waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5sA29.14s@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: > I guess I'm delving into a religious language area.  What exactly is morality  > or morals?    I hope there is not one- with a subject like this you just have a spiral.  What would then be a morality of a morality of morals.  Labels don't make arguments.  One really needs a solid measuring stick by which most actions can be interpreted, even though this would hardly seem moral.  For example "The best thing for me is to ensure that I will eat and drink enough.  Hence all actions must be weighed against this one statement."  whatever helps this goal is "moral", whatever does not is "immoral"  Of course this leads such a blank space: there are so many different ways to fulfill a goal, one would need a "hyper-morality" to apply to just the methods.  >I never thought of eating meat to be moral or immoral, but I think > it could be.  How do we differentiate between not doing something because it is > a personal choice or preference and not doing something because we see it as  > immoral?  Do we fall to what the basis of these morals are?  Seems to me we only consider something moral or immoral if we stop to think about it long enough  :)  On the other hand, maybe it is our first gut reaction...  Which?  Who knows: perhaps here we have a way to discriminate morals.  I don't instinctively thing vegetarianism is right (the same way I instinctively feel torture is wrong), but if I thought about it long enough and listened to the arguments, I could perhaps reason that it was wrong (is that possible!?  :) )  See the difference?  >  > Also, consensus positions fall to a might makes right.  Or, as you brought out, > if whatever is right is what is societally mandated then whoever is in control > at the time makes what is right >  > MC > MAC > -- > **************************************************************** >                                                     Michael A. Cobb >  "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois >     class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana >           -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu >                                                > Nobody can explain everything to anybody.  G.K.Chesterton --    best regards,  --Adam
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: >In article <11847@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert >Beauchaine) writes: >>Bennett, Neil.  "How BCCI adapted the Koran rules of banking".  The  >>Times.  August 13, 1991. >  > So, let's see. If some guy writes a piece with a title that implies > something is the case then it must be so, is that it?  Gregg, you haven't provided even a title of an article to support *your* contention.  >>  This is how you support a position if you intend to have anyone >>  respect it, Gregg.  Any questions?  And I even managed to include >>  the above reference with my head firmly engaged in my ass.  What's >>  your excuse? >  > This supports nothing. I have no reason to believe that this is  > piece is anything other than another anti-Islamic slander job.  You also have no reason to believe it *is* an anti-Islamic slander job, apart from your own prejudices.  > I have no respect for titles, only for real content. I can look > up this article if I want, true. But I can tell you BCCI was _not_ > an Islamic bank.  Why, yes.  What's a mere report in The Times stating that BCCI followed Islamic banking rules?  Gregg *knows* Islam is good, and he *knows* BCCI were bad, therefore BCCI *cannot* have been Islamic.  Anyone who says otherwise is obviously spreading slanderous propaganda.  >                                      If someone wants to discuss > the issue more seriously then I'd be glad to have a real discussion, > providing references, etc.  I see.  If someone wants to provide references to articles you agree with, you will also respond with references to articles you agree with?  Mmm, yes, that would be a very intellectually stimulating debate.  Doubtless that's how you spend your time in soc.culture.islam.  I've got a special place for you in my...  ...kill file.  Right next to Bobby.  Want to join him?  The more you post, the more I become convinced that it is simply a waste of time to try and reason with Moslems.  Is that what you are hoping to achieve?
I don't think there is really any question about which god the courts mean.  The request for solemnly swearing, so help you god,  is always made after a request to pick up the bible in your left hand and hold up your right hand.  In the courts of NC, at least, it is always an old and new testament.
In article <37410@optima.cs.arizona.edu> sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed) writes: >In article <1r1cl7INNknk@bozo.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes: >>Anyway, since I seem to be the only one following this particular line >>of discussion, I wonder how many of the rest of the readership have >>read this book?  What are your thoughts on it?   > >I read it when it first came out[...] >And I *liked* it. [...] >At the time I still "sorta-kinda" thought of myself as a muslim, and I >couldn't see what the flap was all about. [...]  Thank you.  I now know at least that though I may be on drugs, at least I'm not the only one.  >The writing style was a little hard to get used to, but >it was well worth the effort. Coming from a similar background (Rushdie >grew up in Bombay in a muslim family, and moved to England; I grew up in >New Delhi), it made a strong impression on me.  (And he used many of the >strange constructions of Indian English: the "yaar" at the end of a >sentence, "Butbutbut," the occasional hindi phrase, etc.)  Yes, this took some getting used to -- of course not having an Indian connection, no knowledge of hindi, etc., this was not trivial for me. I did have, thanks to the wonders of the net, "A Glossary to *Satanic Verses*", posted to rec.arts.books by Vijay Raghavan, which explains a lot of the Indian English constructions, Indian culture references, even the Islamic references ("Jahilia", "Submission", the context of the Satanic Verses incident, etc.) -- what I have only covers the first couple of hundred pages, but it helped me get into the flow of the novel [I can mail this to anyone interested; if anyone has portions after part I, if they exist, I'd like to get those].
Kent Sandvik (sandvik@newton.apple.com) wrote:   : > This is a good point, but I think "average" people do not take up Christianity : > so much out of fear or escapism, but, quite simply, as a way to improve their : > social life, or to get more involved with American culture, if they are kids of : > immigrants for example.  Since it is the overwhelming major religion in the : > Western World (in some form or other), it is simply the choice people take if : > they are bored and want to do something new with their lives, but not somethong : > TOO new, or TOO out of the ordinary.  Seems a little weak, but as long as it : > doesn't hurt anybody...  : The social pressure is indeed a very important factor for the majority : of passive Christians in our world today. In the case of early Christianity : the promise of a heavenly afterlife, independent of your social status, : was also a very promising gift (reason slaves and non-Romans accepted : the religion very rapidly).  If this is a hypothetical proposition, you should say so, if it's fact, you should cite your sources. If all this is the amateur sociologist sub-branch of a.a however, it would suffice to alert the unwary that you are just screwing around ...
perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes: > Anyway, since I seem to be the only one following this particular line > of discussion, I wonder how many of the rest of the readership have > read this book?  What are your thoughts on it?  I bought a copy of The Satanic Verses when there was talk of the British Government banning it.  There's nothing interests me in a book more than making it illegal.  However, it's still sitting on my shelf unread.  Perhaps I'll get round to it soon.  I've still got a pile of Lem, Bulgakov and Zamyatin to go through; I don't find nearly enough time to read.  In fact, there are far more interesting things to do than I can ever find time for; how anyone ever manages to be bored is beyond me.  If I didn't have to sleep, maybe I could manage it.   mathew
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes: > THE POPE IS JEWISH  I always thought that the Pope was a bear.  You know, because of that little saying:  Does a bear shit in the woods? Is the Pope Catholic?
In article <chrisb.734064380@bAARNie>, chrisb@tafe.sa.edu.au (Chris BELL) writes... >jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >  >>My syllogism is of the form: >>A is B. >>C is A. >>Therefore C is B. >  >>This is a logically valid construction. >  >>Your syllogism, however, is of the form: >>A is B. >>C is B. >>Therefore C is A. >  >>Therefore yours is a logically invalid construction,  >>and your comments don't apply.  If all of those are "is"'s of identity, both syllogisms are valid. If, however, B is a predicate, then the second syllogism is invalid. (The first syllogism, as you have pointed out, is valid--whether B is a predicate or designates an individual.)
In article <1993Apr16.211458.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:   (deletion) >Nope, Germany has extremely restrictive citizenship laws.  The >ethnic Germans who have lived in Russia for over 100 years >automatically become citizens if they move to Germany, but the >Turks who are now in their third generation in Germany can't.
In article <66014@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:   >>And what about that revelation thing, Charley? > >If you're talking about this intellectual engagement of revelation, well, >it's obviously a risk one takes. >   I see, it is not rational, but it is intellectual. Does madness qualify as intellectual engagement, too?     >>Many people say that the concept of metaphysical and religious knowledge >>is contradictive. > >I'm not an objectivist, so I'm not particularly impressed with problems of >conceptualization.  The problem in this case is at least as bad as that of >trying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity in the terms of ordinary >experience.  One can get some rough understanding, but the language is, from >the perspective of ordinary phenomena, inconsistent, and from the >perspective of what's being described, rather inexact (to be charitable). >   Exactly why science uses mathematics. QM representation in natural language is not supposed to replace the elaborate representation in mathematical terminology. Nor is it supposed to be the truth, as opposed to the representation of gods or religions in ordinary language. Admittedly, not  every religion says so, but a fancy side effect of their inept representations are the eternal hassles between religions.   And QM allows for making experiments that will lead to results that will be agreed upon as being similar. Show me something similar in religion.     >An analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is >that the "better" descriptive language is not available. >   With the effect that the models presented are useless. And one can argue that the other way around, namely that the only reason metaphysics still flourish is because it makes no statements that can be verified or falsified - showing that it is bogus.     >>And in case it holds reliable information, can you show how you establish >>that? > >This word "reliable" is essentially meaningless in the context-- unless you >can show how reliability can be determined.
In article <1993Apr25.165315.1190@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:   >>(Deletion) >>>"(God is) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. >>>Each is travelling in an orbit with its own motion." (Qur'an :33) >>> (Deletion) >>Well, that is certainly different, but it looks as if there is a translation >>found for everything. By the way, I am most surprised to hear that night and >>day move in an orbit. > >I thought about this, too -- some translations refer to only the latter >two objects being in orbit, but Bucaille's translation seems to indicate >the night and the day travelling in "orbit" too.  Perhaps this can be >understood when one looks at it from the earth's reference frame -- from >this reference frame, the day and the night would appear to "orbit" the >earth (travelling from east to west).  (This is from the reference frame >when the earth is still.) >   Well, yes, but that belongs in the other group, there is a interpretation found for everything. However, allowing any form of interpretation reduces the information of the text so interprteted to zero.   By the way, I have checked the quote and I think the lines preceding those quoted above are more interesting:      21:32 where mountains are set on earth in order to immobilize the earth.    21:33 where the skies (heavens?) are referred to as well supported.   the lines given above are  21:34 after my edition.     >Maybe this is what is meant by the above....?  It's just a possibility. > >>And that the sun travels in an orbit without saying that earth does, too, >>sounds geocentric to me. > >I will see if I can find out more about this. > >But it is still not geocentric. >
In <114127@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu writes:  [deletia]  > I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic  > principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify > that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that, > so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_ > be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting > to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic > Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than > than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.        In the deletions somewhere, it mentioned something about chopping off of hands being a punishment for theft in Saudi Arabia. Assuming this is so (I wouldn't know), and assuming it is done by people fitting your requirement for "muslim" (which I find highly likely), then would you please try to convince Bobby Mozumder that muslims chop people's hands off?        Come back when you've succeeded.
In article <1993Apr2.103237.4627@Cadence.COM>, mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes: > In article <C4qAv2.24wG@austin.ibm.com> karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes: > > > >Okay.  So you want me to name names?  There are obviously no official > >records of these pseudo-marriages because they are performed for > >convenience.  What happens typically is that the woman is willing to move > >in with her lover without any scruples or legal contracts to speak of.  > >The man is merely utilizing a loophole by entering into a temporary > >religious "marriage" contract in order to have sex.  Nobody complains, > >nobody cares, nobody needs to know. > > > >Perhaps you should alert your imam.  It could be that this practice is > >far more widespread than you may think.  Or maybe it takes 4 muslim men > >to witness the penetration to decide if the practice exists! > >--  > > >  > Again you astound me with the level of ignorance you display, Muslims > are NOT allowed to enter temporary marriages, got that? There is > no evidence for it it an outlawed practise so get your facts  > straight buddy. Give me references for it or just tell everyone you > were lying. It is not a widespread as you may think (fantasise) in > fact contrary to your fantasies it is not practised at all amongst > Muslims.  First of all, I'm not your buddy!  Second, read what I wrote.  I'm not talking about what muslims are ALLOWED to do, merely what *SOME* practice.  They consider themselves as muslim as you, so don't retort with the old and tired "they MUST NOT BE TRUE MUSLIMS" bullshit.  If I gave you the names what will you do with this information?  Is a fatwa going to be leashed out against the perpetrators?  Do you honestly think that someone who did it would voluntarily come forward and confess?  With the kind of extremism shown by your co-religionaries?  Fat chance.  At any rate, there can be no conclusive "proof" by the very nature of the act.  Perhaps people that indulge in this practice agree with you in theory, but hope that Allah will forgive them in the end.  I think it's rather arrogant of you to pretend to speak for all muslims in this regard.  Also, kind of silly.  Are you insinuating that because the Koranic law forbids it, there are no criminals in muslim countries?   This is as far as I care to go on this subject.  The weakness of your arguments are for all netters to see.  Over and out... --
In article <2942949719.2.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes: >>DATE:   Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:02:22 -0500 >>FROM:   Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> >> >> >>> > 3. Can god uncreate itself? >>>  >>> No.  For if He did, He would violate His own nature which He cannot do. >>> It is God's nature to Exist.  He is, after all, the "I AM" which is >>> a statement of His inherent Existence.  He is existence itself. >>> Existence cannot "not-exist". >> >>Then, as mentioned above, he must not be very omnipotent. >>  What do you mean by omnipotent here?  Do you mean by "omnipotent" that God should be able to do anything/everything?  This creates a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence which is effectively useless.  To be descriptive, omnipotence must mean "being all-powerful" and not "being able to do anything/everything".  Let me illustrate by analogy. Suppose the United States were the only nuclear power on earth.  Suppose further that the US military could not effectively be countered by any nation or group of nations.  The US has the power to go into any country at any time for any reason to straighten things out as the leaders of the US see fit.  The US would be militarily "omnipotent".  But suppose further that the US holds to a doctrine/philosophy of not interfering in the internal affairs of any nation, such as the current civil war in the former Yugoslavian states.  Technically (in this scenario) the US would have the power to  unilaterally go into Yugoslavia and straighten out the mess.  But effectively the US could not intervene without violating its own policy  of non-interference.  If the policy of non-interference were held to strongly enough, then there would never be a question that it would ever be violated.  Effectively, the US would be limited in what it could actually do, although it had the power to do "whatever it wanted". The US would simply "never want to interfere" for such an idea would be beyond the consideration of its leaders given such an inviolate non-interference policy.  God is effectively limited in the same sense.  He is all powerful, but He cannot use His power in a way that would violate the essence of what He, Himself is.  I hope this helps to clear up some of the misunderstanding concerning omnipotence.  Regards,
excuse me for my ignorance. But I remember reading once that the  Biblical tribe known as the Philistines still exists...they are the modern  day Palestinians. Anyone out there with more info, please post it!!!
In article <1993Apr14.030334.8650@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: > In article <1993Apr11.145519.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: >> >>There's a way around that via the hadith, which state that silence is >>taken to mean "yes" and that women may not speak before a judge, who >>must conduct the marriage. >  > Actaully, that's a false hadith, because it contradicts verses in the > Quran, that says women may testify- speak before a judge. >  > Hadiths are declared false when they contradict the Quran.  Hadiths > weren't written during the revelation or during the life of the prophet, > and so may contain errors.  So the only way you can tell a false hadith from a true one is if it contradicts the Quran?  What if it relates to something that isn't explicitly spelled out in the Quran?  Also, the Quran wasn't written down during the life of Muhammed either.  It wasn't long after, but 20 years or so is still long enough to shift a few verses around.  Karl  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  | | of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." | | dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |
In article <C5rB1G.43u@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) wrote: > To credit religion with the awesome power to dominate history is to > misunderstand human nature, the function of religion and of course, > history. I believe that those who distort history in this way know > exaclty what they're doing, and do it only for affect.  However, to underestimate the power of religion creating historical events is also a big misunderstanding. For instance, would the 30-year-old war have ever started if there were no fractions between the Protestants and the Vatican?  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr20.154658@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) wrote: >  >   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.  Not true. Only an observer at rest at infinite distance from the black hole will see the particle take infinite time to reach the horizon. In the particle's own reference frame, it takes a very finite time to reach the horizon and the singularity. The math does indeed predict this. Take a look at Mitchner, Thorne, and Wheeler's _Gravitation_. >   Peter Walker
Andrew Hilmer (hilmera@storm.cs.orst.edu) wrote: : At the risk of beginning a cascade, I'll start with a possibly cheesy : good 'ol Uhmericun:  : "Our shield is freedom"  Or, considering what our government has been doing for the past 50 years, perhaps this would be more appropriate:       "100% Debt"  --