but do their actions speak differently?  Do you believe what everyone tells
you?  I don't.  I came to believe in God by my own investigation and conclusions.
And ultimately by my own choice.  Salvation, however, was granted only through
the grace of God.
|> The Bible provides us with no clear definition of what a Christian is.  It
|> tells us what a Christian *should* do, but then it goes on to say that as
|> long as you believe, your sins will be forgiven.
To be a Christian is to model oneself after Jesus Christ as implied by the
very name Christian.  If you say you believe in your head but do not feel in
your heart, what does that say of your belief?
|> White Supremisists and
|> Neo-Nazis may not be your brand of Christian, but by believing in Christ,
|> they are Christian.
|>
White supremists and Neo-Nazis are NOT any brand of Christian.
"If you hate your whom you can see then how can you love God whom you cannot
see?"
What does this belief entail?  Believing in Christ and having your sins
forgiven in His name does NOT give a Christian a free licence to sin.  To
repent of a sin is to ask forgiveness of that sin and TRY NOT to do it
again.  I am a Christian, but if you lump me in with racists and accuse me
of being such, then are you not pre-judging me?  BTW, I am of Chinese racial
background and I know what it is to be part of a visible minority in this
country.  I don't think that I would be favourably looked upon by these
White supremist "Christians" as you call them.
Anyone can say what they believe, but if they don't practice what they preach,
then their belief is false.  Do you concur?
|> Now, for your original statement:
|> : |> : What bothers me most is why people who have no religious affiliation
|> : |> : continue to persecute Jews?  Why this hatred of Jews?  The majority of
|> : |> : people who persecute Jews are NOT Christians (I can't speak for all
|> : |> : Christians and there are bound to be a few who are on the anti-Semitism
|> : |> : bandwagon.)
|>
|> You imply here that it is predominately atheists and agnostics who
|> persecute Jews.  I am hard pressed to think of even an example of Jewish
|> persecution in the hands of atheists/agnostics.
Nazis and racists in general are the ones that come to my immediate attention.
What I believe is that such people may be using the bible to mask their racial
intolerance and bigotry.  They can do as they do and hide behind Christianity
but I tell you that Jesus would have nothing to do with them.
|> About the only one that
|> comes to mind would be in the former Soviet Union, where many religious
|> people suffered some sort of persecution (not to mention many
|> atheist/agnostics who suffered persecution for believing the government
|> sucked).
|>
No arguement there.
|>
|> Rob Lanphier
|> lanph872@uidaho.edu
|>
The only point I'm trying to make is that those who call themselves Christian
may not be Christian.  I ask that you draw your own conclusions by what they
do and what they say.  If they are not modelled after the example of Jesus
Christ then they are NOT Christian.  If they have not repented of their sins
and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour then they are
NOT Christian.  These are the only criteria to being a Christian.
May God be with you,
Malcolm Lee   :)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: hertz.njit.edu
In article <1r1i41$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>
>Just maybe you won't be home.  Then you can come home to something
>like this:
>
>    "Well, it's been a rough month," begins Johnnie Lawmaster.  "I
> just get laid off, and my divorce became final.  But I just wasn't
> ready for what happened this particular Monday."
[horror story about FBI ruining a guy's life for the hell of it omitted]
>So if you don't want your tea party to be held in awkward silence, make
>sure your lawyer isn't there, there's a good chap.
So, is this a real story or a work of fiction?  How about some
sources?  When, where, and in what newspaper did you get all this
from?  Or is it all hypothetical?
--
+------------------------+------------------------------------+
| David Charlap          | "Apple II forever" - Steve Wozniac |
| dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | "I drank what?" - Socrates         |
+------------------------+------------------------------------+
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Lines: 30
In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com
(Bill Rawlins) writes:
>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>        are very much in harmony.
Bill, I find it rather remarkable that you managed to zero in on what is
probably the weakest evidence.
What is probably the most convincing is the anti-Christian literature put out
by the Jewish councils in the second century.  There are enormous quantities of
detailed arguments against Christianity, many of the arguments still being used
today.  Despite volumes of tracts attacking Christianity, not one denies the
existance of Jesus, only of his activities.
I find this considerably more compelling than Josephus or the harmony of the
gospels (especially considering that Matthew and Luke probably used Mark as a
source).
|  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
|  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
|/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
|  |___| 400 Carver Hall
|  |___| Ames, IA  50011
J  _____
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list
Organization: University of Arizona
Lines: 15
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.
>--
>=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
>="Do you have some pumps and a purse in this shade?  A perfume that whispers, =
>='please come back to me'?  I'm looking for something in Green."-Laurie Morgan=
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Sun
Lines: 82
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun
In article <1qkj31$4c6@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <lsr6ihINNsa@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>#In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round,
>#>as you would wish it.  If there is no such thing as objective value, then
>#>science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.
>#>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said
>#>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  You like those conclusions?
>#>I don't.
>#I think that you are changing the meaning of "values" here. Perhaps
>#it is time to backtrack and take a look at the word.
>#value n. 1. A fair equivalent or return for something, such as goods
>#or service. 2. Monetary or material worth. 3. Worth as measured in
>#usefulness or importance; merit. 4. A principle, standard, or quality
>#considered inherently worthwhile or desirable. 5. Precise meaning, as
>#of a word. 6. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity. 7. Mus.
>#The relative duratation of a tone or rest. 8. The relative darkness or
>#lightness of a color. 9. The distinctive quality of a speech or speech
>#sound.
>#In context of a moral system, definition four seems to fit best. In terms
>#of scientific usage, definitions six or eight might apply. Note that
>#these definitions do not mean the same thing.
>No, I'm using definition (3), or perhaps (4) in both cases.  If there
>is no objective worth, usefulness, or importance then science has no
>objective worth, usefulness, or importance.  If nothing is inherently
>worthwhile or desirable, then simple theories with accurate predictions
>are not inherently worthwhile or desirable. Do you see any flaws in this?
The problem is, your use of the word "objective" along with "values."
Both definitions three and four are inherently subjective, that is
they are particular to a given individual, or personal. You see,
what one person may see as worthwhile, another may see as worthless.
>If on the other hand, some things *have* objective worth, usefulness,
>or importance, it would be interesting to know what they are.
Again, your form of measurement in this sentence, that being of "worth"
is subjective.
>#If you can provide an objective foundation for "morality" then that will
>#be a good beginning.
>I'm not willing to attempt this until someone provides an objective
>basis for the notion that science is useful, worthy, or important in
>dealing with observed facts.  Alternatively, you could try to
>demonstrate to me that science is not necessarily useful, worthy
>or important in any situation.   In other words, I need to know
>how you use the term "objective".
When I find that my usage of a word is different than the usage of
that word given by another person, I try to find a standard against
which to judge that usage. In most cases, the dictionary is the standard
I use. Here is a definiton of objective:
objective ADJ. 1. Of or having to do with a material object as
distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance.
3.a. Unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on
observable phenomenon.
By this definition, science does not have an objective worth, since the
phrase "objective worth" is an oxymoron. However you asked something a
little differently this time, you asked for an objective basis for a
notion. The fact that the use of science as an intellectual tool is
responsible for changes in our world (the changes are material, and
thus "objective") would provide an objective _basis_ for an argument.
However, the conclusion arrived at from that argument (that science is
"good") is subjective.
I think that the problem here is one of word usage. Take a little time
and read the definitions of these words: objective, subjective, worth,
value, morality, good, evil. I believe that if you think about the
meaning of them for a while, you will have to conclude that there is no
such thing as an objective morality.
>Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon
eric
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list
Organization: University of Arizona
Lines: 19
In article <?a$@byu.edu> $stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann) writes:
>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, WordPerfect is own by A mormon not the LDS Church.
Slight semantical difference.  The LDS Church does own a heck of
a lot however.  They are the largest land holder in MIssouri
(where they think Christ will appear at the second coming).
I believe they also own some large beverage company like Pepsi
(that was why they had to take caffiene off of their "forbidden
substance" list).
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.
Lines: 89
In article <bskendigC5Ku3C.6Dx@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>I've asked your god several times with all my heart to come to me.  I
>really wish I could believe in him, 'cos no matter how much confidence
>I build up on my own, the universe *is* a big place, and it would be
>so nice to know I have someone watching over me in it...
Brian K., I am pleased with your honesty.  And to be honest as well, I
believe you have not asked my god to come to you.  Why do I say this?
Because by the things you write on the net, and the manner with which
you write them, you show me that you made up your own god and are
attempting to pass him off as the real thing.  I got news for you.
Yours doesn't at all sound like mine.  Your god doesn't come to you
because your god doesn't exist.
>I've gone into this with an open mind.  I've layed my beliefs aside
>from time to time when I've had doubt, and I've prayed to see what
>good that would do.  I don't see what more I can do to open myself to
>your god, short of just deciding to believe for no good reason.  And
>if I decide to believe for no good reason, why not believe in some
>other god?  Zeus seems like a pretty cool candidate...
I am sorry Brian, but when I read your postings, I do not see an open mind.
What I do see is misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, arrogance and mockery.
>Please tell me what more I can do while still remaining true to myself.
Be true to yourself then.  Have an open mind.  And so end the mockery.  Gain
knowledge of the real God.  Put your presumptions aside.  Read the
Bible and know that there is, truly is, a reason for everything and
there exists a God that has so much love for you that the depth of it goes beyond
our shallow worldly experience.  A person who commits himself
to seeking God, will find God.  Jesus stands at your door and knocks.  But a
person who half-heartedly opens the Bible, or opens it with purpose to find
something to mock, will find, learn and see nothing.  The only thing one
will gain with that attitude is folly.
Be careful to not jump the gun, for at first glance, there are many passages
in the Bible that will seem bizarre and absurd.  Be assured that even
though they seem alien at first, be confident that they are not.
Be assured that beyond your present comprehension, there lies such
deep reasons that once you see them, you will indeed be satisfied.
I will personally guarantee that one.  As Jesus put it, "You will never
be thirsty again.  Your cup will even flow over."
From King Solomon (970 B.C. to 930 B.C.):
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings."
Jesus says in John 6:44 & 55:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."
And in John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
life."
You are included in "whosoever".  And I also pray that the Father is
drawing you, which it seems He is doing else you wouldn't be posting
to talk.religion.misc.  Remember Brian, you could be a St. Paul in the
making.  Paul not only mocked Christians as you do, but also had pleasure
stoning them.  Yet God showed him mercy, saved him, and Paul became
on of the most celebrated men in the history of God's church.
You see Brian, I myself better be careful and not judge you, because
you could indeed be the next Paul.  For with the fervor that you attack
Christians,  one day you might find yourself one, and like Paul,
proclaim the good news of Jesus with that very same fervor or more.
Or you could be the next Peter.  What Jesus said to Peter, Jesus would
probably say to you: "Satan would surely like to have you."  Why so?
Because Peter was hard-headed, cynical and demonstrated great
moments of stupidity, but once Peter committed himself to a task
he did with full heart.  Peter was the only apostle to have the
faith to walk on water as Jesus did.
You asked "Why not believe in Zeus?"  Zeus didn't offer eternal life.
You got nothing to gain by believing in Zeus.
-------------------------------
Brian Ceccarelli
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1993Apr16.173720.19151@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) writes:
>In article <C5L14I.JJ3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>Why isn't this falsifiable? I.E. There is no God, the world has existed forever
>>and had no starting point. ?
>
>How does one falsify God's existance?  This, again, is a belief, not a scien-
>tific premise.  The original thread referred specifically to "scientific
>creationism".  This means whatever theory or theories you propose must be
>able to be judged by the scientific method.  This is in contrast to
>purely philosophical arguments.
If given a definite definition of "God", it is sometimes possible to
falsify the existance of that God.
But, when one refuses to give an immutable definition, one can not.
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 85
/(emery)
/The one single historic event that has had the biggest impact on the
/world over the centuries is the resurrection of Jesus.
This is hardly possible, as the majority of people in the world were
born, lived their life, and died, without ever knowing anything about
Christ.  The majority of the rest of the world have decided that he
is not who Emery thinks he is.
/(emery)
/Why were the writers of the New Testament documents so convinced that
/Jesus really did rise from the dead?
/We have four gospel accounts.
I am leaving out all "proofs" of Emery's which rely on quoting the
bible as proof.  Circular reasoning, etc.  There have been occasions
already stated many times for later generations of Xtians to change,
edit, or otherwise alter the bible to fit their political gospel.
And if we accept the bible as true just because the bible says it
is true, then (to be fair) we have to do the same to the Bhagavad-Gita
and the Koran, both of which contradict the bible.
Enough said.
/(emery)
/Yet we have no reason to believe these disciples to be immoral and dishonest.
/We have no historic information that would lead us to the conclusion that
/these people were not God-fearing people who sincerely and whole-heartedly
/believed that the resurrection of their Lord Jesus was a real event.
/And for what gain would they lie?  To make a stand at that time meant
/persecution, imprisonment, and perhaps even death.
Again, this is only the biblical account and there is no independent proof
of any of this happening.  It just isn't there.
Besides, simply being sincere or willing to die for your faith does not
make your faith correct.  There are Muslims dying in Bosnia right now;
does the fact that they are willing to die for Islam mean that Islam is
the correct religion?
(emery)
/History bears out the persecution of Christians.  Roman historian, Cornelius
/Tacitus, Govenor of Asia, in A.D. 112, writing of Nero's reign, alluded to
/the torture of Christians in Rome:
All you have proven is that these people were tortured for their faith.  That
does not prove that their faith is true or correct; it just means that they
were sincere in their beliefs.
Being willing to die for what you believe doesn't make your belief the truth.
It's not that easy.  And minority religions have always suffered torture;
Muslims suffer torture and harassment in India and Bosnia today.  All religions
are harassed in China today.  You haven't proven anything so far.
/(emery)
/With all the suffering and persecution that it meant to be a believer, it
/would be quite probable that at least one of those in the supposed conspiracy
/would come forward and confess that the whole thing was a big hoax.
Not if they didn't believe that it was a hoax.
/(emery)
/Yet not one did.  It seems rather reasonable that the disciples did not make
/up the resurrection but sincerely believed that Jesus had actually risen
/from the dead; especially in light of the sufferings that came upon those
/who believed.
The followers of Muhammad firmly believed in the miracles that the Koran
says Muhammad performed.  They were attacked and slaughtered for their
beliefs.  They didn't denounce Muhammad or Islam.  If you are correct,
then that means Islam is the true faith.
You see how stupid your proofs are?
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 16
(Frank DeCenso)
> But how? It's evident from the texts in Ezek 26-28 that God isn't concerned
> about buildings or structures - God is concerned about people.  The people and
> leadership (Ezek 28) never did return as a city.  Others may have come later
> and built a city, but the people and leadership that God prophesied about in
> Ezek 26-28 were never rebuilt as a city of people and leaders.
How incredibly fucking stupid.  Of *course* the text is referring to the city
itself (buildings, bricks, mortar, etc.)  Otherwise it makes no sense to
refer to the future of Tyre as being reduced to nothing but a _place_ to spread
fishing nets.
Is there any twisting of text or semantic game that you *won't* do to preserve
your faith from admission of error, DeCenso?
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 32
/(Frank DeCenso)
/>
/>I need to prioritize things in my life, and this board is not all that important
/>to me.
Of course it is.  It forms a very big part of your self-respect.  You come onto
the board, thinking you're some sort of apologeticist for your faith, and you
routinely get roasted over a grill for stupid theories and unfounded assumptions.
/(Frank DeCenso)
/This board will have
/>to wait until (if ever) I can organize my life to fit it in.  I tried dropping
/>out, but Sieferman coerced me to come back.  He won't this time.
I doubt that Sieferman has anything to do with you dropping out.
It's probably closer to the truth to say that you don't have the cards to
play in this game (because you insist on playing from a losing hand), and you're
finally realizing it.  You will lurk on the board, and keep
quiet for a while, looking for an area where you are *certain* that you
are correct, and then we'll see you pop back in again.  Of course, you then
will say that you have merely returned because your life is now "in order".
But we'll know better.
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.
Lines: 71
In article <bskendigC5L782.JM5@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>John 12:24-26: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat
>falls onto the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it
>produces much grain.
>  "He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in
>this world will keep it for eternal life.
>  "If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My
>servant will be also.  If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor."
>
>Why would I want an eternal life if I hate this one?
Again, you missed Jesus's point.  If you read the surrounding passages
you would understand what Jesus means by "life in the world."  But
as is, you bumbled around, asserted your standard axiom that the Bible is bunk,
and came up with the wrong idea.  Also, you do not know exactly
what Jesus means by eternal life.
Brian K., do you expect to jump in the middle of the quantum mechanics
book and understand Hermite polynomials having not read the surrounding
material?  Why do you such with the Bible?  For an idea what Jesus
means by the world, look up references to it in your concordance.  For
a good description, the whole Book of Ecclesiastes is game.  For
eternal life, check out John 17:3, John 3:15-16.  You will find that
eternal life is quite different than what you think.  Eternal life
starts NOW--an infinitely high quality of life living in fellowship
with God.
>In short: even if your deity *does* exist, that doesn't automatically
>mean that I would worship it.  I am content to live my own life, and
>fend for myself, so when I die, I can be proud of the fact that no
>matter where I end up, it will be because of *my* actions and *my* choices.
>
>If your god decides to toss me into a flaming pit for this, then so be
>it.  I would much rather just cease to exist.  But if your god wants
>my respect and my obedience, then it had better earn these; and if it
>does, then they will be very strong and true.
If my diety exists, you would not just cease to exist.  Jesus talks of
hell in Luke 16:19-31.
>You've got to understand my point-of-view: I see Christians spouting
>Bible verse all the time as if it were some sort of magic spell that
>will level all opposition.  Truth is, it's not.  Robert has never
>demonstrated that he actually understands what the verses imply; he
>just rattles them off day by day.  Some brazenly fly in the face of
>common sense and reality, and I point these out where I can.
The truth is, is that it is not some sort of magic spell.  The truth
is is that you do not understand it, and enjoy not understanding it.
>Christanity is a very nice belief set around a very nice book.
Wrong again.  Christianity is supposed to be relationship.  You
do not even know what Christianity is and you are arguing against
it.
>And in my opinion, you're bumbling about blindly making up entities
>where there aren't any, and depriving yourself of a true understanding
>and enjoyment of your life.  As long as you keep your beliefs to
>yourself, I'll keep my beliefs to myself -- but as soon as you start
>waving them around, expect me to toss in my opinions, too.
Just as I make up such places as Jericho, Jerusalem, Babylon, Corinth,
Ephesus, Susa, and such kings as Nebuchanezzar, David, Solomon,
Sennacherib, Herod, Pontius Pilate . . . .   But I guess then
that you treat Abraham Lincoln as a myth like you do Odin and Zeus.
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal)
Subject: Re: Gilligan's island, den of iniquity
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Lines: 21
beb@pt.com (Bruce Buck) writes:
: In article <1993Apr13.011033.23123@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal) writes:
: >: >> Gilligan = Sloth
: >: >> Skipper = Anger
: >: >> Thurston Howell III = Greed
: >: >> Lovey Howell = Gluttony
: >: >> Ginger = Lust
: >: >> Professor = Pride
: >: >> Mary Ann = Envy
: >
: >Assorted Monkeys= Secular Humanism
:
: Assorted Headhunters - Godless, Heathen Savagery
: Russian Agent who looks like Gilligan - Godless Communism
: Japanese Sailor - Godless Barbarism
: Walter Pigeon - Godless Bird Turd
: The Mosquitos (Bingo, Bango, Bongo, Irving) - Godless Rock'n'Roll
: Harold Heckuba (Phil Silvers) - Hollywood Hedonism
: John McGiver - Butterfly flicking
: Tonga, the Fake Apeman - Deceit, Lust
: Eva Grubb - Deceit, lust
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4
Lines: 23
tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
:
: Probably not.  But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.
: You don't really think he should have been allowed to keep that stuff do
: you?  If so, tell me where you live so I can be sure to steer well clear.
I understand that they had the neccessary licenses and permits to own
automatic weapons.
: The public also has rights, and they should be placed above those of the
: individual.  Go ahead, call me a commie, but you'd be singing a different
: tune if I exercised my right to rape your daughter.  He broke the law, he
: was a threat to society, they did there job - simple.
I haven't seen any proof (or even evidence) that the BD's had broken the
law.  If you have proof (or evidence), let's hear it.  "The FBI said so" is
NOT evidence.
:
: I'll support them all (except no. 2)
I guess there will always be people who wish to be peasants.  The politicians
prefer unarmed peasants
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4
Lines: 11
xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor) writes:
: : Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
: : for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the
: : character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out
: : the rest the hard way.
: :
:
: Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.
I haven't heard of ANY illegal guns being found.  He was accused
of not paying taxes on LEGAL guns.
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4
Lines: 8
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.
:
The FBI said he would surrender.  We don't KNOW what he said.
From: Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (Pegasus)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
Organization: the Polyhedron Group
Lines: 13
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fp1-dialin-6.uoregon.edu
In article <JOSHUA.93Apr20190924@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) wrote:
>
> I would really appreciate if when someone brought something like
> this up they didn't back out when someone asked for details.
> josh
EXCUSE ME!
I am -NOT TRYING TO BACK OUT- Josh, Maybe you should try to make an
informed responce when your are trying to pack, and your references are
PACKED!  and someone responses like you did. (NO GRIN).
Pegasus
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 18
In article <1993Apr20.142356.456@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>In article <C5rLps.Fr5@world.std.com>, jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) writes:
>|> In article <1qvk8sINN9vo@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>|>
>|> It was interesting to watch the 700 club today.  Pat Robertson said that the
>|> "Branch Dividians had met the firey end for worshipping their false god." He
>|> also said that this was a terrible tragedy and that the FBI really blew it.
>
>I don't necessarily agree with Pat Robertson.  Every one will be placed before
>the judgement seat eventually and judged on what we have done or failed to do
>on this earth.  God allows people to choose who and what they want to worship.
I'm sorry, but He does not!  Ever read the FIRST commandment?
>Worship of money is one of the greatest religions in this country.
You mean, false religion!
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: Temple University
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: vm.temple.edu
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
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.
Richard
From: parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Keywords: Success
Lines: 140
Nntp-Posting-Host: ccsua.ctstateu.edu
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.  The FBI and
the BATF could not let a man like that live.  He was a testimonial to their
stupidity and lies.
Now before everyone gets crazy with me, let me say that Koresh was crazy as
a bed bug, but out government was crazier...and they lied to us.
They told us compound had been under survaillance for quite some time.  Yet,
whoever was watching the place failed to see that Koresh went jogging and into
town on a regular basis.  Everyone in the area claimed to have seen him and
wondered why they didn't pick him up then.  There are two possible answers.
First, they didn't see him.  What kind of survaillance is that?  Second, they
didn't care.  They wanted a confrontation.  They wanted publicity and they got
it.
After the first battle, they told us that they did not know he knew they were
coming.  They also said it would have been foolish to go in knowing that.
Well, we know now that they intercepted the informants call and went in anyway.
Did they explore all of the possibilities for ending the seige?  According to
them they did, but according to the Hartford Courant, the woman that raised
Koresh (His Grandmother) was not allowed to go in and see him.
The FBI agent who she spoke with was Bob Ricks and according to the paper he
said:
"A lot of people think if you just talk to them logically they will come out.
His grandmother raised Vernon Howell; (Koresh's Real name)  she didn't raise
David Koresh."
Someone who raises you and loves you does not speak to you strickly on a
logical level.  There is also an emotional level on which they can reach you.
Here's another one.  All during this operation the FBI has been claiming that
they feared a mass suicide and that is one of the reasons that something must
be done.  Now they claim they never thought he would do it?
I knew they were going to do something when they started talking about how
much money this was costing.  That was the start of the "Justification" part
part of the plan.  That's when I knew it would come soon.
But, back to the plan.  It is considered "Cruel and Unusal Punishment" to
execute criminals in the minds of many people, but look at what's acceptable.
They knew the parents (adults) had gas masks.  They did not know, or were not
sure, if the children had them.  So the plan was to pour the gas into the
compound.  The mothers, seeing what the gas was doing to their children were
supposed to run out and that would only leave the men to deal with.
I spent two years in the army and like everyother veteran I went through CBR
(Chemical, Biological Radiological) warfare training.  Part of that training
is going into a room filled with the same stuff that the children were
subjected to.  To make the stuff really interesting the gas also has a chemical
agent that irritates the skin.  You think its on fire.
I have no doubts the children would become hysterical.  Its not the kind of
thing you never want to do again.  This was the plan, the final solution.
We waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran.  We gave these
people 51 days.
I stated on several occasions that there was absolutely nothing in this whole
thing that the government could point to as a success.  Well, FBI agent Ricks
changed my mind.  Again a newclip from the Hartford Courant:
"And while expressing regret at the loss of life, he suggested that the
operation had been at least a modified success because not a single federal
shot had been fired and not a single federal agent had been hurt."
It took 17 dead children to get us that new definition of success.
One more thought.  The government claimed that they believed he had automatic
weapons on the premises.
HE HAD A LICENSE FOR THE 50 CALIBER MACHINE GUN!
THEY KNEW DAMN WELL HE HAD ONE. THEY ALSO KNEW HE HAD IT LEGALLY!
Still, without the element of surprise they sent in agents to get him.
For all of this my President takes full responsibility.  What a guy!
I hope he gets it.
In article <exuptr.1431.0@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor, The Sounding Board) writes:
> In article <11974@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>
>>Before you go absolving the BATF & FBI of all blame in this incident, you should
>>probably be aware of two important facts.
>>1.  There is no such thing as non-toxic tear gas.  Tear gas is non-breathable
>>    remaining in it's presence will cause nausea and vomiting, followed eventually
>>    by siezures and death.  Did the FBI know the physical health of all the people
>>    they exposed??  Any potential heart problems among the B-D's??
>
> No doubt it is dangerous stuff when concentrated.
>
>>2.  Have you ever seen a tear gas canister??  Tear gas is produced by burning a
>>    chemical in the can.  The fumes produced are tear gas.  The canister has a
>>    warning printed on the side of it.  "Contact with flamable material can result
>>    in fire."  Now, how many of these canisters did they throw inside a building
>>    they admited was a fire-trap??
>
> None.  They used non-incindiary methods, which means they produced the gas
> outside the building and pumped it in via the tanks.
>
> ---
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  ---------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS +1 214 596 2915, a Wildcat! BBS-------
>
>  ObDis: All opinions are specifically disclaimed. No one is responsible.
>
>     Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems  THX-1138
>     exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
Lines: 24
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu
In article <C5stEL.K0E@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>>Dear Brother Bill,
>>
>>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 do you want the president to specifically order each and every activity
>of the FBI, or what?  And how willing are you to blame Reagan and Bush,
>directly, for the incidents that took place in the War on Drugs in their
>administration?  Are you going to blame Bush for the fact that Weaver's wife,
>infant, son were killed?  It happened while he was president.
... or consider the thousands in Central America killed by those brave
CIA/NSC sponsored "Freedom Fighters."
Thus far, Slick Willie is a piker.
spl
--
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
San Diego Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UC San Diego/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"My other car is a car, too."
- Bumper strip seen on I-805
From: susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu (Susan Soric)
Subject: Wanted: Moltmann's God in Creation
Organization: Not important
Lines: 15
I'm greatly in need of Jurgen
Moltmann's book God in Creation:
An Ecological Doctrine of Creation.
If you have a copy you're willing to
part with, I'd love to hear from you
soon.  You may call me at 312-702-
8367 or e-mail me.
Thanks.
==========================================================================================
Susan Soric
Independent agent
susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI Developer Docudramas
Lines: 20
<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
| 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.
Women who are known not to want abortion services, for example,
might be judged to be more likely to require prenatal care &
coverage for childbirth... which can be an order of magnitude
more expensive than abortion.
This topic should really be restricted to talk.abortion, which
exists to relieve t.r.m & t.p.m of abortion flamage.
---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"In Melbourne, Fla., meanwhile, anti-abortion marchers rallied to
celebrate the death of Dr. David Gunn.  "Praise God!" they shouted."
(NY Daily News, Fri. March 12, p. 20)
From: lanphi872@moscow.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: University of Idaho
Lines: 104
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: snake.cs.uidaho.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote:
: I will clarify my earlier quote.  God's laws were originally written for
: the Israelites.  Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to
: all people, not just the Jews.  Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of
: Heaven through the saving grace of God.  I never said that the Law was made
: obsolete by Jesus.
Just for reference, here's the earlier quote:
Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote in reference to Leviticus 21:9
and Deuteronomy 22:20-25:
: These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
: expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
: direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
: is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately
: punishable.
: Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to
: God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in
: the age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There
: is repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And
: not just for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew
: and Gentile alike.
These are two conflicting statements.  To say one is a clarification of the
other is a breach of logic.  I don't mind people shifting their position on
an issue.  It irritates me when it is said under the premise that no change
was made.  What about Deuteronomy 22:20-25?  Is it wrong now?  Did Jesus
change that?
: If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made.  In the
: following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon
: the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended.
Sure he does this.  However, he doesn't address the notion of stoning
non-virgin brides, because this needs no clarification.  Are you going to
deny that Deuteronomy 22:20-25 is not patently clear in its intent?
: I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of
: modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe
: in it.  What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?
I'll agree that there is a lot of modern day Pharisees that know the Bible
from end to end and don't believe in it.  Depending on how they use this
knowledge, they can be scary.  They can argue any position they desire, and
back it up with selected parts of the Bible.  Such Pharisees include David
Koresh and Adolph Hitler.  I will qualify this by saying *I don't know* if
they actually believed what they were preaching, but the ends certainly
made the means look frightening.
However, just as scary are those that don't know much of the Bible, but
believe every word.  In fact, this is probably scarier, since there are far
more of these people, from what I've seen.  In addition, they are very easy
to manipulate by the aforementioned Pharisees, since they don't know enough
to debate with these people.
: Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's
: perspectives and personal conduct.  And it demands obedience to God's will.
No, it demands obedience to a book.  If God came down and personally told
me how I should behave, then I would say that I would be doing God's will
by doing it.  However, if preachers, pastors, and evangelists tell me to
obey the will of a book written by people who have been dead for close to
two millenia (even longer for the OT), even if I follow everything in it
with my heart, I could scarcely be honest with myself by saying I'm doing
the will of God.
: Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not.  That is
: their choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.
Well, if God respects it so much, how come there is talk in the Bible about
eternal damnation for non-believers?  I see little respect eminating from
the god of the Bible.  I see a selfish and spiteful god.
: God be with you,
Not yours, thanks ;)
: Malcolm Lee  :)
Rob Lanphier
lanphi872@snake.cs.uidaho.edu
lanph872@uidaho.edu
And for the curious, here is my earlier post:
> Hmm, for a book that only applied to the Israelites (Deuteronomy), Jesus sure
> quoted it a lot (Mt 4: 4,7,10).  In addition, he alludes to it in several
> other places (Mt 19:7-8; Mk 10:3-5; Jn 5:46-47).  And, just in case it isn't
> clear Jesus thought the Old Testament isn't obsolete, I'll repeat the
> verse in Matthew which gets quoted on this group a lot:
>
> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until
> heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
> of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
> accomplished.  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments
> and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of
> heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called
> great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your
> righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,
> you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."  (Mt 5:17-20 NIV, in
> pretty red letters, so that you know it's Jesus talking)
> This causes a serious dilemma for Christians who think the Old Testament
> doesn't apply to them.  I think that's why Paul Harvey likes quoting it so
> much ;).
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 13
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".
Oh, bloody sorry old chap, why didn't you tell me you were a federale?
Tough luck, eh? What's that? You say you're not dead yet?
From: tims@megatek.com (Tim Scott)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism
Reply-To: tims@megatek.com
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Lines: 72
In article <79899@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
I would like to add my support for a misc.taoism discussion group.
I applaud the enthusiam shown by the person posting <79899@cup.portal.com>
"Thyagi@cup.portal.com" (I read in alt.magick), but I differ
with him/her in believing that at least some minimal parameters
should be agreed upon.
Thyagi wrote:
> I recommend that the depth of generality, indeed, of AMBIGUITY, in this
> newsgroup (misc.taoism) be maximized.  Calling the Tradition old or new
> is rather unnecessary, and only leads to foolish squabbles.  There is no
> doubt that Nature is a splendid teacher, whether she appears in the words
> spoken by a tree or by a stream, a microbe or a star.  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.
Other questions Thyagi proposes are:
> 1) What is this 'actual process of reality'?
> 2) Why is Taoism based upon an assumption?
> 3) Why does this assumption concern knowledge and what can be known?
> 4) What is the value of not knowing?
> 5) What is 'a Tao'?  What does it mean to be 'Tao'd'?
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 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..
e.g. (from Thyagi again):
> Taoism does what the hell it wants, I tell you.
> Taoism doesn't exist.  'Taoism' is no more real that 'Tao'.  Decide, now.
> Real or not real?  Exist or not-exist?  When shall we be certain
Kent gloomily predicts (quoting from Thyagi's article):
> However most traffic in
> the group will likely concern the philosophical, secular taoism
> averred by Alan Watts and Niels Bohr, and yogic taoism as it pertains
> to medical, sexual and martial techniques.
I think that discussions of this nature are not completely out of
place. 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. (With respect to some exceptions
like the books by Jou, Tsung-Hwa.)
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. If
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.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim P. Scott sending from: Megatek Corporation    (619)455-5590 ext.2610
9645 Scranton Rd. San Diego, CA 92121-3782 USA        FAX: (619)453-7603
Internet: tims@megatek.com [or] ...uunet!megatek!tims
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 31
In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>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
>
>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
Surely you are not equating David Koresh with Christianity? The two are
not comparable.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 16
In article <93109.211935ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET (Casper C. Knies) writes:
>
>Please allow me to explain myself.  In 1838, the governor of Missouri,
>..............
>
>
>Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
>Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
>UCS Computer Facilities
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?
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Info about New Age!
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 12
In article <1qvnu9$a8a@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> hawk@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>Greetings!  Could anybody here give me any information about New Age religion?
>About the history, the teachings, ...???  Or may be suggestions what books I
>should read in order to get those info?  Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Contact:   WATCHMAN FELLOWSHIP
P.O. Box 171194
Holladay, UT 84117-1194
Ask for their book:  The New Age and Space Age Heresies
The New Age In Our Schools
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Lines: 26
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>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.
You might be sure, but you would also be wrong.
>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?
I suspect the answer to this question is the same as the answer to,
"Do not the actions of the likes of Stalin show the dangers of
atheism?"
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.
Lines: 110
Jesus:
>     "This is the verdict:  Light has come into the world, but
>     men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds
>     are evil.  Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will
>     not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be
>     exposed."
Kent Sandvik says:
>It seems we are dealing with a black-and-white interpretation.
>Brian, are you subtly accusing me of evil things because I never
>saw the light? However, this is even more confusing because
>I even admit that I don't like the situation where I'm not
>informed.
Black and white.  A spade is a spade.  There is no hidden
agenda behind this, so stop trying to look for one.   It is an
easy and as straight forward as it reads.
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.
Jesus uses the word "men".  I am included.  Jesus is not soloing you out.
Jesus is making a general statement about out the sad state of man.
Christians are not immuned from doing evil things.  A Christian
is just a person in whom the Holy Spirit indwells.  A Christian
can see the evil he is doing--because his evil has been brought
out into the light.  Jesus is not saying that just because evil has been
exposed, that the Christian will stop doing evil.  If you haven't
seen Jesus's light, your evil deeds simply haven't been
exposed to the His light.  You may shed some light on your
own.  Your human spirit shines at perhaps 1 candela.  But the
Holy Spirit shines at a Megacandela.  The Holy Spirit can
shine light into places inside us where we didn't even know
existed.
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?
>I'm watching the news about a man who saw the light, and made
>sure that the 19 children burned to death as part of his insight
>into the light. I don't think the world is that simple. And if
>you act in such ways when you are enlighted, then I'm a happy
>man and I pray I will never receive such 'light'.
And I watched Koresh too, an imposter who thought he saw the light,
who made sure that the 19 children burned to death, sadly, as part
of his delusion.  It is even sadder that the people who
died with him chose to die with them, and that ignorance was
their downfall to death.
And Kent, don't you bury yourself underneath a rock with an
excuse like bringing up Koresh--as if Koresh actually had truth in him.
David Koresh was no light and no excuse for
you to stay away from the real Jesus Christ.  David Koresh, who
claimed to be Jesus, was a fraud.  It was obvious.  David Koresh
was born in America. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  Koresh wasn't
even a good imposter having missed an obvious point as that.
Jesus warned of such imposters in the end-times.  David
Koresh wasn't anything new to Jesus.  Jesus told us to be
aware of imposters 2000 years ago.
So the next time an imposter makes a scene and claims to
be Jesus.  Ask the obvious.  Where were you born?  Was your
mother's name Mary?  If the Branch Davidians asked that
simple question, they would have labeled Koresh a liar
right from the start.  The wouldn't have followed Koresh.
They wouldn't have died.  But look what happened.  Their
ignorance cost them their lives.  Their choice to be ignorant
cost them a lot.
Kent, since you studied the Bible under Lutheranism, do you
not remember what tactic Satan used to try to tempt Jesus?
Did not Satan quote the Bible out of context?  Do you
remember what tactic the serpent of Genesis used to tempt
Eve?  Did he not misquote God?  What Satan used on Eve and succeeded,
was the same ploy he tried on Jesus.  But in Jesus's case,
Jesus rebuked Satan back with the Bible _in_ context.  It
didn't work with Jesus.
Does what Satan did to Eve in the Garden and what Satan
tried to do with Jesus in the desert remind you of what
Koresh did to his followers?  Who did Koresh emulate?
Who was Koresh's teacher?  Koresh did to his followers what
Satan did to Eve.  Did not Koresh kill his followersr?  Did
not Satan cause Adam and Eve to die as well?  Did not
the cult followers believe Koresh even though they knew
the real Christ was born in Bethlehem?   Did not Eve
choose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil despite knowing that it would cause her death?  God
held them all responsible--deceiver and the rebeller.  None
of them had an excuse.
As opposed to the Branch Davidians, we have a second chance.
Follow Jesus and he will escort us to the path of eternal life.
Don't follow Jesus, and you stand condemned already, for like
the Branch Davidian complex, your house is already on fire.
Satan, Adam and Eve have already set it ablaze.   It is just
a slow burn, but it is burning nevertheless.
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 15
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) says:
>... or consider the thousands in Central America killed by those brave
>CIA/NSC sponsored "Freedom Fighters."
>
>Thus far, Slick Willie is a piker.
ONLY if you weight Americans equal to SAlvadorans.
I don't.
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 21
In article <9601@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether) writes:
|>
|> Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to
|> bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."
|> :
Remember the armor of God?  The sword that Christians wield is the
Word of God, the Bible.
God be with you,
Malcolm Lee  :)
|> RJL
|> --
|> Rich Loether          Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh     The Ideas:
|> EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu              Computing and Info Services      Mine,
|> Voice: (412) 624-6429             600 Epsilon Drive                   all
|> FAX  : (412) 624-6426             Pittsburgh, PA 15238                  Mine.
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Lines: 18
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  :)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?
From: "Casper C. Knies" <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 148
Isaac Kuo (saackuo@spam.berkeley.edu) writes:
#In article <93109.231733ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> "Casper C. Knies" <ISSCCK@BYUVM#.B
#>Gedaliah Friedenberg (friedenb@maple.egr.msu.edu) writes:
#>As a Latter-day Saint, I found John's statement *not at all* ludicrous...
#>
#>Please allow me to explain myself.  In 1838, the governor of Missouri,
#>governor Boggs, issued his so-called "Mormon extermination order."  The
#>only crime ("illegal activity") the Latter-day Saints had committed, was
#>their religious affiliation, their anti-slave stance (Missouri still
#>allowed slave practices), and their growing numbers/influence in Missouri.
#>
#>I guess the Mormons "got what they deserved," because they refused to bow
#>to the will of (corrupt and evil) secular authorities. This "disobedience"
#>brought upon them persecution, murder, and finally forced expulsion from
#>their lands and settlements...
#
#It is significant to remember that these secular positions were held by
#"average" people, and that at the time, almost all Americans were pretty
#homogeonously Christian. It was largely the mainstream Christian's disgust
#at such practices as polygamy which resulted in their irrational hatred.
True, but that is exactly the "problem": the Mormon extermination order
was issued not just by a Christian, it was ALLOWED under the Constitution
of the United States, which was instituted precisely to prevent incidents
like this "order" from occurring in the first place...  As I indicated in
an earlier posting, your "irrational hatred" is clearly evidenced by
individuals like Robert Weiss (who could have been Gov. Boggs' Lieutenant;
he would have fitted right in, drewling et al), and seems a modern-day
occurrence, based on results (slander, persecution, misrepresentation,
lies, denying Mormons representation in their own user group, etc. etc.
In intent and purpose, what really has changed?
#The situation is not entirely different today.  Many irrational feelings
#and beliefs are justified through religion.  I don't think most of them
#are started because of religion, but religion certainly helps justify and
#perpetuate prejudices and practices by providing a neat justification
#which discourages critical thought.
True, as evidenced by numerous examples, as I am sure you're aware.
#>In any regard, Mormon history alone indicates that secular authorities (and
#>I don't even discuss how Uthan's were suckered into allowing part of their
#>lands in becoming nerve-gas and atomic bomb testing grounds...) is far from
#>being trusted or righteous.  Have things really changed for the better?  I
#>may be a born cynic, but I have NO reason whatsoever that such has been the
#>case. In the early 1980s, I believe, the late President Kimball (lds church
#>leader) strongly protested federal attempts to locate the MX-"Peace Keeper"
#>missile maze from being built in Utah (yet another "inspired" decision from
#secular authorities).  Fortunately, his opposition was influential enough
#for the feds to back off.
#
#Do you mean that the "secular authorities" are some continuous group of
#people with the common and uninterrupted goal of harrassing/eradicating the
#Mormons?  Do you honestly believe that the main reason for using Utah for
#nuclear testing etc.. was to "get them thar Mormons"?  And what about the
#majority of Uthan's who aren't Mormons?  You seem to be searching for enemy
^^^^^^^^
(Correction: the majority of Utahn's ARE Mormon (60-70% I believe, up to a
100% in many cities and settlements throughout the Western states.)
#conspiracies.  It is paranoid to believe that everything that affects you
#badly must have been done primarily for that purpose.
What I mean is that secular authorities are to be watched, as we believe
that Satan has been given some power and dominion over the earth to divert
truth, judgment, and justice.  In addition, we believe that the adversary
has power to influence the unjust and idolatrous (greed for money would be
a good example) in order to bring about persecution, war, oppression, and
evil combinations.  As an intelligent being, don't you suppose that the
destroyer would yield his influence foremost on those with political power?
As far as Utah is concerned, what I pointed out were some horrible examples
of environmental nightmares imposed upon by secular authorities, which have
brought death, disease, (i.e. the "downwinders") and environmental contami-
nation.  I am hardly "paranoid," I am just not "expecting" too much from a
secular government that may not share our values and faith, and which indeed
(as Gov. Boggs et al.) may be out to harm and destroy us.  As a matter of
fact, prophecies in my church indicate that in future years, (global)
persecution against Mormons will so increase in intensity and scope, that
(paraphrasing) "all those who wish to escape persecution and murder must
flee to Zion."  Zion (the "pure in heart") will be re-established in those
days, and it AIN'T our current secular authorities who will rule over it...
#>...  David Koresh did NOT pose a great
#>threat to the federal authorities or the security of this nation, and with
#>John, I too wonder who or what's next...
#
#I personally feel that we should try to stop anyone who is a threat to the
#life of even one person.  Sure, he did not pose a threat to the security of
#this nation.  But he did pose a threat to the lives of his followers.  That
#much is definite.
Hmmm.  "definite" by whom?  --Until such has been established beyond reason-
able doubt, this alleged "threat" may have been less than the "threat"
imposed upon him and his followers by the BATF and FBI...
#>Who killed who?  What constitutional right did the ATF officers have to
#>invade upon private land and to force themselves into the compound?
#>What REALLY caused the "murder" of the little children?  Could it be that
#>the ATF/FBI presence has any bearing upon the events?  How would you
#>interpret the Mt. Masada events?  --Blame the Jews?  (What the heck did
#>the Romans do there anyway?  What business did the ATF/FBI has in Waco,
#>Texas???)  The Branch Davidians NEVER posed any threat to society.
#
#This is like asking who REALLY caused the deaths of the Israeli Olympic
#team in 1976?  In that case, the police botched the job as well.  But to
#lay a heavier burden on them than the terrorists would be a terrible
#mistake.  I think the same sort of reasoning applies in this case.
#Certainly, if David Koresh chose any peaceful option, the ATF and FBI
#would have complied.  The responsibility is more his than the authorities.
Come now, at issue is in how much the authorities escalated an otherwise
peaceful stand-off: "let's get it over with, and "force" David Koresh to
come out???"  --By gassing them???  Were they naive, or what?  They played
right into the hands of an apocalyptic-thinking individual (he had prepared
his people for this eventuality for years), and not *one* firetruck or plan
was in place to deal with this scenario???  I feel that the authorities
had "some" responsibility to protect their own citizens, even if they were
religious zealots, and guilty of ... not paying a $200 gun license???
(Has the BATF become an extension of the local tax-collectors?)
#>David Koresh, no doubt, will be described as the "evil" guy (by the
#>executioners), while the actions of all those "valiant and brave" officers
#
#Characterizing the ATF/FBI as executioners is inaccurate and unfair.  In
#order to be an executioner, the least one must have done is have the intent
#to kill.
Que?? --Intrusion into private property with semi's, loaded with life
ammunition, isn't that implicit "intent (or at least "prepared") to kill"?
I ask you, would the BATF warrant stand up in a civil court of justice?
I do not mind if criminals (such as dangerous drug lords) are brought to
justice, but escalating events to the point of allowing to, if not compli-
city with, the destruction of a people?
#--
#*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)                   *        _____
#*"How lucky you English are to find the toilet so amusing.* ______//_o_\\__
#* For us, it is a mundane and functional item.  For you,  *(==(/___________
#* the basis of an entire culture!" Manfred von Richtofen  * \==\/         \
Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 160
Dan Sorenson (viking@iastate.edu) writes:
#In <mcclaryC5snpq.KB1@netcom.com> mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary)
#writes:
#        Just thought I'd clear up a few of the murky areas...
#
#>Actually, after surviving being driven out of Nauvoo, and later Carthage,
#>the Mormons DID fortify Utah.  They still arm themselves to "defend the
#>faith", and stockpile food as well.  They have been involved in quite a
#>lot of illegal activity - including multiple (and often underage) wives
#>for the leaders - a practice still in vogue with some splinters of their
#>sect.  The parallels between Koresh and Joseph Smith are striking.
#                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
By "they," you mean the leaders of the lds church?  I grant you that when
Joseph Smith was still alive, plenty of "accusations" were filed, most of
which had little bearing with reality, as evidenced by various verdicts.
I have studied lds history for 15 years now, and I have yet to see prove
that the lds leadership was involved, in quote: "illegal activities."
Plural marriage, yes, but your charge of "underage" wives sounds like it
could have originated from a tabloid, and discredits the high moral
standards which characterized these leaders and families, unlike, as it
appears, those of David Koresh.
#        Joseph Smith started the sect.  After he and his brother Hyram
#were murdered in a Nauvoo, Il. jail cell, church membership split over
#who to follow.  Initially, Smith was considered a prophet (just like
#Mohammed, a rather interesting parallel considering Muslims consider
#Christ to be a prophet the same as Jews, I'm led to understand.  Make
#no mistake, this was no messiah we're talking about in Smith).  The
And neither did he claim he was.  As the church reflects the moral
aptitude of its leaders (and especially those of Joseph Smith), I have
nothing but the highest respect for this inspired man, whose only "crime"
was that he refused to deny that he had seen a vision...  Many have tried
to explain the "Smith phenomenon" away, but the bold presence of an 8.5
million member strong church stands as a witness that Joseph Smith's
testimony had enough resilience and power to carry on the message.
#thought at the time was that the gift of prophecy was to be handed
#down father to son.  After Joseph Smith died, his son was only
#entering his teens.  Brigham Young and a few others claimed to have
#been bequeathed the gift and leadership prior to his death.  The
#Council of Twelve, the Church governing body, wasn't of much help
#here, and this basic conflict is still a wedge between the sects.
#Brigham Young took his followers to Salt Lake.  The rest waited
#for Smith Jr. to grow up enough to assume leadership.  The other
#claimants to the leadership were soon ignored, like Mike Dukakis. ;-)
"The rest" were apostates and excommunicated members of the Church,
while the great majority of the membership, the Twelve, and the various
auxiliary organizations, chose to accept Brigham Young as the new
prophet and leader of the Church.  If you knew your lds scriptures and
doctrine, you would have known that Brigham Young was the FIRST in
line to fill the prophet Joseph Smith's vacancy: he was the senior
apostle in the Quorum, and various comments made by Joseph indicated
that it was Brigham who would lead the latter-day exodus to the West.
Other rightful "heirs" were either dead (Hyrum Smith) or excommunicated
(Oliver Cowdery), and while persecutions abounded and intensified,
Joseph Smith had already given orders to look for a new place, an empty
land beyond the boundaries of the United States (at that time).  This
"Rekhabite" principle (pseudographia) was well understood and antipated
by the great majority of lds faithful, and was not questioned by them.
Granted, a couple of "do-it-yourselfers" stayed behind, unwilling to
sacrifice and to undertake the perilous journey to the unknown, but
this also was necessary to separate the tares from the wheat.  The
church benefitted from this purification process: they became even
more unified and willing to carry out their mission to the world.
#        Both sects practiced the "1-year food stockpile" doctrine,
#and this being frontier and farming country most carried or at
#least owned weapons.  There is little evidence that they were a
#militaristic sect, given that they tended to move on rather than
#face large-scale opposition.  Brigham Young, having suffered a
#great deal getting to Salt Lake, seems to have been quite
#justified in making military training a good thing.  Remember,
#this was far beyond where even the US Army went, and these people
#had nobody to turn to save themselves.
#
#        Just a little context to put this all in perspective.
BTW, since when is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (one of
the largest denominations in the country) a "sect"???  It didn't "splinter"
from any other religion, as did say, the Southern Baptists or Methodists.
#>So what did the Mormons get?  It seems that J. Edgar Hoover was very
#>impressed with the way they kept secrets.  (They're pledged to defend
#>secrets with their lives and atone for sin with blood.  Many actually
#>do - even to the point of suicide.)
What a balloney.  Suicide is sinful and against the law of God.  I am
not comfortable with this alleged "cosiness" with Mammon: I assure you
that *many* among us reject this attitude categorically.  Period.  Our
ONLY true allegiance is to our God and to the leaders which He has
appointed to represent Him.  In any regard, to read this TRASH (about
suicide and "atone for sins with blood") is yet another insulting
misrepresentation of what my church believes in and stands for...
#
#        The RLDS, the Reorganized LDS, are friendly rivals of the LDS
#and delight in telling stories about them, which generates quick retorts
#from the LDS members and everybody has a grand time.  At no time have
#I ever even heard this hinted at.  I'm taking it with a salt block.
Make it a really big salt mountain with a glacier on top.
#>  So he hired virtually no one but
#>Mormons, until the FBI was almost exclusively staffed by members of the
#>Church of Later Day Saints.  Though J. Edgar is finally gone, the FBI
#>personnel (especially the field agents) are still heavily Mormon.
#>I have often wondered how this might affect the FBI's treatment
#>of religious organizations a Mormon would consider heretical.
Preposterous.  Even if this were true (reliable data, please), I
am convinced that those officers would perform to the highest codes
of honor and conduct (that's why they were selected for in the
first place, remember?).  Besides, one of our Articles of Faith
STRONGLY states the principle of freedom of religion, and that all
people are free to worship "*how*, *where*, or *what* they may."
#        If it's true, there would be little affect.  LDS and RLDS
#philosophy is that all other religions have strayed from the true
#Church as set down by Jesus, but that God will judge each on his
#own merits.  In addition, the RLDS also contend (and the LDS may
#as well) that ignorance of the True Way (tm) is an excuse.  You
#can only be condemned if you had been tought the way and rejected
#it.  In short, LDS and RLDS suffer everybody from Lutherans to
#Buddhists, secure in the knowledge that though they are wrong they
#will not be penalized for ignorance.  It is more likely that Hoover
#liked them because of their rather strict upbringings which forbade
#alcohol, tobacco, hot drink (like coffee or tea), and the like.
#These people are the "salt of the Earth" and as such are more
#easily made to follow orders and have few vices to be used against them.
A good explanation, I can accept that.  You are right that lds people
are sometimes a little too cosy with Mammon's "orders" (the late
president Kimball, for example, was an exception with his strong
opposition of the selection of the MX "Peace Keeper" missile maze
in Utah).
#        That's my somewhat educated guess, anyway.  Both sects have
#splinter groups that don't mirror the masses, but these are small
#and rare, and hardly worth noting their common ancestry.
#
#        None of this has any relevance to guns, though.  When a
#man's religion is used to deny him the right of self-protection with
#the weapons suitable for the job, he'll find an ally in me.
#
#< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
#<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
#<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
#<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University
Lines: 24
In article <1993Apr21.164554.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>, parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
> I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.  The FBI and
> the BATF could not let a man like that live.  He was a testimonial to their
> stupidity and lies.
>
[...deleted...]
Unfortunately, I think you've got it figured pretty well.  I also ask
myself the question "Why did they plan for so many months.  Why was
this so important to them?  What was the government really up to?
Why did they seal the warrant?  Were they after Koresh or were they after
the first and second amendments, among others?
>
> We waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran.  We gave these
> people 51 days.
>
--
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
<f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to
Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
--Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 24
In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
>non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.
How do you know? Were you there?
While obviously Koresh was a nut case, the (typical) inability of the
government/media to get its story straight is quite disturbing. On
tuesday night, NBC news reported that the FBI did not know the place
was burning down until they saw black smoke billowing from the
building. The next day, FBI agents were insisting that they saw Davidians
setting the fire. The FBI was also adamantly denying that it was possible
their battery of the compound's wallks could have accidentally set the
blaze, while also saying they hadnt been able to do much investigating
of the site because it was still too hot. So how did they KNOW they
didnt accidentally set the fire.
Sounds like the FBI just burned the place to the ground to destroy
evidence to me.
--
Legalize Freedom
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 12
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?
--
Legalize Freedom
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 18
In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,
>died today?
No, and Im especially unhappy that these 70+ people died in an assault
on private property with government armored vehicles.
I am also unhappy (or actually, very suspicious) that the FBI was dismissing
out of hand any chances that they might have accidentally set the blaze
themselves. I mean, I guess we are just supposed to believe that
ramming modified tanks into the walls of a building and injecting
toxic gases into the building are just routine procedures, no WAY
anything could go wrong.
--
Legalize Freedom
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 18
In article <visser.735284180@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>	Please get an explaination of exactly what this "non-toxic" tear
>gas was and what the delivery system was.  I refuse to believe any
>explaination provided by the FBI/ATF without lots of facts.
>
>	I do not believe that there is such a thing as "non-toxic" tear
>gas.
>
You are correct. See today's (4/21) Washington Post. The gas the
FBI used is most certainly fatal in high concentrations. Of course,
non-toxic tear gas is an oxymoron; the whole point of tear gas is
that it is toxic, and its toxic effects cause people to seek
fresh air.
--
Legalize Freedom
From: edmahood@infoserv.com (Ed Mahood, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Greek myth and the Bible
Organization: Writer
Lines: 28
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.13
In <Pegasus-130393124328@fp1-dialin-7.uoregon.edu>, Pegasus@AAA.UOregon.EDU (Laurie EWBrandt)  wrote:
>
> [irrelevant inserts from previous postings deleted]
>
> A definiation from a text book used as part of an introductory course in
> social anthorpology "The term myth designates traditionally based, dramatic
> narratives on themes that emphasize the nature of humankind's relationship
> to nature and to the supernatural. ...  legends are ususally defined as
> tales concerning other times and places that do not give the same extensive
> emphasis to supernatural themes. Legends, more often than myths, are retold
> purely as entertainment." from Peter B. Hammand's .An introduction to
> Cutural and Social Anthropology. second ed Macmillion page 387. This makes
> the Bible a Fibber Magee's closet, over stuffed with a little bit of every
> thing gleened by a wandering people.
> Pegasus
Now doesn't this sound a lot like the "colorful (or otherwise) story
from antiquity that somehow tries to (or does) explain natural pheno-
mena"?  I think I hear what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that
I know what you mean.  The possibility exists that what _looks_ like
"myth" on the surface may be after all much more than "just" a story.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ed mahood, jr.  < edmahood@infoserv.com >
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Hitler - pagan or Christian? (Was: Martin Luther...)
<93074.033230KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> <9c9e02703ak901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 10
In article <9c9e02703ak901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>In article <93074.033230KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>>The Irish have their version of the swastica called St. Brigid's cross.
>There's also the three-legged symbol of the Isle of Man.
The three-legged symbol is a bit different, there is a word for them but
I can't recall it, tri something, trieskalon?, don't know. These have
more to do with the triple goddess in her three phases as reflected in
females: girl-woman-crone.
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Nntp-Posting-Host: digibd.digibd.com
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Lines: 13
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>In article <bskendigC5Ku3C.6Dx@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>I've asked your god several times with all my heart to come to me...
>Brian K., I am pleased with your honesty.  And to be honest as well, I
>believe you have not asked my god to come to you.  Why do I say this?
Because that would contradict your religious beliefs; therefore,
you feel more comfortable simply accusing his sincerity, so you will
not have to critically examine your religious beliefs.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 17 Apr 93   God's Promise in Luke 11:28
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 8
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
But he said,
Yea rather,
blessed are they
that hear the word of God,
and keep it.
Luke 11:28
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)
Reply-To: rfox@charlie.usd.edu
Organization: The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept.
Nntp-Posting-Host: charlie
Lines: 62
In article <1quim9INNem8@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>
>
>rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
>
>>Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
>>Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical
>scholar I mean
>>an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let
>the
>>chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may
>otherwise be
>>defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find.
>They are
>>not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).
>
>I've seen this claim about the "Josephus insert" flying around the
>net too often to continue to ignore it.  Perhaps it's true.  Was
>there only one Josephus manuscipt?  If there were, say, 100 copies,
>the forger would have to put his insert into all of them.  By the
>same token, since Josephus was a historian, why are biblical scholars
>raising the flag?  Historical scholars , I would think, would have
>a better handle on these ancient secular documents.  Can you give
>researchers documents (page numbers, etc)?
>
>Jack
I became aware of the claim years ago.  So I decided to check it out, on my
own.  But, then, that was in BN times (Before Net).  So, here are some
references.  See Robin Lane Fox's _The unauthorized version_, (p.284) where
Lane Fox writes, "... the one passage which appears to [comment on Jesus'
career] is agreed to be a Christian addition."
In my Re:Albert Sabin response (C5u7sJ.391@sunfish.usd.edu) to Jim Lippard (21
April 93), I noted that consensus is typically indicated subtly as in Elaine
Pagel's _The gnostic gospels_ (p.85), to wit:  "A comment *attributed* to
Josephus reports ... [emphasis mine]".  Scholars sometimes do not even mention
the two Josephus entries, another subtlety reflecting consensus.
So far as I can deduce, today's consensus is built on at least three things:
1) the long passage is way out of context, 2) Origen did not know about the
long passage, and 3) the short and long passages are contradictory.
I don't know the references wherein the arguments which led to consensus are
orginally developed (does anyone?).
Biblical scholars as I defined them include theologians and historians.  The
former, like the latter, incorporate historical, social, technological and
ideological contexts as well as theology.  So the distinction is blurred.  I
didn't elaborate on that.  Sorry.  (In turn, historians are compelled to
incorporate theology).
Can't say about the number of copies.  These were, however, BG times (Before
Gutenburg).  A hundred first editions seems exceedingly high; counting on one
hand seems more reasonable.  Perhaps those mss. without the long insert (if any,
because anything is possible) have been destroyed.  Such a practice is
certainly not foreign to religions.  Anyway, all we have are mss. which have
the two entries.  Lippart (in the message noted above) talks about an Arabic
ms.  But here the ms. date is critical.
:-)
Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Abortion
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.17i by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 22
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis)
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM.
Nntp-Posting-Host: netslip63.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
In <18275.459.uupcb@ozonehole.com> anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau)  writes:
>To: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
>From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com
>
>LM>>  >>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away.
>LM>>
>LM>>LM>True.  But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of
>LM>>LM>her body for another 9 months.  I see this as being unbelievably cruel.
>LM>>
>LM>>Life is not a "violation".
>
>LM>But forcing someone to harbor that life in their body *is* a violation.
>
>Letting a mother force a child from her body, in order to end that
>childs life is the ultimate violation.
I happen to take the violation of a person much more seriously than the
"violation" of a mindless clump of cells smaller than my thumb.
Your mileage may vary.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: What we can learn from the Waco wackos
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 34
There are actually a few important things we can glean from this mess:
1)	When they start getting desperate for an answer to the question: "What's
it all about. Mr. Natural?", pinkboys will buy darn near *anything*, which
means:
2)	There's still plenty of $$$$ to be made in the False Jesus business
by enterprising SubGenii.  Just remember that:
3)	Once you've separated the pinks from their green, don't blow it all
on automatic weapons from Mexico.  Put it in a Swiss bank account.  Smile a
lot.  Have your flunkies hand out flowers in airports.  The Con will just
shrug you off as long as:
4)	You never, never, NEVER start to believe your own bulldada!  If
"David Koresh" hand't started swallowing his own "apocalypso now" crap, he'd
be working crossword puzzles in the Bahamas today instead of contributing to
the mulch layer in Waco.  This is because:
5)	When you start shooting at cops, they're likely to shoot back.  And
most of 'em are better shots than you are.
In short:
- P.T. Barnum was right
and
- Stupidity is self-correcting
Thus endeth the lesson.
************************************************************
*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
************************************************************
From: caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University
Lines: 28
Nntp-Posting-Host: facman
In response to: Whitten@Fwva.Saic.Com (David Whitten):
I wrote:
>>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.
And you responded:
>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.
Of course.  The feast WAS the Seder, and the accounts of it are very clear
on this point.
The difference is the connection between the bread and wine and the body
and blood of god.  This is an old association of the Tammuz/Osiris/Mithras
line, and not really related to Judaism.  In any case, I didn't really
intend to argue the point.  I saw a possible association and pointed it
out, but I haven't the foggiest notion what really happened.
--
-- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 41
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1993Apr21.182030.888@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Actually, both are positive arguments.  ("Positive" may not be the best
>description here due to possible misunderstanding, but it's the term you
>used.)  Positive arguments/assertions can be both affirmative (i.e. God
>exists) and negative (i.e. God does not exist).  Both carry an equal
>burden of proof because they are both asserting that a certain idea
>is true.  The default condition, in the absence of a preponderance of
>evidence either way, is that the proposition or assertion is undecidable.
>And the person who takes the undecidable position and says that he/she
>simply disbelieves that the proposition is true, is the only one who
>holds no burden of proof.  This is why the so-called "weak atheist"
>position is virtually unassailable -- not because it stands on a firm
>foundation of logical argument, but because it's proponents simply
>disbelieve in the existence of God(s) and therefore they hold no burden
>of proof.  When you don't assert anything, you don't have to prove
>anything.  That's where weak atheism draws its strength.  But its
>strength is also its Achilles' heel.  Without assertions/axioms, one
>has no foundation upon which to build.  As a philosophy, it's virtually
>worthless.  IMO, of course.
So, if I were to assert that there are no thousand year old
invisible pink unicorns* residing in my walls, I need to support this with
evidence? I think the _lack_ of evidence shall suffice.
* Who happen to like listening to satanic messages found in playing
Beethoven's 45th symphony backwards.
---
"FBI officials said cult leader David Koresh may have
forced followers to remain as flames closed in. Koresh's
armed guard may have injected as many as 24 children with
poison to quiet them."
-
"And God saw everything he had made, and, behold, in was very
good."
Genesis 1:31
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: The fact of the theory
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 74
In article <C5u6p5.5nx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
[...stuff deleted...]
Andy-- I think we do agree, given your clarification of how we were
each using the terms fact and theory.  I'll only add that I
think perhaps I feel more strongly about separating them,
though your usage is quite valid.
>Note that the fact of evolution is still a theory.  In other words, it
>could, theoretically, still be falsified and rejected.  But since it's
>so predictive, and so consistently supported by evidence, it seems
>pointless to explicitly try to falsify it anymore.
I'll add here that any falsification or rejection does not in any way
reduce its current usefulness.  So long as it accurately predicts or
describes things we can observe.
Not to be a pain in the ass, but is there any reason you don't
just say _the theory of evolution_ rather than the _fact of evolution
is still a theory_.  I'm asking because this whole thread got started
because I was bothered by a post that referred to _the fact of evolution_,
basically leaving off the phrase _is still a theory_.  Without a
clarification, like the one you just gave, just saying _the fact of
evolution_ has a very different meaning to me.
>
>[description of atomic theory, and alternative theories of gravity, deleted]
>>Both are very useful models that
>>have no religious overtones or requirements of faith, unless of course you
>>want to demand that it is a factual physical entity described exactly
>>the way the theory now formulated talks about it.
>
>Here is where you fail to make an important distinction.  You have
>shoehorned the _facts_ of the _existence_ of gravity and atoms and
>evolution into one category with the _theories_ which have been
>proposed to explain the _mechanisms_.  The existence of these things
>is so predictive as to be considered fact.  The mechanisms, on the
>other hand, are still worth discussing.
I'm not sure I agree here.  Again, it may be because I feel stronger
about separating terms.  I was trying to say that the _theories_
proposed to explain the _mechanisms_ and the _mechanisms_ themselves
are the only realities here.  It is the existence of mechanisms, not
the things themselves, that are so predictive as to be considered
fact (as you would say).  There aren't really little planetary particle
systems called atoms out there.  Or I should say, and more to my original
point, it would be a leap of faith to say there are, because we observe only
the mechanisms.  There is no need to _believe_ there are _actually_
atoms out there as we have decided to think about them.  It's enough
to discuss the mechanisms.  At any rate, I'm not sure I am being
any clearer than before, but I thought it was worth a shot.
The bottom line, though, is I think we agree on two fundamental ideas:
1. --evolution is a theory supported by observational evidence (my way)
--the fact of evolution is a theory supported by observational
evidence (your way)
2. --creation is just an opinion.  If a theist wants to call it
a theory then he can.  I won't:  it has no supporting evidence
and it neither predicts nor supports any observations that can
be made.  With no mechanisms to talk about, there really isn't
much to say.
Do you agree?
--
jim halat         halat@bear.com
bear-stearns       --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you--
nyc             i speak only for myself
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 45
In article <1r3qab$o1v@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <930421.102525.9Y9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#> In article <930420.100544.6n0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew
>#> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>#> #This is complete nonsense.  Relativism means saying that there is no absolut
>#> #standard of morality; it does NOT mean saying that all standards of morality
>#> #are equally good.
>#>
>#> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others?
>#> How so?  How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference?
>#
Either Frank O'Dwyer or mathew said:
[...stiff deleted...]
>#Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail?  How come you can answer that when
>#Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference?
[...stiff deleted...]
Speed is a quantifiable measure resulting from a set of methods that
will result in the same value measured no matter the reference.  A
bullet with zero velocity sitting on a table on a train moving 60mph
will be moving at a speed of
(a) 0mph to someone on the train.
(b) 60mph to someone stationary next to the train.
The reference frame makes the speed relative.  But what's interesting
here is that every person on the train will see a stationary bullet.
Every person off, a bullet moving 60mph.
I know of no train where all the people on it, every time it is
filled, will see a moral problem in exactly the same way.
--
jim halat         halat@bear.com
bear-stearns       --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you--
nyc             i speak only for myself
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: No News Is Bad News
Reply-To: david@terminus.ericsson.se
Distribution: world
Organization: Camtec Electronics (Ericsson), Leicester, England
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: bangkok
I'm having trouble receiving News at the moment due to an overloaded
News server. I think that I can post out reasonably quickly, though.
I'm in a couple of threads at the moment which may be pending replies.
If anyone wants a reply from me over something I've posted then I
suggest sending an e-mail copy of the point to me so that I can reply by
News.
This is one way to shut me up!!
Cheers,
David.
---
On religion:
"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre
Summary: Another Inerrantist rewrites the Bible.
Keywords: Scripture, implication, prophesy, `Woof!'
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Disclaimer: Brandy the WonderDog hopes his doghouse will be rebuilt.
Lines: 93
There has been a lot of discussion about Tyre.  In sum, Ezekiel prophesied
that the place would be mashed and never rebuilt; as there are a lot of
people living there, it would appear that Ezekiel was not literally correct.
This doesn't bother me at all, because I understand the language Ezekiel used
differently than do so-called Biblical literalists.  For example, it sometimes
happens that someone says "My grandson is the cutest baby!" and then turns
around and sees the granddaughter and says "Oh!  Isn't she the cutest thing!?"
This person is not literally claiming to have lined up all the babies in the
world according to cuteness and discovered his own grandchildren tied for
first.  Rather, he is trying to express his emotions using words that are very
object-oriented.  Because this example is one that is common to many people,
nobody misunderstands the intent of the statements; the Bible, however, is
often at the mercy of people who assume that everything within must be exactly
literally true.  For those people, the existence of Tyre is a problem; for me,
it is not.
Turning to the latest person trying to defend Ezekiel, we read this from
John E King:
> The prophesy clearly implies that people would still be living in the
> area[.]
No, it implies nothing of the kind.  If you had nothing but the prophecy from
Ezekiel, and you were told you interpret it literally, you would never say
"Oh, he means that there will be houses and businesses and plants and stuff
like that."  You would read "I will make you a bare rock" and "You will never
be rebuilt", and you'd conclude that Tyre would be a bare rock.  The only way
to get from `fishing nets' to `houses and buildings and a medium-large
population' is if you KNOW that all that latter stuff is there.
In other words, your answer means that Ezekiel misled everybody who read the
prophecy at the time it was written.  There is no way that, given a literal
reading, they could read this passage and conclude "medium-size city".
You seem to feel that "Never be rebuilt" means "be rebuilt" -- maybe so, but
it is hardly a `clear implication'.
Mr King also writes:
> 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.
Well, no.  That's only a bit less than the population of Annapolis, where I'm
from.  You know, the Naval Acadamy, the state capital, George Washington
resigned his commission in the statehouse?  Annapolis may not be New York, but
it's at least a two-horse town.
But supposing 22,000 people is a "small town" -- it's still 22,000 people
MORE than Ezekiel predicted.
And you've said nothing about the other problem.  In chapter 26, Ezekiel
predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will will destroy Tyre and loot all their
valuables.  However, Nebuchadnezzar did NOT destroy Tyre, and in chapter 29
Ezekiel even quotes God as saying "he and his army got no reward from the
campaign he led against Tyre."
Let's ignore Alexander for a moment, and just pay attention to chapter 26.
Ezekiel says N. would destroy Tyre, and N. did NOT destroy Tyre.  Ezekiel says
that N. would plunder their valuables, but N. did NOT plunder their valuables.
Regardless of what you think about Tyre _now_, the fact is that N. died before
the place was destroyed.  Ezekiel said N. was going to do it, and N. did not.
*
This post is, of course, pointless.  Inerrantists have an amazing ability
to rewrite the Bible as needed to fit whatever they want it to say.
For example, I expect Mr King to respond to the comments about Ezekiel 26
by pulling some "clear implications" out of hat.
When Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your towers", that clearly implied
that the walls would still be standing so people would know where the towers
used to be.  And when Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your fine houses
and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea", that clearly implied
that N. would never set foot on the island.  And when Ezekiel wrote that N.
would "build a ramp up to your walls", that clearly implies that N. would
spend 13 years stomping around on the mainland and never get close to the
walls.
See?  A few "clear implications" that are totally contrary to the text, and
you can reconcile anything you want.
Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"[Do] You know why I'm the enabler?  Because you demand it!" -- Cliff Claven
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Subject: Re: Societal basis for morality
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them
Lines: 13
In article <merlyn.735422443@digibd> merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>Prayer in school is legal; what is illegal is telling children
>what to pray, or not to pray.  Many people confuse "you can't
>tell kids that they ought to pray now" with "kids aren't allowed
>to pray", possibly because so few kids do so without being told.
Or perhaps it's because they think that all governmental bodies should be in
the business of suppressing all beliefs other than their own, or else they're
some sort of Satanic Humanist Conspiracy.
It's the old "if you're not for us you're against us" bit.
-EMP
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of pe
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)
Distribution: world
Organization: Harding University, Searcy, AR
Nntp-Posting-Host: acs.harding.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24In-Reply-To: pharvey@quack.kfu.com's message of 18 Apr 1993 18:31:38 UTCLines: 87
Lines: 87
> When are we going to hear a Christian answer to this question?
>
> In paraphrase:
>
> On what or whose authority do Christians proclaim that they
> are above the Law and above the Prophets (7 major and 12 minor) and not
> accountable to the Ten Commandments of which Jesus clearly spoke His opinion
> in Matthew 5:14-19? What is the source of this pseudo-doctrine? Who is
> the pseudo-teacher? Who is the Great Deceiver?
OK, here's at least one Christian's answer:
Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.  In this context Matthew 5:14-19 makes
sense.  Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I [Jesus] came to abolish the Law or
the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."  Jesus lived
under the Jewish law.  However, He was the culmination of the promises
of the Prophets.  He came to *fulfill* the prophecies and fully obey
God's purposes.
Verse 18 says "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass
away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,
until all is accomplished."  The key to this verse IMHO is the last
phrase.  Jesus, as the fulfillment of the law, "accomplished" what the
Law was supposed to accomplish.
Verse 19:  "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments,
and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;
but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven."  Taken in the context of Jesus teaching Jewish
people about living lives under the law, this makes sense.
In general, it appears that Jesus is responding to some criticism he
must have received about "doing away with the Law."  That was not
Jesus' intent at all.  He had come to earth to live the Law as it
should be lived and fulfill the promises made by God to his
people all the way back to Eve [Gen 3:15-The serpent will bruise your
heel, but *He* will bruise his head.]  Jesus appeared to be "doing
away with the Law" because he did not honor the traditions of men as
equal to the Law of God.  He regularly locked horns with the religious
leaders of the day because he would not conform to *their* rules, only
God's Law.
In the Matthew passage Jesus is defending his dedication to the Law
and defending himself against his accusors.  Almost the entire Sermon
on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) is dedicated to helping the Jewish people
understand the true intent of the Law, sweeping away the clutter which
had been introduced by the Pharasees and their traditions.
In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul describes the relationship of Jesus to the
Law in this way:
[23] But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being
shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.  [24] Therefore
the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be
justified by faith.  [25]  But now that faith has come, we are no
longer under a tutor.  [26] For you are all sons of God through faith
in Christ Jesus.
I believe this says that after Christ was revealed, the Law had
served it's purpose, i.e. "our tutor to lead us to Christ," and
now, "we are no longer under a tutor."  The law has been "fulfilled"
as Christ said he would do.
God, the author of the old Law, and the Christ/Man, Jesus, are the same
personality.  Therefore, the old Law and the new Testament (the "last
will and testament" of Jesus) are based on the same moral principles.
It makes sense that many of the principles in the old Law are
re-expressed in Christianity.
On the other hand, now that the Law has fulfilled it's purpose and
Christians relate to God through Christ, not the Law, it also makes
sense that new practices and new symbolisms were established to
represent the "mysteries" of this new relationship.  i.e. Baptism
representing Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-8),
The Lord's supper as a memorial to His sacrifice (I Cor. 11:26), and
Sunday as a day of worship commemorating His resurrection (Matt 28:1ff,
Acts 20:7)
OK, That's one Christian's explanation.  I don't claim to have all
these issues completely settled even in my own mind and I welcome
other Christians to offer other alternatives.
Please excuse the long posting.  Thanks for your interest if you have read
this far...
John Nunnally
Nunnally@acs.Harding.edu
Subject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analy
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)
Distribution: world
Organization: Harding University, Searcy, AR
Nntp-Posting-Host: acs.harding.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24In-Reply-To: sandvik@newton.apple.com's message of Sun, 18 Apr 1993 00:06:17 GMTLines: 28
Lines: 28
In <sandvik-170493170457@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com writes:
> In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis
> Kriz) wrote:
> > I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would
> > not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of
> > initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on
> > alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present
> > in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of
> > an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.
>
> Dennis, I'm astounded. I didn't know you were interested to even
> study such filth as alt.sex.stories provide...
>
> Cheers,
> Kent
> ---
> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
"Finally, brethern, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is
right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute,
if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your
mind dwell on these things."  Phil. 4:8.
More cheers,
John
Nunnally@acs.Harding.edu
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword
Organization: Red Barn Data Center
Lines: 191
In article <sandvik-210493014635@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <C5tCz8.4z9@rbdc.wsnc.org>, royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
>wrote:
>> In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>> >In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com>,
>> >sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
>> ...
>> >>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,
>> >>died today?
>>
>> 	It's amazing how everyone automatically blames one side or the other.
>> 	One thing for sure:  Koresh will have no chance to defend himself
>> 	against the statements (lacking in fact or COurt sponsored verification)
>> 	made  by agents who participated in the situation that killed him.
>
>Frankly speaking I don't care who started this whole show. I just
>feel sad about the children that were trapped, and had to die
>for a case that didn't have any reason whatsoever. All Mr.
>Koresh could have done would have been to release these 19
>children.
COuld he?  And the first three that died, when guns ablazing in came
the BATF and FBI?
I imagine I would have some trouble giving up my children to
someone who had just shot -- what -- two of them?
NB:  It takes two sets of guns in a situation like this.
>
>Yes, I put the blame on Koresh and similar fanatical religious
>leaders that think more about their cause than about keeping
Fanatical:  those whowill not tolerate another's way of life
Religious:  Based on emotional, internal, or otherwise
lacking in commonly defined _scientific_ basis,
including legal ones, such as this old saw:
Innocent untilproven guilty
not
Innocent until presumed guilty
Who is the fanatic?  Note who is dead; this usually bespeaks
a fair bit for the idea that the OTHER side also had lethal
weapons, used fatally.
They are dead:  the children.
At best Koresh was an asshole and the government
criminally negligent in its hadni\ling of the case.
At worst, Koresh and his followers were
innocent
not brainwashed
guilty of illegal arms possession
(as yet unproven)
and murderedd
along with 25 children
They cannot speak for themselves
Members of the (surviving, alive, and not burned
to death) BATF/FBI can, and are
inappropriately
to the public eye
outside the bounds of their legal authorities
read the charter:
the Constitution specifies that
the COURTS convict, while the
enforcement arm INVESTIGATES,
and that the evidence involved
shuld not be disseminated in a
way to harm or injure a party
involved prior to that action;
its called slander or libel
(even where factually true butthen
distoted or disseminated with intent
to harm
for the purpose of covering their butts
because the bottom line is:
they SAID they wanted the kids to get out
alive
and theFBI, the BATF, Ms. Reno, the Prez,
and EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS
SICK
SELFSERVING
GROUP OF UPRIGHT ANIMALS
that used to be a freedom loving
peaceful country called
America:  look up the name,
it might surprise you
has turned the "point the finger of blame"
on the OTHER guy.
and LET THOSE KIDS DIE.
Note well:  they lived 51 days; they only
died when attacked by outside force.
SPock's World, Diane Duane:
The spear in the heart of another
is the spear in your own ....
ALL of us are responsible.
Iam; you are.  The question is not whether, but how:
Guess what:  you get to make up your own mind
on that.
>children out from the war zone. I'm not ashamed of this statement.
Who created the war zone?  You should be ashamed of bypassing that.
It's the same damned (Literally) comment made by the folks in
the former Yugoslavia to justify Ethnic Cleansing:
"Gee, they had the guns, all they had to do was surrender".
>
>To justify other means does not eliminate the fact that children
>died for a cause that they should not have been part of.
Whose "cause" did they die for?  The one where they lived,
peacibly, to all known purposes (until proven in COurt,
folks!), or the Cuase of Righteous Government SafeGuarding
The Freedom Of The CHildren
Who are now dead.
AgainI say:
I do NOT know who did what
I was NOT there.
The FBI leaders show moral SICKness trying to
convict in the press ahead of schedule
And you should look over your shoulder,
becuase if there is anything my ruminations that
actually  sets onto real fact of what happened
and I do not know that; I am defending
people who ahving been burned to death cannot
speak for themselves
you may, in 22-5 years, find that the concept in our
Court system  has gone from
Due Processss
to
Due Profit
and the BATF come to collect their fair share of the tax
on the value of your house if you rented it for income
which is going down now, folks.
Read Bankruptcy 1995
Its accurate in figures
and it bypasses the greedy
businessman and
mankers who have
taken profit from the corruption
of our govbernment.
Look to where the money went, folks.
You  got $10 for medicare that paid a doctor for
$00.50 worth of medicine.
This is the customaryprofitmargin
to businessmen for goernment entitlements.
Who wll own the land of the cult now?  Note well:  it WAS nonproift,
religious, and nontaxable.  Large tract of land .... hmmm.
Use your brains, folks:  it happened Germany, and it can happen
here.
4.3 trillion (admitted) and counting....
>
>Kent
royc.
>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: Red Barn Data Center
Lines: 83
In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>>
>>	They cut off the water, there were no fire trucks present
>
>They refused to bring in fire equipment for fear that the firemen
>would be shot at.
>
>>and the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions.
>
>They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
>non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.
Take a second look at "non-toxic, non-flammable":
MACE (sold tothe public) is supposedly nontoxic.
Whatthey do not tell you is that if you get mace directly
on the linings of the lungs (such as a direct snort to
the face) above certain quantities, it reacts similarly
to a mustard gas inhalation.
I know:  my father and grandfather were exposed
to poison gas in WWI and WWII; Dad went through
the side effects of any WEAPON, including those
"non-toxic" aerosols.
WHat the label ACTUALLY means is ::
usually, it wont kill you
it may give you permanent CSS asthsma
but that's better than blowing a hole in your
head ...
ALL aerosols are flammable IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH OXYGEN
AND HIT IT WITH THE RIGHT IGNITER.  SOme of the most
non-flammable substances known will BOOM or SEARFLAME
if you hit it with the right combo.
Let's take one:  a trash can fire.  Makes black smoke;
already burned right?  Can't go boom, right?  Wrong.
Suck that smoke (made up of paper that has carbonized,
or burned about 35% of the fuel in it) into an air
conditioning return, mix with about 5:1 air, and light
a match.  200 feet of conduit is about the same, when
filled with that smoke mixture, as oh, say 200 pounds TNT
THAT is why the fire codes say NO OPEN CEILING
TILES IN BUILDINGS.  Because 3-5 stories of
a building have blown OUT by "nonflammable _smoke_"
So:
Take a little "nonflammable aerosol"
Mix with gasoline or kerosene fumes
NO electricity, remeber?  A bit of heating
on the WACO plains?  Boil water to drink
since the water was cut off?
liberally mix and allow to settle for 1-4 hours
Fumes vent down into the bus underground, and the Davidians
move the children UPSTAIRS to a saferoom (they had one,
armor plated, remember?) to BREATH, because kids get sick
and die from tear gas.
and along comes a tracer, a spark, what have you:
everyone burns to death.
Try thinking before opening mouth: it may not have happened the
way the Gmen say it did.
>
>--
>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
>/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
>  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
> /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: Red Barn Data Center
Lines: 49
In article <C5tByD.6zD@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
...
>Hang on you missed the point entirely, they are protesting the lack of
>water because it DEPRIVED Koresh of his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to prove
>his DIVINITY by WALKING on it.
You can tell, folks, when the man has run out of reason:
attack the man's beliefs (in legal terminology, argument
ad hominem:  attack the man, not what he did that has yet to
be proven illegal)>
>
>
>|>>and the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions.
>|>
>|>They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
>|>non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.
>
>You can tell that the gas did not burn because dispite the fact that
WRONGo.  Remember the fire movie a couple of years ago?
"Backdraft"?  The scene in the factory with propane gas
coming out of pipes and gasoline all over the floor,
with a 750 degree flame front overhead?
Note that it did not flash all at once?
Fires ignite and burn unpredictably.
Gases (like tear gas) mix and distribute unevenly.
And flash unevenly.
You are not a fire analyst.  You cannnot tell.
(NB:  Neither am I.  And I cannot tell
Nor is the FBI spokesman
Nor is Reno
Maybe we all should shut up and get a
forensics analysis first.
>the building was full of it there was no flash of gas flame.
Yes,. there was a flash:  in one room, just pumped full of it.,
>
>
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker
royc
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: Red Barn Data Center
Lines: 50
In article <1qvv7u$kc1@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
...
>	I think that the consensus will become that FBI/ATF muffed it,
>not merely because they walked into an ambush on Feb 28, and Koresh
>got his prophesy today, against their stated intentions, but because
>they played right into polarizing the situation and not diffusing
>it.
>
>	Koresh had set up all the conditions of a classic cult
>confrontation and had stated publically what the outcome would become.
Before or after his kids were shot?
>The government upped the ante and parcipitated the conclusion today.
>It does seem that the fires were set from within the compound by the
>members of the group and not caused by the CS gas or the way it was
>delivered. Let the subsequent investigation shed light on that. Suppose
Then why make the comment?
>that the government had used pyrotechnics and started the fire. The
>Dividians still had the decision to stay or leave. They never intended
As did the Jews against the Nazis in WW II:  do what I say or die.
>to leave.
>
>>The building burns, almost everyone dies.  It probably doesn't bother
>>you much, but it bothers many other people.....most of whom dont believe
>>particularly in Koresh or his message.
ALl humans, I hope.
>
>	Yes, the finger pointing has begun.
>
>>	Four ATF agents and 90 branch Davidians are now dead because of
>>crazy tactics on the part of the ATF and FBI.
>
>	Yeah, they blew it. They were being too "rational" in a
>situation that was not your ordianry criminal game. They haven't learned
>that much from Jonestown, or The Move House, or the SLA shootout.
Or perhaps they have:  kill first, blame the dead ones,
destroy all the evidence.
>
royc
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: Red Barn Data Center
Lines: 26
In article <C5s9CK.2Bt@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  who would be alive today if they had been released back when we were
The word "released" is loaded:  until convicted in CXOurt,
my children are my own.
WHen the Feds use this type of loaded logic, you cannot win:
1)  we accuse you
2) we shoot a couple of your kids
3)  we blame you for those shots
4) we harrass you for 51 days
5) we tell you to come out or die
6) we gas you
7) you burn to death
8)  we blame you (prior to trial) for all of it
>  debating this a few weeks ago.
>
>
>---peter
>
>
>
>
>
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: Red Barn Data Center
Lines: 11
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.
Think on that.
royc
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: Red Barn Data Center
Lines: 54
In article <C5srEw.FCG@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
...
>Give me a break!  What fireman should have to deal with a blaze like that
>AND get shot at at the same time.
Nearly all of them.  Witness LA>  Firemen are among our real
heroes most of the time.  I wonder when they were actually
aasked to come, or if they found out about the fire over the
TV ....
Shot at by whom?  prove it!
>
>These people were breaking the law.  I agree these weren't the best tactics,
When "law" replaces "justice" the system is dying or dead.
Note that we had a small revolution 216 years ago on this
point.
>they probably should have backed off, pulled the perimeter way back, and let
>them sit there with no media attention until they decided to come out.  The
>only other alternative I see would have been to send in a couple of special
>forces guys to capture or assassinate Koresh.  But remember, these fruit-
Or perhaps just wait.
Or maybeeven send in a few agents who are Christian to
sit down and pray outside the line?  Try affinity
rather than subversion?
>loops were putting their lives on the lines voluntarily.  Why should
Chuckle.  SO would you if someone points a gun at you.
At that point you can die or live; and if living means
stayng in a building to keep badge carrying nuts off your
kids, I suspect you might as well.
BOTH sides were wrong.
>law-abiding citizens have to put themselves in any more danger than necessary
>when dealing with a nut?  Look at the man who jumped out of his Bradley to
>grab a flaming women who was running back into the building.  Yeah, I would
>have to say they were trying to save those people.  I don't think I would
>risk my life that much to save someone that stupid that obviously didn't
>even want to be saved.
Try again:  go see the movie Sophie's CHoice.
Grow up.
>
>-Tim
royc
From: rocker@acm.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding
Nntp-Posting-Host: hermes.acm.rpi.edu
Reply-To: rocker@hermes.acm.rpi.edu
Followup-To:
Lines: 13
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.
>dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu
-rocker
Organization: City University of New York
From: <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
Distribution: world
<JOSHUA.93Apr19183833@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>
<Pegasus-200493113800@fp1-dialin-1.uoregon.edu>
<JOSHUA.93Apr20190924@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>
Lines: 38
What an exciting thread (finally!)
Mitra is Sanskrit for Friend, as such He started out as an avatar of Lord Visnu
mentioned first in the Vedas. Later he seems to have risen to chief prominence
worshipped by the Persians. Associated with the Sun but NOT the Sun, he is
the lord of contract honor and obedience, therefore naturally worshipped by
soldiers. He was ordered by the Sun to slay the bull of heaven and He reluct-
antly agreed because of His obligation...the blood of that bull spilled and
grew all earth life...then Mitra and the Sun sat down to eat.
Worship of Lord Mitra ended in Persia with the ascension of the Zoroastrians.
Hundreds of years later He was rediscovered and thrown into the Official Roman
Pantheon (tm) for some semi-tricky reason, I forget why. But all references of
Him ended abruptly when He was stricken from same, so apparently His worship
was some sort of vehicle for advancement in the bureaucracy, like membership
in the Communist Party was in the Soviet Bloc. The sociology of religion in
ancient times is fascinating!
Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.
I am not sure if the mystery cult really lasted after His was booted from the
Roman Imperial God Roster or what. It contained mostly soldiers, with 7 levels
of initiation. They worshipped underground in caverns in pews. The bull horns
in those temples were for scaring away or impaling evil spirits, I'm not sure
that they had Mithraic significance or not.
I don't know that the ritual meal was of a cannibalistic nature as is the
Christian masses. But eating deities goes way back to Old Kingdom Egypt.
Someone mentioned bullfighting. Did Mithraists sacrifice bulls? I forget. More
likely, for a religious source, might be the shower of bull's blood enjoyed
by the worshippers of Cybele on the Day of Blood? Cybele worship extended all
throughout even up to France bigtime.
-------
CHARLES HOPE   A54SI@CUNYVM   A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
GOVERNMENT BY REPORTERS...MEDIA-OCRACY.
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (I don't know who discovered water, but it wasn't no fish - Marshall McCluhan)
Subject: waco conflagration - precedents?
Lines: 15
burning yourself alive seems a rough way to go, given the waco bunch
had other choices.
but it reminded me of the russian old-believers who, thinking the
antichrist was coming in 1666, grew frantic when Peter the Great
started westernizing Russia and reforming the Russian Church a few
years later. They locked themselves in their churches and burned
themselves alive by the thousands.
are there other cases of apocalypse-obsessed christians resorting
to self-imolation? is there a history of precedents?
andrew.
From: ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: EIT
Lines: 88
NNTP-Posting-Host: squick.eitech.com
In article <1r3le9$mlj@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1r22qp$4sk@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>#In article <1r0m89$r0o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#>In article <1qvu33$jk3@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>#>#>If almost all people agree that the sun exists (in the usual, uncritical sense),
>#>#>and almost all people agree that  a deal is bad,  it's a reasonable
>#>#>conclusion that the sun really does exist, and that the deal really is bad.
>#>#I disagree completely. Until rather recently, most people did not
>#>#believe in evolution or the possibility of the atom bomb. Popular
>#>#opinion is notoriously wrong about matters of fact.
>#>True, but nevertheless the basis of all "matters of fact" is overwhelming
>#>popular opinion, and some overwhelming popular opinion *is* fact ("the
>#>sun shines").  If it were not so, physics would be a personal matter,
>#>assumed to be different for each of us.  There would be YourGravity and
>#>MyGravity and no theoretical framework to encompass them and predict
>#>both.
>#This is simply complete nonsense. The basis for 'matters of fact' is,
>#if any class of opinion, the majority of INFORMED popular opinion
>#for some value of informed. I would really hate to base my knowledge
>#of, for instance, QM on what the overwhelming popular opinion is.
>The *basis*, Eric, is people peering at the world and saying what
>they see.  I'm talking about uninterpreted facts - observations.  _People_
>do those.  Agreement on some observations is a prerequisite for a theory
>that is more than personal.
Yes, that's true, but you have to be clear exactly what is
an uninterpreted observation. It's pretty low level stuff.
'The sun shines' is already a LOT higher level than that. We
can agree that 'I perceive brightness' perhaps.
>#>Now I take an experience of good/evil to be every bit as raw a fact as an
>#>experience of pain, or vision.
>#That might seem like a good first pass guess, but it turns out to
>#be a pretty cruddy way to look at things, because we all seem to
>#have rather different opinions (experiences) about what is good
>#and evil, while we seem to be able to agree on what the meter says.
>You're not comparing apples with apples.  If we all look at the same meter,
>we'll agree.  If we're all in the same situation, that's when we'll
>agree on fundamental values, if at all.  People who say that nobody agrees on
>values to the same extent that they agree on trivial observations seem
>to be unaware of the extent of agreement on either.
Huh? What do you mean 'all in the same situation?' Let's take me
and Dennis Kriz as examples. We're in pretty different situations,
but I think we can agree as to whether it's day or night. I don't
think we can agree as to whether or not abortion is morally
acceptable. Yet we are certainly in the same difference of
situations with respect to each other. Looks like weasel-words
to me, Frank.
>#I don't see that it's any evidence at all.
>#As I point out above, I'm really not interested very much in
>#what the popular opinion is. I'm prepared to trust--to some extent--
>#the popular opinion about direct matters of physical observation
>#because by and large they accord with my own. However, if everyone
>#else said the dial read 1.5 and it looked like a 3 to me, I would
>#hope that I would believe myself. I.e. believing other people about
>#these matters seems to have a reasonable probability of predicting
>#what I would believe if I observed myself, but the possibility exists
>#that it is not. Since I know from observation that others disagree
>#with me about what is good, I believe I can discount popular opinion
>#about 'good' from the beginning as a predictor of my opinion.
>#I would say that the fact that it seems almost impossible to get
>#people to agree on what is good in a really large number of situations
>#is probably the best evidence that objective morality is bogus, actually.
>Firstly, if everyone else said the dial was 1.5 and I saw 3, I'd check
>my lens prescription.
That's up to you, I guess.
>  Secondly, your observation that people
>disagree shows nothing - people may be looking at different things,
>by virtue of being in different situations.  If I look at an elephant, I'll
>see an elephant.  That doesn't imply that you will see an elephant if you
>look at an iguana.
This 'different situations' stuff is pretty confusing, Frank. How
do we decide if we are in the same situation? You mind explaining?
>    Thirdly, I question your assumption that when
>people disagree about how to achieve fundamental or secondary goals, that
>they therefore do not have the same fundamental goals (that seems to be the
>disagreement you refer to).
Huh? I don't think so. I think that people disagree about
fundamental goals.
-Ekr
--
Eric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com
Would you buy used code from this man?
From: tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Lines: 32
NNTP-Posting-Host: susie.sbc.com
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.
--
Tim Henrion              Southwestern Bell Technology Resources
thenrion@sbctri.sbc.com
From: popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
Organization: The Brewers' Witch BBS, +1 713 272 7350, Brewich.Hou.TX.US
Lines: 42
caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell) writes:
> kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:
>
> >I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in
> >which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a
> >secret ceremony involving a bull.  He stands naked in a pit covered
> >with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on
> >the scaffolding.  They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the
> >worshipper in the pit with blood.  This is supposedly some sort of
> >rite of passage for members of the bull cult.  I wonder if this is
> >related to the Mithras cult?
> >
> >I don't know where Rutherford got his information for this chapter.
> >The book is historical fiction, and most of the general events which
> >take place are largely based on historical accounts.
>
> There is a rite like this described in Joseph Campbell's
> _Occidental_Mythology_.  He also described levels of initiation, I think
> 6?  I don't know where Campbell got his info, but I remember thinking he
> was being a little eclectic.
>
> >I also wonder what if any connection there is between the ancient bull
> >cults and the current practice of bullfighting popular in some
> >Mediterranean cultures.
>
> Quite a bit.  If you haven't read Campbell, give him a try.
>
> --
> -- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
> Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232
Yes.  I cannot remeber which works I read about this in, as it was many
years ago.  This ritual was called The Tarobaullum I believe, (The
spelling may be off).
Pope Charles
------------------
popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Origin: The Brewers' Witch BBS -- Houston, TX -- +1 713 272 7350
From: popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention
Organization: The Brewers' Witch BBS, +1 713 272 7350, Brewich.Hou.TX.US
Lines: 72
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!
------------------
popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Origin: The Brewers' Witch BBS -- Houston, TX -- +1 713 272 7350
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Are atoms real? (was Re: After 2000 years blah blah blah)
Nntp-Posting-Host: crchh410
Organization: BNR, Inc.
Lines: 15
Petri and Mathew,
Your discusion on the "reality" of atoms is interesting, but it
would seem that you are verging on the question "Is anything real":
that is, since observation is not 100% reliable, how can we say
that anything is "real".  I don't think this was the intention
of the original question, since you now define-out the word
"real" so that nothing can meet its criteria.
Just a thought.
Brian /-|-\
PS  Rainbows and Shadows are "real": they are not objects, they
are phenomenon.  An interesting question would be if atoms
are objects (classical) or phenomenon (neo-quantum) or what?
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Distribution: world
Organization: Gordian Knot, Gloster,GA
Lines: 26
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.'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy
to the person who
doesn't have to do them.
Holt's law
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Nntp-Posting-Host: elvis.wri.com
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Lines: 22
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
any resemblance between my opinions and those
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Nntp-Posting-Host: elvis.wri.com
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Lines: 27
In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.
Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:
Bullshit.
>There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.
Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say:
Bullshit.
>> One wonders just what people who ask such questions understand by the term
>> "objective", if anything.
>I consider it to be a useful fiction; an abstract ideal we can strive
>towards.  Like an ideal gas or a light inextensible string, it doesn't
>actually exist; but we can talk about things as if they were like it, and not
>be too far wrong.
How could striving toward an ideal be in any way useful, if the ideal
had no objective existence?
--
Mark Pundurs
any resemblance between my opinions and those
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.
Lines: 79
In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>    We are talking about origins, not merely science.   Science cannot
>    explain origins.  For a person to exclude anything but science from
>    the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
>    than science.  This is a false premise.  By the way, I enjoy science.
>    It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.  Macroevolution is
>    a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
>    within three percent error :) ]
Let us explore this interesting paragraph point by point, sentence by
sentence.
1) We are talking about origins, not merely science.
Origins of what?  Are we speaking of the origins of life, the human
species, the universe, physical law, biological diversity or what?
2) Science cannot explain origins.
This is a false statement unless it is carefully qualified.  It depends
on what origins we are talking about.
3) For a person to exclude anything but science from the issue of origins
is to say that there is no higher truth than science.
Again, this is a false statement.  To begin with, the notion of "higher
truth" is distinctly dubious.  Many people believe that there are ways
to ascertain truth that are not in the repetoire of science; they even
believe that there are ways that are more reliable and certain.  Many
believe that there are truths that cannot be expressed using the language
of science.  Let it be so.  These truths are neither "higher" or
"lower"; they are simply true.
More to the point, restricting one's discussion of origins to science
does not reject other sources of knowledge; it simply restricts the
scope of discussion.
4) This is a false premise.
If this is intended as asserting that the previous sentence was false
then (4) is actually true.  However the context identifies it as another
false [or at least theologically unsound] statement.
5) By the way, I enjoy science.
On the evidence Mr. Rawlins lacks sufficient understanding of science
to enjoy science in any meaningful sense.  One might just as well say
that one enjoys literature written in a language that one cannot read.
However one cannot mark this sentence as false -- to follow the analogy,
perhaps he likes the pretty shapes of the letters.
6) It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.
Let us not quibble; count this one as true.
7) Macroevolution is a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent
religion [guaranteed within three percent error :) ]
Still another false statement.  However one can make it come out true
with the following contextual modification:
"Macroevolution, as misunderstood by Rawline, is a mixture of 15 percent
of what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as science, and 85 percent of
what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as religion."
-----
It is distinctly noticeable that Mr. Rawlins fails miserably to touch
on truth except when he reports personally on what he feels.  [I do
him the justice of assuming that he is not misinforming us as to his
personal reactions.]  One can account for this by the hypothesis that
he has an idiosyncratic and personal concept of truth.
--
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 20
In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>
wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
(Deletion)
>
>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>        are very much in harmony.
>
Since this drivel is also crossposted to alt.atheism, how about reading
the alt.atheism FAQ? The Josephus quote is concidered to be a fake even
by Christian historians, and the four gospels contradict each other in
important points.
Weren't you going to offer a scientific theory of Creationism?
Benedikt
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 14
In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>Objective morality is morality built from objective values.
And organized religion is a religion built from organized values.
And Ford Tempo is a Tempo built from Ford values.
And rational response is response built from rational values.
And unconditional surrender is surrender built from unconditional values.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
uncle!
bye
-jim halat
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 43
In article <1993Apr15.071814.27960@wam.umd.edu>, judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- objectively subjective) writes:
>> = <1qhn7m$a95@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>[culled from a discussion on Christianity and objective morals]
>
>Question:  Is there any effective difference between:
>
>"Objective values exist, and there is disagreement over what they are"
>
>and
>
>"Values are subjective?"
>
>I don't see any.
>
Is there any difference in saying
"Absolute Truth exists, but some people think its a lie"
and
"Truth is relative" ?
I think there is:  in both examples, the first statement is a
fundamental disagreement between at least two people; the
second statement is agreed upon by all.
To put it another way, someone who says objective values exist
does not agree that values are subjective.
-jim halat
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 17
In article <1qjbn0$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, $1 for all of the land in America, would that
>sound like a good deal?
That happens to be a subjective example that the people of the
US would happen to agree on.  Continue to move the price up;
at some point a few people would accept then more then more until
probably all would accept at a high enough number.
Endpoints of a subjective scale are not the given homes of
objective viewpoints.
-jim halat
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 34
In article <1qjd3o$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.
What is objective, though, is the approach a scientist
takes in discussing his model and his observations.  There
is no objective science.  But there is an objective approach
which is subjectively selected by the scientist.  Objective
in this case means a specified, unchanging set of rules that
he and his colleagues use to discuss their science.
This is in contrast to your Objective Morality.  There may be an
objective approach to subjectively discuss your beliefs on
morality.  But there exists no objective morality.
Also, science deals with how we can discuss our observations of
the physical world around us.  In that the method of discussion
is objective ( not the science; not the discussion itself ).
Science makes no claims to know the whys or even the hows sometimes
of what we can observe.  It simply gives us a way to discuss our
surroundings in a meaningful, consistent way.
I think it was Neils Bohr who said (to paraphrase) Science is what
we can _say_ about the physical world.
-jim halat
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Lines: 58
In <C5sqyA.F7v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
|Probably not.  But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.
Please cite your evidence that he was intending to use it.
|You don't really think he should have been allowed to keep that stuff do
|you?
Why not?
|If so, tell me where you live so I can be sure to steer well clear.
Check the sig.
|The public also has rights, and they should be placed above those of the
|individual.
Society does not have rights only individuals have rights.
|Go ahead, call me a commie,
OK, your a commie.
|but you'd be singing a different
|tune if I exercised my right to rape your daughter.
You think you have a right to rape anyone? No wonder you don't care about
the rightws of others.
|He broke the law,
Please indicate which law you feel Koresh broke, and when was he convicted of
said crime.
|he was a threat to society,
So you feel that owning guns makes him a threat to society. When are y ou
going to start going after knives and baseball bats as well.
Or do you feel that someone who spouts unpopular ideas is by definition a
threat to society.
|they did there job - simple.
It is simple if you think that there job is to assualt civilians.
|>	Support your First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth
|>Amendment rights, lest they be taken away from you just as the FBI did
|>to the Davidians. Think about it.
|I'll support them all (except no. 2)
In other words you don't support any of them.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems BBS, Moraga, CA (510) 631-0615
Lines: 20
starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams) writes:
> : 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 "washed in the blood of Barney the Dinosaur"?  :)
Judging from postings I've read all over Usenet and on non-Usenet
BBs conferences, Barney is DEFINITELY an endangered species. Especially
if he runs into me in a dark alley.
A.Lizard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
PacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@gentoo.com (backup)
PGP2.2 public key available on request
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems BBS, Moraga, CA (510) 631-0615
Lines: 18
Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
> "This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient
> Order of Oriental Templars.  Ordo Templi Orientis.  Otherwise:
> The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.
>
Does this organization have an official e-mail address these
days? (an address for any of the SF Bay Area Lodges, e.g. Thelema
would do.)
93...
A.Lizard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
PacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@gentoo.com (backup)
PGP2.2 public key available on request
From: weinss@rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein)
Subject: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up
Summary: Read it.  Worthwhile.  Laughs & serious questions about real religion.
Keywords: Eveism, religion,
Nntp-Posting-Host: rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 102
Let me begin by saying I think this is the world's first religion to use
the net as its major recruitment medium.  Therefore, even if this
religion does not take off, its founding members will be very important
historically as this method of soliciting membership will eventually become
common.
The basis of this religion is to apply various aspects of current conventional
morality to the characters in Genesis and Exodus but assume that the Bible's
accounts of the facts and historical events is correct.
For example,
Story of Adam and Eve:
Adam and Eve are in Garden of Eden naked and ignorant.  Have unlimited
supply of food provided, but no clothing, jobs, or knowledge.  God says
not to eat fruit of tree of knowledge.  They do anyway, then try to hide
in bushes.  God finds them and forces them out of Garden.
(There are several different stories on what they were doing while naked in
the bushes that might have angered God.)
Traditional Philosophy:
1. The only reason you need knowledge or a job is to eat.  If someone else will
provide you with food, then you can be stupid and unemployed and it's OK. This
is why married women usually didn't work until recent decades.
2. Authority figures, such as God, whoever was behind the Vietnam War, Hitler
and slaveowners, are always right and should be blindly followed without
question by ordinary people, who can't make decisions for themselves.
Interpretation of events based on Traditional Philosophy:
They were not supposed to eat the fruit.  They should have done whatever God
told them to.  Like small children, they had their needs provided for and were
obligated to do whatever their "Father" said to.  Being forced to leave the
Garden and work in order to obtain food was a punishment.
Lessons from Traditional Interpretation:
1.  Ignorance is good.  Knowledge is bad, but tempting.
2.  Having food provided for you for nothing (read "welfare") is ideal.  Get-
ting a job and feeding yourself with what you earn is punishment.
3.  Public nudity is good.  Covering up is bad.
4.  Authority figures are intrinsically right.  Normal people are dumb and
should do whatever they are told without question.  They should not think for
themselves.
5.  People in subordinate positions are especially obligated to refrain from
learning.  For example, it should be illegal for slaves to learn to read.
1990's philosophy:
1.  People should seek education and employment outside the home, unless
named "Hillary Clinton" or "Murphy Brown".
2.  People should use common sense.  They should not kill other people
(binding of Issac, wars, Holocaust, etc.) just because they are told to.
Interpretation of events based on current philosophy:
They were supposed to eat the fruit.  God gave wanted them to seek knowledge
rather than be handed it on a silver platter.  Once they had gained knowledge
and (by seeking it) showed their ability to make mature decisions for them-
selves, they no longer needed to be treated like little children and were
REWARDED by being allowed into the "real world."
Lessons from new interpretation:
1.  Ignorance is bad.  Knowledge is good, but must be sought.
2.  Having food provided for you for nothing (read "welfare") is at best
a temporary measure.  Getting a job and feeding yourself with what you earn
is ideal.
3.  Public nudity is bad.  Covering up is good.
4.  Authority figures are often wrong.  Normal people are intelligent and
should consider whether the instructions are really a good idea and "alter
or abolish" bad governments.  They should think for themselves.
5.  People in subordinate decisions are often discouraged from knowledge
but should seek it anyway, and all the harder.  For example, poor children
without good schools should work especially hard in order to make a better
life for their children (and themselves).
I have tentatively named this new philosophy "The Church of Eveism" because
Eve's decision to eat the apple is man[sic]kind's first good decision, instead
of its first bad one, as traditionally believed.  She is therefore clearly
a protagonist.  God at first appears evil, for telling people not to seek
knowledge but on deeper analysis is also a protagonist.  As God rewarded the
decision to defy him, and provided the tree in the first place, the intention
and desire were clearly to have the knowledge be obtained, but to delay it
until it was actively sought.
---End serious discussion.  Begin humor.--
Save this post to disk (or file server).  Someday it will be considered the
most important writing since the 10 Commandments.  You want an original copy.
Stay tuned for the RFD on soc.religion.eveism...
Can I get a tax deduction for money I donate to this organization?
--Return to serious discussion when posting follow-ups.--
Stephen Weinstein
weinss@rpi.edu
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: O.T.O clarification
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 14
Sorry, the San Jose based Rosicrucian order is called A.M.O.R.C,
I don't remember for the time being what the A.M. stand for
but O.R.C is Ordo Rosae Crucis, in other words latin for
Order of the Rose Cross. Sigh, seems l'm loosing more and more
of my long term memory.
Otherwise their headquarters in San Jose has a pretty decent
metaphysical bookstore, if any of you are interested in such books.
And my son loves to run around in their Egyptian museum.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
Subject: Re: Catholic Lit-Crit of a.s.s.
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)
Distribution: world
Organization: Harding University, Searcy, AR
Nntp-Posting-Host: acs.harding.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24In-Reply-To: dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu's message of 16 Apr 93 18:57:20 GMTLines: 45
Lines: 45
In <dlphknob.734986640@camelot> dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu writes:
> In <1993Apr14.101241.476@mtechca.maintech.com> foster@mtechca.maintech.com writes:
>
> >I am surprised and saddened. I would expect this kind of behavior
> >from the Evangelical Born-Again Gospel-Thumping In-Your-Face We're-
> >The-Only-True-Christian Protestants, but I have always thought
> >that Catholics behaved better than this.
> >                                   Please do not stoop to the
> >level of the E B-A G-T I-Y-F W-T-O-T-C Protestants, who think
> >that the best way to witness is to be strident, intrusive, loud,
> >insulting and overbearingly self-righteous.
>
> (Pleading mode on)
>
> Please!  I'm begging you!  Quit confusing religious groups, and stop
> making generalizations!  I'm a Protestant!  I'm an evangelical!  I don't
> believe that my way is the only way!  I'm not a "creation scientist"!  I
> don't think that homosexuals should be hung by their toenails!
>
> If you want to discuss bible thumpers, you would be better off singling
> out (and making obtuse generalizations about) Fundamentalists.  If you
> compared the actions of Presbyterians or Methodists with those of Southern
> Baptists, you would think that they were different religions!
>
[Sarcasm on]
Be sure we pick on the "correct groups" here.  "Bible thumpers",
"fundamentalists", and Southern Baptists *deserve* our hasty generalizations
and prejudicial statements.  Just don't pick on the Presbyterians
and the Methodists!
[Sarcasm off]
> Please, prejudice is about thinking that all people of a group are the
> same, so please don't write off all Protestants or all evangelicals!
>
> (Pleading mode off.)
>
> God.......I wish I could get ahold of all the Thomas Stories......
> --
> 	"Fbzr enval jvagre Fhaqnlf jura gurer'f n yvggyr oberqbz, lbh fubhyq
> nyjnlf pneel n tha.  Abg gb fubbg lbhefrys, ohg gb xabj rknpgyl gung lbh'er
> nyjnlf znxvat n pubvpr."
> 			--Yvan Jregzhyyre
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>         Jemaleddin Sasha David Cole IV - Chief of Knobbery Research
>                         dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analysis :-)
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 16
In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis
Kriz) wrote:
> I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would
> not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of
> initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on
> alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present
> in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of
> an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.
Dennis, I'm astounded. I didn't know you were interested to even
study such filth as alt.sex.stories provide...
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau)
Subject: Re: Abortion
Distribution: world
Organization: Ozone Online Operations, Inc., DBA The Ozone Hole BBS
Reply-To: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau)
Lines: 21
To: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com
LM>>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away.
LM>True.  But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of
LM>her body for another 9 months.  I see this as being unbelievably cruel.
Life is not a "violation". As for cruel, killing a living being solely
because it exsist. That my friend is down right cold.
Anthony
* SLMR 2.1 * What's the difference between an Orange?
----
The Ozone Hole BBS * A Private Bulletin Board Service * (504)891-3142
3 Full Service Nodes * USRobotics 16.8K bps * 10 Gigs * 100,000 Files
SKYDIVE New Orleans! * RIME Network Mail HUB * 500+ Usenet Newsgroups
Please route all questions or inquiries to:  postmaster@ozonehole.com
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Who, me???
Lines: 15
In article <pww-180493195323@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.210407.10208@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>> The phenomenologist Husserl, for one, considered Intentionality to be the
>> primary ontological "stuff" from which all other ontology was built --
>> perceptions, consciousness, thoughts, etc. Frank is by no means alone in
>> seeing intentionality (or "values", as he puts it) underlying all human
>> experience, even the so-called "objective" experiences, such as
>> measurements of the natural world, or the output of your DES chip.
>
>And others of us see it as intellectual masturbation.
I'll defer to your greater firsthand knowledge in such matters.
- Kevin
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 54
: In my mind, to say that science has its basis in values is a bit of a
: reach. Science has its basis in observable fact.
I'd say that what one chooses to observe and how the observation is
interpreted and what significance it's given depends a great deal on
the values of the observer. Science is a human activity and as such,
is subject to the same potential for distortion as any other human
activity. The myth that scientists are above moral influence or
ethical concern, that their knowledge can be abstacted whole and pure
from nature untainted by the biases of the scientist, is nonsense.
Bill
: If one is to argue for objective values (in a moral sense) then one must
: first start by demonstrating that morality itself is objective. Considering
: the meaning of the word "objective" I doubt that this will ever happen.
: So, back to the original question:
: And objective morality is.....?
This may be an unfortunate choice of words, almost self-contradictory.
Objective in the sense used here means something immutable and
absolute while morality describes the behavior of some group of
people. The first term is all inclusive, the second is specific. The
concept supposedly described may have meaning however.
If there is a God as described by the Christians (for instance), then
He has existence apart from and independent of humankind; His
existence is outside of our frame of reference (reality). If this
being declares a thing to be so, it is -necessarily- so since He has
defined Himself as omnipotent and, if His claims are to be believed,
He is at least omnipotent relative to us. God is intrinsically
self-defined and all reality is whatever He says it is - in an
objective sense.
If God determines a standard of conduct, that standard is objective.
If human beings are held accountable for their conformance to that
standard while permitted to ignore it, they substitute a relative
morality or mode of conduct, giving the term morality a nebulous,
meaningless sense that can be argued about by those pretending to
misunderstand. The standard is objective and the conduct required to
meet that standard is therefore objectively determined.
Just because it is convenient to pretend that the term morality is
infinitely malleable, doesn't mean that the objective standard itself
doesn't exist. Morality has come to mean little more than a cultural
norm, or the preferred conduct of "decent" people, making it seem
subjective, but it is derived from an absolute, objective, standard.
Ironically, this objective standard is in perfect accord with our true
nature (according to Christianity at least), yet is condemned as being
contrary to human nre, oppressive and severe. This may be due as
Bill
much to our amoral inclinations as to the standard itself, but like it
or not, it's there.x
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis
Reply-To: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Lines: 106
Okay, I'll bite. I should probably leave this alone, but what the heck...
In article <1993Apr14.124301.422@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>,
gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <TT3R2B5w165w@brewich.hou.tx.us> popec@brewich.hou.tx.us
>(Pope Charles) writes:
>
>>Rhoemer was the name of the guy responsible for much of the uniforms,
>>and props used by the early Nazis in their rallies and such.
>
>The name is Roehm, not Rhoemer.  And Hitler does claim that he came up
>with the Swastika business.
But didn't he credit the actual flag design to a party member - some dentist or
other? I believe he gives such credit in Mein Kampf.
>>He was killed in an early Nazi purge. He and many of his associates
>>were flaming homosexuals well know also for their flamboyant orgies.
>
>I have been trying to find if there is any actual evidence for this
>common assertion recently.  Postings to such groups as soc.history and
>soc.culture.german has not uncovered any net.experts who could provide
>any.
Well, I'm no expert, but all of the histories of Nazi Germany assert this. They
make reference to several scandals that occurred long before "the night of the
long knives". The impression that I got was that homosexuality in portions of
the SA was common knowledge. Also, a book (by a homosexual author whose name
escapes me at the moment) called "Homosexuals in History" asserts that Roehm
and Heines were homosexuals, as well as others in Roehm's SA circle.
>All the books say that Roehm and his associate, Edmund Heines,
>were homosexual.  I have been able to find nothing beyond that, and
>suspect this to be a sort of historical urban legend.
Well, you're the one who is in Germany. If you don't believe the history books,
look up the primary sources yourself. Those of us outside of Germany do not
have access to these. You do. It seems to me that there were plenty of
documented instances - several scandals, the fact that on the "knight of the
long knives" several SA members (including Heines) were found sleeping
together, etc. Also I believe some people were complaining about the SA's
homosexual activities (seducing young boys, etc). The histories that I've
read make a very convincing case. None of this sounds like urban legend to me.
>(Irving, a
>notoriously unreliable historian, says that Funk, the Nazi finance
>minister, was homosexual.  He gives no sources.)
I know next to nothing about Irving and nothing about Funk. What precisely do
you know, that would contradict all of the other history books that I have
read concerning the existence of homosexual Nazis? Are you trying to say that
all historians are taking part in an anti-homosexual smear? What about
homosexual writers who agree with the official history? Don't you think they
would have found out the truth by now if Roehm and Heines were not homosexuals?
I would think they would want to disassociate homosexuality from Nazism. No one
should use any connection between the two to bash homosexuals in any case.
>I challenge anyone to document this claim.
If you are going to challenge *all* historians on this point (not just Irving),
then the burden of proof is on you. Track down the references. Find out where
the stories originate from. Again, you are the one in Germany, close to
archival material - most people on the net are not.
>I *have* found a great
>deal of evidence that there were many flaming heterosexuals among the
>Nazis.  This seems to include all of the worst ones--Hitler, Himmler,
>Goebbels, Goering, Heydrich, Eichmann, and many more.
Eh? What is your agenda here? To prove that the Nazis were heterosexuals, so
that you can bash heterosexuals? Does it bother you that some of the Nazis
might have been homosexuals? Does this make all homosexuals bad if this is
true? Of course not. And what about bisexuals? Are they half-Nazis?
I don't know why it would be so difficult to believe that some Nazis were
homosexuals. The German officer corps before WW1, for instance, was notorious
for its homosexuality. There were numerous scandals which rocked the German
govt. during the late 19th and early 20th century. Many of the Kaiser's friends
were prosecuted - the Kaiser was no homosexual, but the Germany army had a long
tradition of tolerating homosexuality, going far back into Prussian history -
back to Frederick the Great at least, who was himself a homosexual. Roehm was a
product of this Prussian officer tradition, and the old German army (like the
English public school system), being a well known center of homosexuality,
would have been quite willing to overlook Roehm's homosexuality.
In addition, some Nazis complained of homosexuality in the Hitler Youth. The
Hitler Youth swallowed up all pre-Nazi youth groups, and some of the various
pre-war Vandervogel, Bund, and Volkish youth groups were known to promote
homoerotic ideals and friendship, and in many cases, homosexuality itself. So
it seems to me not unlikely that there were plenty of homosexual Nazis,
regardless of the official Nazi dogmas concerning the "evils" of homosexuality.
Why should this suprise anyone? Homosexuality has always existed, in all
societies - it would be most unusual if the Nazis were an exception.
No, I don't have any sources for you, as I think the only kind of proof you
will accept would be citations from archival material, and I do not have access
to these. Nor do I intend to reread every book on the Nazis and on modern
homosexuality that I have ever read - I don't have the time. Nothing is
stopping you, however, from chasing down those sources. Until you prove
otherwise, though, I will stick with the established histories.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
"...Be in me as the eternal moods of the bleak wind...Let the Gods speak softly
of us in days hereafter..." (Ezra Pound)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 18 Apr 93   God's Promise in Philippians 4:9
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 8
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
Those things,
which ye have both learned, and received,
and heard, and seen in me,
do:
and the God of peace shall be with you.
Philippians 4:9
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 14
In article <RN652B5w165w@tweekco.uucp>, alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
wrote:
> Judging from postings I've read all over Usenet and on non-Usenet
> BBs conferences, Barney is DEFINITELY an endangered species. Especially
> if he runs into me in a dark alley.
Please, please don't make Barney to a modern martyr/saviour mythical
figure. I detest this being, and if humans will create a religion in his
name, then life will be unbearable :-).
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 23
In article <C5KxDD.K4J@boi.hp.com>, jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
wrote:
> 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 in 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."
Jim, please, that's a lame explanation of the trinity that Jesus provides
above. Baptizing people in the name of three things != trinity. If
this is the case, then I'm wrong, I assumed that trinity implies that
God is three entities, and yet the same.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Distribution: world
Organization: Gordian Knot, Gloster,GA
Lines: 22
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy
to the person who
doesn't have to do them.
Holt's law
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)
Reply-To: rfox@charlie.usd.edu
Organization: The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept.
Nntp-Posting-Host: charlie
Lines: 91
In article <1993Apr15.012537.26867@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, sharpe@nmesis.enet.dec.com (System PRIVILEGED Account) writes:
>
>In article <C5FtJt.885@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) writes:
>|>
>|>In article <1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|>
>|>[earlier dialogue deleted]
>|>
>|>>|> Perhaps you should read it and stop advancing the Bible as evidence relating
>|>>|> to questions of science.
>|>
>|>[it = _Did Jesus exist?_ by G. A. Wells]
>|>
>|>>     There is a great fallacy in your statement. The question of origins is
>|>>     based on more than science alone.
>|>
>|>Nope, no fallacy.  Yep, science is best in determining how; religions handle
>|>why and who.
>|>
>
>Rich, I am curious as to why you and others award custody of the baby to
>theists and religion?
I hope I didn't award custody, Rich.  I purposely used "handle" in order to
avoid doing so - i.e., that happens to be what religions do (of course there are
aberrations like "scientific" creationism).  I used "best" in part to indicate
that science currently has a time of it with why and who, so these domains are
mostly ignored.  I also attempted to be brief, which no doubt confused the
matter.  As an aside, for science I should have written "how and when".  Nobody
seems to argue over what.
>Are they [theists, theologians] any better equiped to investigate the "who and
>why" than magicians, astrologers, housewives [not being sexists], athiests or
>agnostics.
Seems to me that the answer would vary from individual to individual.  I'm not
trying to be evasive on this, but from a societal perspective, religion works.
On the other hand, sometimes it is abused and misused, and many suffer, which
you know.  But the net result seems positive, this from the anthropological
perspective on human affairs.  You might call me a neo-Fruedian insofar as I
think the masses can't get along without religion.  Not that generally they are
incapable; they just don't, and for myriad reasons, but the main one seems to
be the promise of immortality.  Very seductive, that immortality.  Therefore
it seems that theologians are better equipped than the others you mention for
dispensing answers to "who and why".  I suggest that this holds regardless of
the "truth" in their answers to who and why simply because people believe.
In the end, spiritual beliefs are just as "real" as scientific facts and
explanation (CAUTION TO SOME: DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT).
>Do you suggest that the "who and why" will forever be closed to scientific
>investigation?
No.  In fact, I don't think it is closed now, at least for some individuals.
Isn't there a group of theoretical physicists who argue that matter was
created from nothing in a Big Bang singularity?  This approach might
presuppose an absence of who and why, except that it seems it could be argued
that something had to be responsible for nothing?  Maybe that something doesn't
have to be supernatural, maybe just mechanistic.  But that's a tough one for
people today to grasp.  In any case, theory without empirical data is not
explanation, but then your question does not require data.  In other words,
I agree that theorizing (within scientific parameters) is just as scientific
as explaining.  So the answer is, who and why are not closed to scientists, but
I sense that science in these realms is currently very inadequate.  Data will
be necessary for improvement, and that seems a long way off, if ever.  Pretty
convoluted here; I hope I've made sense.
>It seems to me that 200 or so years ago, the question of the origin of life on
>earth was not considered open to scientific enquiry.
I agree generally.  But I prefer to put it this way - the *questions* of how,
when, who and why were not open to inquiry.  During the Enlightenment,
reason was reponsible for questioning the theological answers to how and when,
and not, for the most part, who and why.  Science was thus born out of the
naturalists' curiosity, eventually carting away the how and when while largely
leaving behind the who and why.  The ignorant, the selfish, the intolerant, and
the arrogant, of course, still claim authority in all four domains.
>|>Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota
>Did like your discussion around AMHs, and I did figure out what AMH was from
>your original post :-)
Much obliged.  Funny how facts tend to muddle things, isn't it?  Well, I am
sure there are plenty of "scientific" creationist "rebuttals" out there
somewhere, even if they have to be created from nothing.
[just for the record, again, AMH = anatomically modern humans]
Best regards :-),
Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota