HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33.uucp!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Daily verse BG 1.10
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 03:03:14 EST
Reply-To: kalki33.uucp!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

                                TEXT 10

                        aparyaptam tad asmakam
                         balam bhismabhiraksitam
                       paryaptam tv idam etesam
                         balam bhimabhiraksitam

  
aparyaptam--immeasurable; tat--that; asmakam--of ours; balam--strength;
bhisma--by Grandfather Bhisma; abhiraksitam--perfectly protected;
paryaptam--limited; tu--but; idam--all this; etesam--of the Pandavas;
balam--strength; bhima--by Bhima; abhiraksitam--carefully protected.

    
                              TRANSLATION

	Our strength is immeasurable, and we are perfectly protected by
Grandfather Bhisma, whereas the strength of the Pandavas, carefully
protected by Bhima, is limited.

  
                                PURPORT

	Herein an estimation of comparative strength is made by
Duryodhana. He thinks that the strength of his armed forces is
immeasurable, being specifically protected by the most experienced
general, Grandfather Bhisma. On the other hand, the forces of the
Pandavas are limited, being protected by a less experienced general,
Bhima, who is like a fig in the presence of Bhisma. Duryodhana was
always envious of Bhima because he knew perfectly well that if he
should die at all, he would only be killed by Bhima. But at the same
time, he was confident of his victory on account of the presence of
Bhisma, who was a far superior general. His conclusion that he would
come out of the battle victorious was well ascertained.

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:43:13 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
: >There is a difference between "beliefs" and "tenets/dogma". People usually
: >act as they trully believe. They often violate the tenets that they are
: >supposed to follow.
: >: >Hmm, OK, let me give you *my* definition of pagan:
: >: >1) Non-Semitic Religions
: >: >	For example: Christianity represents a pagan interpretation of
: >: >	the scriptures of Judaism and Islam represents a return from the
: >: >	pagan aspects of Christianity towards Semitic ideals;
: >: >	(separation of creator and creation, pure monotheism, no
: >: >	idolatry).
: >: >2) Various Religions of Babylon excluding Judaism
: >: >	For example: the Jews in exile in Babylon were exposed to a
: >: >	great variety of pagan religions coming from Greece, Persia,
: >: >	India and from Mesopotamia itself; yet they kept Judaism alive,
: >: >	in its original language, against all odds.
: >: >3) Religions prior to conversion to Christianity or Islam
: >: >4) Islam
: >: >	Christians refered to Moslems as pagans during the Crusades.
: >: >	Moslems refered to Christians as idolaters and non-believers.
: >: >5) Neo-Pagan religions
: >: >	Attempts to rediscover religions lost or nearly lost to
: >: >	Christian conversion.
: >: >6) Religions that attempt to combine all the world's religions into one.
: >: >	For example, Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy.
: >: >7) A personal and unique religion or interpretation
: >: >8) Misc. Religions that I've missed
: >: >See anything you like?
: >Hm. Are you a follower of Judaism, by any chance. It certainly appears so,
: >from your posting.
: 
: Are you asking me, the one who posted the definition? 

If you are the person who posted the above definition.

: Why do you think I am a follower of Judaism? I'm not, by the way, if it's 
: of any consequence. As a matter of fact, I'm not a follower. Worlds
: above and worlds below, no one in the world like me: I thought-cha

It is not of any consequence. It is just the perception I got from the
wording of the definitions. I was just curious.

bill
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:23:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec29.190100.24747@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> I believe Mr. Sarver has misunderstood the point I was trying to
> convey with the Euclidean geometry example, so I will clarify.

> >Skinner would reject Euclidean geometry on the premise that he has never
> >seen a line; so because he can't see it, he doubts its very existence.
> 
> This is not true on two counts:
> 
>   1. I do not reject Euclidean geometry.
> 
>   2. I have not stated that being able to see a phenomenon is my
>      standard of proof.

So we have established a point where we all agree on Eucledian
geometry premisses. Great. And that's my only point, because
I think this all is self-explained.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:33:44 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17890@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <85px02YM2e0601@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>
>>This false conception of the denominations is common among LDSs, because
>>of what Joseph Smith said about his vision; that all the sects were
>>arguing over who was the "one true church". This fact is another thing
>>that removes validity from the "first vision", because the major
>>denominations have never argued over that!  Because they all are in 100%
>>agreement on essentials.
>>
>Like whether women can be priests?  I doubt that.

Women being priest can hardly be considered and "essential". I am talking
about who God is, "lds=a big man; Christiandom=a spirit".And who Jesus
is (lds=brother of Lucifer; Christiandom=Creator of ALL things).  These
are essential doctrines.  Woman and baptism are _not_ considered
essential doctrines.

>>This is the reason that the LDS theology is so dangerous for one's soul.
>>The LDS church teaches that Jesus was only A God, among many.  A created
>>being.  And unless one believes that Jesus is the I AM THAT I AM that he
>>claimed to be, they will perish.
>
>I am not aware of a single Mormon author who has taught that Jesus was
>a created being.

I am not aware of a single one that didn't.Perhaps you have references
to support your claim?

>The Mormon heresy is rather than we are *not* created
>beings.  Or in the words of Joseph Smith, we are co-eternal with God.
>(Besides, the Mormons do believe that Jesus is the great I AM).

Well, which is it, are you "co-eternal with God"?  Have you existed
as long as God has?  Or were you created as Spirit children?
You teach both!  How can you teach two contridicting things?  Which is it?
Are you co-eternal, or were you created as spirit children?

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
From: ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:38:45 GMT

William C. Barwell (popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com) wrote:
> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
> 
> > In article <1garhlINN3e5@aludra.usc.edu> rhogan@aludra.usc.edu (Ronald Hogan)
> > >Paul Harvey said:
> > >repeating from Jen Kilmer:
> > >
> > >>>There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
> > >>>is empty.
> > >
> > >>That's another one of those Christian pickup lines, isn't it? I never
> > >>realized what players you Christians are. Yo! I got your Jesus, right
> > >>here! Now, let's disco! Yo! Check out the way I can point my finger up
> > >>and them point my finger down, way too cool, huh?
> > >
> > >Which is a little classier than my initial reaction:
> > >
> > >I had no idea God was shaped like a burrito.
> > >
> > 	Hah!  Heretical pobucker!  Everybody (everybody who counts, anyway)
> > knows that it's *Jesus* that's shaped like a burrito.  That's why the
> > Mexican name, see?  GOD(tm, UL Approved) is shaped like a deep-dish pizza.
> > 	With extra cheese.
> > >Ron
> > >(except that doesn't work for *every* person, does it?)
> > The_Doge
> > ObQuote:	"Life!  Don't talk to me about life!"
> > 			- Marvin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> There is a pipe shaped hole in every human soul.
> 
> Pope Charles   Subgenius Pope Of Houston      "Bob" loves much more than 
> Jesus ever will.
> 
> My god can beat up your god.
> 
> 
> --
> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
> Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
> After December 31, (713) 481-3763
> 1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis

--
Ron Williams                  ACSnet : ron@syacus.acus.oz
Ph : +61 2 390-1366         Internet : ron@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Fax: +61 2 390-1391             UUCP : uunet!munnari!syacus.acus.oz.au!ron
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: "What does science tell us about God?"
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:14:50 GMT

pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>Brian Kendig writes
>
>>It's entirely possible, I suppose, that some 'prime mover' exists
>>behind the universe
>
>If the universe is the Universe, where is 'behind'? When mover and
>moved are discerned, they are relegated to membership in a set.
>Neither can be that set's universe. 

Yes, but what if the universe is to some multiverse as a house is to a
city?  Maybe we can't conceive of anything outside our self-contained
'house', but that doesn't mean there's nothing outside...

-- 
_/_/_/  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.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24730 alt.pagan:14644
From: tsh2@quads.uchicago.edu (swinging on a star)
Subject: Re: A Sharp Contrast to the Song of Solomon
Reply-To: tsh2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:03:42 GMT

In article <BzBDqF.ADG@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.042912.13466@midway.uchicago.edu> tsh2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>   Before New Testament times Israel was spoken of in bridal terms,
>for example, in being unfaithful to God was called "harlot."

You mean like in Ezekiel 16? 

I see that the relationship of GOD/Israel
was often phrased in a husband-wife metaphor, but somehow I don't think
that God cared whether Israel had voluptuous breasts
 or if Israel's butt was like a
peach...as long as Israel kept the marriage covenant (sinai covenant), 
>
>   That having been said, as to the Song of Songs "preceding Christ,"
>so does the book of Isaiah, but it still prophesies about Christ,
>especially around chapter 53.  So what's your point?
>
I hate to start a huge thread and get everyone pissed off at me, but my 
liberal education tells me to go ahead and be critical so that minds may be
opened:

If you read the original hebrew, you will find out something rather interesting
about Deutero-Isaiah (roughly IS 40-55).  His Messianic passages refer to a 
woman who will give birth to a Messiah.  Nowhere does it mention that she would
be a VIRGIN.  Many scholars attribute Matthew's interpretation of this to the 
fact that the Greek translation (the Septuagint) had vague wording.  

I believe the word ISAIAH used was almah (?).                   

Merry christmas.

:)


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Tad S. Hwang
"What happened to that nice decent boy I used |  tsh2@midway.uchicago.edu
   to know...?"                               |  the university of chicago
        -leslie wintheiser                    |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: God's Lil' Buddy
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:43:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.043014.6352@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>/(rpitts)
>/On the age of the universe, there is more than one school of thought
>/on this.  
>
>Wrong.
>
>There is only _one_ SCIENTIFIC school of thought on this; the other school(s)
>are religious institutions that are trying to save their particular 
>interpretations from the scrap heap of history.

Almost, but not quite.  There are some disagreements among scientists
as to the age of the universe.  It is important to note this,
because a common christian deception is to take quotations from
disagreeing scientists out of context to "prove" their 
creationist fantasies.

It works like this:  let's say that you publish a book explaining
the current mainstream idea that the universe is about 15 billion
years old.  I publish an article providing evidence and arguments
for a new theory that the universe is (say) 50 billion years old.
A creationist propagandist might take a snippet of my article
in which I explain my disagreements with the 15 billion year theory,
and then say, "See, Eric is criticising the great scientist Bob
for believing in an old universe.  There is great disagreement
in scientific circles on this old-universe question."
Clever, eh?

Usually, this technique is performed by creationsists when
they quote current research which contradicts a conclusion
of Darwin, implying that modern researchers are "turning away"
from "belief" in evolution.

>
>/(rpitts)
>/The two I know of and to which I give some credence both fall way 
>/short of the billions of years required by evolutioary thought.  
>
>The age of the universe, no matter how you date it, is considerably
>older than the young-earth creationists would like it to be.  No
>debate, no argument.  This is one of those things that has been proven
>beyond any reasonable doubt.  

Yup.

BTW, my thanks (or is it condolences?) on taking up the
Contra-Pitts banner on t.r.m.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
       A Lie is still a Lie, even if you believe it.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24797 alt.pagan:14702
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:24:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
: In article <1992Dec22.181936.22289@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
: >>>We are interested in self-
: >>>definition, not PR, when we take this name.
: >>>Same thing with the word "witch."  ...
: >>But then what happens if someone else uses the word the old way?  If you see a
: >>movie which shows witches as devil-worshippers, should you complain about it?  
: >Yup. 
: >>If you do, you're now complaining that the old use of the name gives you bad
: >>PR; you're no longer engaging in self-definition.  You can't have it both
: >>ways--say you didn't pick the name for PR, but complain about the PR you got
: >>from it anyway.
: >No, you're complaining about the misuse and misdefinition of the word. Tell
: >me, should Jews change the name for thier religion, since for 1500-odd years
: >the Jews were accused (whenever convienient) of killing xian babies?
: 
: No, because Jews called themselves Jews first, and it's those who define Jew
: as "baby-killer" who are redefining words.  If _you're_ the one who's redefining
: the words, you shouldn't then complain that the old definitions harm you.  Why,
: of all the words possible, did you pick one which means "Satan worshipper" to
: Christians?  And then _complain_ about the meaning?  Of course it means that--
: you knew, when you picked the word, that it already meant something.
: 
: Can I go around calling myself a Nazi, and then complain that all those people
: who use Nazi to mean genocidal fascist should change their vocabulary, and if
: they don't do so they are perpetuating discriminatory stereotypes about me?  Of
: course not.  If I decide to call myself a word that's already in use, I've
: chosen to accept the consequences of people using the original meaning--I can't
: demand that everyone change just for me.
: --
: "the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
: the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
: disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler
: 
: Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)

