle.  Jingle: Christianity hits the spot Twelve Apostles thats a lot Jesus Christ and a Virgin too Christianity's the faith for you (with apologies to Pepsi Cola and its famous jingle)  Riddle: How many Christians does it take to save a light bulb. Answer: None, only Jesus can save.  Aphorism: Jesus Saves Moses Invests  Proof that Jesus was Jewish: 1. He lived at home till he was 33 2. He went into his fathers business 3. He thought he mother was a virgin 4. His mother thought he was God.  QED.  So long you all  Bob Kolker "I would rather spend eternity in Hell with interesting people  than eternity in Heaven with Christians"
m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes: >}(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 >Excellent. Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other >than a direct assertion by his part.  Replace "Stephen" with "David Joslin," since you directed the same accusation of hypocrisy at me.  In e-mail to me you wrote:     In t.r.m. Robert Weiss writes [a promise from Psalm 9:10]     Gee, since you wouldn't be at all hypocritical, you must be really     busy arguing against these out-of-context extracted translations!  As you may recall, you mailed me six mail messages quoting articles by Robert Weiss, all sent within a few minutes of each other.  You added:     Naturally, I await your arguments against this out-of-context     translation.  But I shall not await holding my breath... and     Wonder when you get to sleep, disputing all these out-of-context     extracted translations! and other similar comments.   Perhaps you could explain why you ever thought that I might have a reason to read all of these articles you pulled off of t.r.m, much less write responses to them?     >Have you, by chance, ever even heard of inductive logic?  You are not >demonstrating any familiarly with it (i.e. you are being insufficiently >logical).  I am familiar with inductive logic.  Go ahead and give me the details of the "logic" that led you to conclude, incorrectly, that I would condone Robert Weiss taking verses out of context.  Your conclusion was wrong, of course, since I agree that both you and Robert Weiss were guity of taking verses out of context.  Nothing hypocritical about that, is there?    Since you reached a false conclusion, you made some mistake in your "logic."  The only question is where.  Did you think that it would be hypocritical for me not to post a reply to Robert Weiss' articles? Did you make the common creationist error of confusing a lack of evidence for X with evidence for the lack of X?   Is your grasp of inductive logic not quite as firm as you think? See if you can figure out what your mistake was, and learn from it.
In article <1993Apr21.172806.679@megatek.com> tims@megatek.com writes:  >> Let us not limit >> 'misc.taoism' to 'philosophy'.   > >But if we don't limit it to *something*, the discussion degenerates into >a big amorphous glob.   Hmm...are you a Taoist?  Imposing limits *does* do something useful...it gives you something to go beyond.  >It seems to me that these questions more properly fall into the >category of "general metaphysics". I would prefer any misc.taoism >to deal more closely with topics and works more closely associated >with at least "semi-orthodox" Taoism: with established classic works  >definitely included and works like Mantak Chia's argued about!   I tend to be a bit critical of any stratification of Taoism.  I especially tend to frown on any suggestion that "orthodoxy" or "classics" have any special place in Tao.  >I think "neo-Taoism" should be excluded or get its own group (what I >mean by this is "Humpty-Dumpty Taoism", in which Taoism means whatever  >a poster says it means.) This "alt.taoism" could also be a refuge  >for debates about what "Taoism *REALLY* means" or speculations on sexual >alchemy, etc..  So rather than debate what "Taoism *REALLY* means" you are suggesting that we take someone else's word for it and work thusly?  I'd rather not, thank you.  >What's happening is that that the term "Taoism" is becoming >completely polluted and trivialized like the words "magic", "Alchemy",  >"Zen," etc., by writers appropriating the word to mean whatever they  >want. This is seen by the spate of new age books entitled "The >Tao of" this, that, and everything else.  Whereas you, of course, have a clear idea of what the word means?  Can you tell the Tao? :-)  >Any other comments/ideas? I look forward to seeing them. On balance, >I say let misc.taoism rip and let the chips fall where they may.  Wonderful idea.  >it just gets filled up with college freshmen asking about the >Tao of Sex then it will have been a failure and people will post to >these groups just as they do now.  Only if you choose to define failure in that way.  Or to define it at all.
DROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 1  A  D R O P L E T From The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur'an  Translations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of  Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor  VOL 1, No 11, Part 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------      		 NINETEENTH LETTER    		 MU'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI  (A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW)        (SAW: PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE UPON HIM)  In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified! There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.  In The Name Of  Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful     "He is who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth  to make it supreme over all religion:  and sufficient is Allah as a Witness.  Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are firm against the unbelievers and merciful among each other.  You will see them bowing and prostrating  themselves, seeking Allah's grace and His pleasure.  Their mark is on their face the sing of prostrafion; this is their similitude in the Torah and Indgil." [the Our'an 48:28-29]     Since the Nineteenth and Thirhy-first Words concerning the mission of Muhammad (SAW) prove his prophethood with decisive evidences, we assign the verification of that subject to those Words.    As a supplement to them, we will merely show here in Nineteen Signs, some  of the flashes of that great truth.     FIRST SIGN:  The Owner and Master of this universe does everything with knowledge, disposes every affair with wisdom, directs everything all-seeingly, treats everything all-knowingly, and arranges in everything with His will and wisdom such causes, purposes and uses that are apparent to us.  Since the One who creates knows, surely the One who knows will speak, since He will speak, surely He will speak to those who have consciousness, thought, and speech.  Since He will speak to those who have thought, surely He will speak to humankind, whose make-up and awareness are more comprehensive of all conscious beings.  Since He will speak to humankind, surely He will speak to the most perfect of mankind and those most worthy of address and highest in morality, and who are qualified to guide humanity; then He will certainly speak to Muhammad (SAW),  who, as friend and foe alike testify, is of the highest  character and morality, and who is obeyed by one fifth of humanity, to whose spiritual rule half of the globe has submitted, with the radiance of whose light has been illumined the future of mankind for thirteen centuries, to whom the believers, the luminous segment of humanity, renew their oath of allegiance five times a day, for whose happiness and peace they pray, for whom they call down Allah's blessings and bear admiration and love in their hearts.     Certainly, He will speak to Muhammad (SAW), and Indeed He has done so;  He will make him the Messenger, and Indeed He has done so; He will make him the guide for the rest of humanity, and Indeed He has done so.