Except that pagan does not mean devil worshipper, and has never
meant devil worshipper.  A pagan is a polytheist, period.  Anybody
who uses it to mean devil worshipper should probably invest in a 
dictionary.

Bill
)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 27 Dec 92 00:22:52 GMT
Reply-To: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University

In article <1992Dec24.201622.2339@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>: 



>
>: you knew, when you picked the word, that it already meant something.
>
>Certainly, it did. Pagan meant "of the country". It was some of the repressive
>sects of Christianity who have attempted to redefine the term.
>
>Bill

I agree with Bill.  Just because a name was redefined by someone else with
really good PR doesn't mean that the name shouldn't be use.  Case in point:
Heathen used to mean, quite literally, "of the heath", living on the prarie.
And, of course, we know what happened--a conquering religion came by and used
the name to mean "barbarian" and "infidel"(translation from the latin(?) for
"not of the faith")
     I like the word "Pagan" and "Heathen" to describe myself.  I prefer the
meanings they had before the Great Ad Men of the LORD (being catty here,
sorry!) gave them new overtones.
                               Don't eat too many candycanes! ;*)
                                    La Mort.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25010 alt.pagan:14867
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:09:46 GMT

In article <adams.726079910@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>>As far as this "I am the way . . . " passage in the Bible is concerned,
>>if Elaine Pagels is to be believed, it is quite hotly contested and
>>supposedly was added by an anonymous someone after the fact.
>
>Is there another source besides Pagels?  I'd be interested in seeing
>this...

I don't know of any offhand, but Elaine PAgels has a Ph. D. in this
junk, so she's pretty reliable.  Check out _Adam, Eve, and the Serpent_
and _The Gnostic Gospels._  If I run into it anywhere else, I'll let you
know. 

Blessings,
Janis
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 29 Dec 92 04:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec28.191438.62306@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>In article <Bzs8pv.AJz@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
> bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>> rob@excalibur.gatech.edu (Rob Lester) writes:
> 
>[...]
>>>Actually LDS doctrine agrees with what you attribute to Christendom.
>>>We believe that Christ was the Creator (as well as a spirit brother
>>>of Lucifer, as were we all to be complete. If you study the LDS doctrine
>>>on the pre-existence this becomes much clearer.)  
>> 
>> 	Not really. `Creator of all things' includes *time*.
>> 	The LDS Jesus didn't create time.
> 
>Actually, I don't think this can be shown one way or the other
>from LDS canon.  I recall a scripture in Alma somewhere (I don't
>have my sticks handy) that says something to the effect of "time
>is measured only unto man".

	The proof that I would offer would consist of Joseph Fielding 
Smith writing that Joseph Smith taught that "our Father had a Father 
and so on." Kimball asserts that "we shall go back to our Father and 
God who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this 
Father is connected with one still farther back, and so on..." 
McConkie wrote that "the elements from which the creation took place 
are eternal and therefore had no beginning."

	The LDS universe is a beginningless universe. Time always 
existed, but there was never a beginning. Time, in fact, existed 
before "our Father" did.

[...]

> 
>Mormons do not believe in creation ex nihilio.  Neither do many
>other religions -- most notably Judaism.


	Which Jewish tradition are you taking about? At the synagogue 
that I attended, it is held that God spoke the universe into 
existence.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu