HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Walter Martin (was: Help For Jehovah's Witnesses)
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:52:26 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Jan.3.21.43.51.1993.28256@geneva.rutgers.edu>
vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly) writes:

>But I also recognize some of what bothers many readers of _Kingdom of
>the Cults_.  For one thing, grouping such diverse groups together
>under a single "cult" label is not quite fair to the diversity of the
>groups he covers.

Did Martin himself pick this title, or did his publishers.  It's not at all
uncommon for a publisher to change the title chosen by the author in order
to make it more appealing to the publisher's idea of the target audience.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "The brain that processes these words as you read them is NOT the one you |
| were born with."				- Steven Jay Gould	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Preaching to the Moderns
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:26:28 GMT
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC

I think Rae Stabosz's contribution is an appropriately positive one
for me to take as my exit from this thread.  What Rae notes comes
close to one traditional thread about Mary's faith/assent to bear
the Son of God (a tradition which I find I can connect to, as Auden
also does for example in the "garden" sections of his "Christmas
Oratorio" _For the Time Being_)

>God did not become incarnate with a wave of a magic wand, like a
>deus ex machina.  The absolutely magnificent HUMAN act that took
>place in the Annunciation was Mary's belief -- her act of faith,
>her act of will -- that what God said would be true.

This is still complicated for me (as a "modern" :-)) in terms of my
own reservations about what a sign is and what the relation of God's
actions to the "natural" realm are, but at least this formulation
DOES make contact (as Rae said) with the HUMAN person of Mary and
her side of the Incarnation.  I will let that percolate for a while
before worrying at the idea again.


-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
From: dharding@lssec.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:50:26 GMT

In article <Jan.3.21.44.04.1993.28273@geneva.rutgers.edu>, labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson) writes:
|> I'd like some discussions on this....
|> 
|> If God knows what we need, don't you think that He will just give it to
|> us automatically without praying for it??????
|> 
|> I think we just need to pray for what we want...NOT what we need....??
|> 
|> Any comments, agree,disagree,don't know,maybe ??????? - jrl
|> 
As I understand it the situation is as follows. It is true that God knows what
we need, and even what we are going to pray. However he chooses to limit his
actions a certain amount, dependant on our prayers.

I would liken it to a human father, who although he may know what his children
want and need still likes to be asked, and may be moved to give more when they
ask. I think an example of this is when Abraham bargained with God over the
city of ... was it Sodom and Gomorrah? (my memory is bad).

Also, our asking is in part an affirmation of our dependance on God for all
things. Thus the Lords prayer says "Give us today our daily bread".

Derek

+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Derek Harding                      |                                        |
| London Engineering Centre, BT Labs | "Noone messes around with my brain ... |
| PP 6/3, Room 616 151 Gower Street  |  it`s my second favourite organ" -     |
| London WC1E 6BA                    |                                        |
|                                    |        Woody Allen (Sleeper)           |
| Tel: 071-728-7861                  |                                        |
| Email: dharding@lssec.bt.co.uk     |                                        |
+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
From: news@cs.ruu.nl (Six O'Clock News)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christian Reconstruction
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:41:47 GMT
Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

I was reading the book "The Open Church" by James H. Rutz this week (by the
way this is a very interesting book, but that's not the point of this
message).

In it I found a quote from Gary North out of Christian Reconstruction, vol
XIV, no 3:

    The collapse of Marxism is symptomatic of a far more crucial collapse.
    Marxism's demise is the first stage of a much more significant
    transformation: the collapse of Western humanist culture.

I find this a very interesting statement, but there was no support for it
in the book. I don't know Gary North nor Christian Reconstruction. I guess
the latter is a magazine. Do you know either? Did you read the article? I
am mostly interested in the reasoning behind the above statement.
-- 
Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University,
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: +31 30 531806   Uucp:   uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet
Telefax:   +31 30 513791   Internet:  piet@cs.ruu.nl   (*`Pete')
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:22:30 GMT

labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson) writes:
> If God knows what we need, don't you think that He will just give it to 
> us automatically without praying for it?????? 

In simple terms, maybe waiting for us to ask helps us grow, and is therefore 
of benefit to us beyond whatever it is we are asking for...  In more complex 
terms, satisfying our needs isn't something that God just does with no effort 
on our part.  I can pray for food all I want, but it generally helps if I go
grocery shopping. in order to do my part.

> I think we just need to pray for what we want...NOT what we need....?? 

I don't think so.  First of all, there are many forms of prayer, and many 
reasons for it.  Prayer isn't simply "asking God for stuff," although this 
can be one form of prayer.  Consider some possible types of prayer:

Petition: we ask God to do something, in response to what we see as
	our needs or desires
Thanksgiving: we thank God for what He has already done for us and for
	others
Penitence: we show God we are sorry for things we have done or not done,
	and ask his forigiveness
Intercession: we ask God to do something on behalf of someone else
Praise: we celebrate God's greatness
Meditation: we empty our minds and hearts of earthly things, to make room
	for the Holy Spirit to enter our lives and transform us
Contemplation: we focus all of our thought and feeling on God, to open us
	to His presence

These are the main types, although there are infinite variations and 
combinations of each of these.  Prayer is how we invite God into our lives, 
and let Him work through us.  It's not just a matter of asking for things we 
want and sitting back waiting for the Lord to take care of them.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: revelations or lack thereof...
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:24:33 GMT
Organization: ----
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu


In article <1ihtkfINNfsd@gap.caltech.edu>, fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) writes:
:
:First, he did not renounce everything, not his sanity.
:Second, he probably thought he was ordinary and the rest were insane
:in attaching to everything.
:

I think that's pretty extraordinary in and of itself.

:According to many of your posts in the past and this one included,
:divinity is common place. Everything seems devine except perhaps
:Satan himself.(The Satanist probably disagrees)
:If divinity is common place, why care for it anyway?
:If we are already devine then not being able to realize the devine
:is also devine. If that is so then being immersed in
:greed, hatred, and delusion is also devine. 

Nirvana and Samsara are the same.

:
:Forgive my narrowmindednes, i'm a fundamentalist buddhist who wants
:the buddha to remain what he is - an extraordinary ordinary guy.
:Yes, his teaching is a revelation -- revelation of the sweat.
:The difference beteen Gotama and others is that he had worked extremely
:hard for 6 years, nearly paid his life for it while others got
:instant revelation effortlessly. Of course, many would say that
:it's the devine's wish to reveal the message to Gotama that way.
:Sigh, might as well prostrate to a pile of refuse.
:
:I agree with the poster who originated this thread (Alan?), that
:buddhism is unique in its lack of the almighty. Let's keep it
:that way for the sake of religio-diversity.
:

A narrowminded Buddhist, what a concept! 

Whether he worked that hard for only 6 years is subject to some
dispute among Buddhists. I think among Mahayana Buddhists the idea is
more prevalent that he worked hard for many LIFETIMES.

That an ordinary human being, willing to work extraordinarily hard,
can achieve enlightenment/God-realization/smart-cookie-ness is common
to Buddhism and other groups. How one goes about getting there is
sometimes the difference.

Buddhism is indeed unique in not ascribing divinity to the Buddha, but
I would hardly refer to him as an ordinary guy.

			-Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Our desires and our way of life....
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:23:55 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

Toshi Takeuchi (tt@wag.caltech.edu) wrote:
: All the TV commercials, and the portrayal of the "Rich and Famous" show
: that you need to HAVE THINGS in order to be happy.
When you have (more or less) managed to avoid falling into this trap,
there is another, even greater trap - because it is so widely accepted:
The desire to be a certain kind of person - including all those "moral ideals".
That does not at all mean you should not act compassionately out of love!
But when there really is love, what need is there for the projection of ideals?
Aren't they just a mental wall behind which we try to hide our "bad parts"
(whatever that means from some particular viewpoint), and thus a product of
exactly the "darkness" they _seem_ to try to get rid of?

Could it be that when you want to "enlighten" your "dark" aspects, you have to
see them clearly, withour disturbing the view with concepts how it _should_ be.
In fact "see them" still sounds like them being something else - be them, too.

: One of the great principles that I learned from Buddhism is that change
: brings pain.
I'm not going to argue what "true Buddhism" is, but I would certainly rephrase
this as: Resistance against change brings pain (note there's no "only").
Have you ever felt pain? Likely.
Have you ever later felt happiness? Likely, too.
So obviously change brings joy, too!
Are there completely different kinds of change, or is it all one process,
which is only divided by conceptional thinking?

: --Meditation actually may train the mind so that some of our attachments
:   become unimportant!!
So one program (which some would call "materialistic desire") is replaced
with some other program (which one could call "spiritual desire").
One might wonder what's the base of all this programming (conditioning).

: --When you start to become in contact with your true_nature/God/
: Universal_force then having a new compact disk seems trivial!
You live now, in this moment (putting aside considerations of self-ness,
existence vs. non-existence here - just the very experience happening).
Why should you need to add anything to this?

(I'm not speaking about adding some food to your body when you are hungry :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Marc Wachowitz, mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de   /  news zombie - reply by e-mail, too
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
From: drizzt@spock.uucp (Neela Jacques)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: The Shiva Sutras
Date: 6 Jan 1993 12:58:25 -0800
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

Is there someone out there who could send me a list of the Shiva sutras.
I know that They are listed in a book called "The Aphorisms of Siva"
by the SUNY press but since I am only in High School I don't have acces
to the book.
  Thanks for any help.


P.S. If it helps I know that the first one is: Caitanyam Atma 
(this means, the self is Consciousness)
From: mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Our desires and our way of life
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:25:07 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

Wong Weng Fai (wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp) wrote:
: 	A while back, a Christian friend once told me that "being natural"
: is what its about. "Being natural" is "being with God".
The misunderstanding here seems to arise about the concept of "natural" - to
you, it appears, "natural" means "wild", something like "bestiality" (in the
often used negative sense - many might argue whether animals deserve putting
them down in this respect).
I would rather compare it with Rinzai's notion of "a true person without rank
and name" (note that this has nothing to do with having and adhering to some
concept of normality).

: I told her that if I would "be natural", she wouldn't like a single moment
: of it (sounds that the old Incredible Hulk line ;-)
The darkness of a chamber comes from building walls around the space instead of
letting in the light. When the door opens, darkness does not endanger the sun -
it's the same space within and without.

: 	"He who conquers himself is the greatest conqueror."
The hand that does not try to grasp itself moves freely.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Marc Wachowitz, mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de   /  news zombie - reply by e-mail, too
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
From: gt0009b@prism.gatech.edu (rahim)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Individuality
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:43:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan12.211750.9083
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

I have come across the concept of sunyata (emptiness or the void).
I am told that this is the substratum of the universe, that all
phenomenon arise and disappear back into this emptiness.

I wanted to find out about the individuality of human beings
in relation to sunyata.  Exactly what occurs to individuality
when it reaches sunyata?  Are we stripped of our own being and
we dissolve into non-existence?  Do we recognize our oneness
with all and still retain our distinctness?

I don't buy into the idea that everything is illusion, and
therefore our own personality is an illusion?  I believe
everything has levels, and that on the quantum level all matter is
actually energy, and so that matter might be perceived as illusion.

So our sense of self can be incomplete and therefore,
our false sense of self can be an illusion.  But does that 
mean we have no existence on a deeper level?

I've read the analogy of the cart not existing without its
wheels and spokes, and that analogy is further stretched to
include the human being who cannot exist without body, 
consicousness, memories, and so on.

I would appreciate it if anyone can shed some light on
this problem in understanding I am having.  

Thanks.


-- 
rahim
---
	     "I am the Lizard King.  I can do anything."
					-Jim Morrison
From: fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Please Help Phra Prajak
Date: 4 Jan 1993 09:06:04 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

In article <47836@ogicse.ogi.edu> fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov 
(Tawit Chitsomboon) writes:
>
>...............
>You can email letters directly to a BP's correspondence:
>..........

May i further add that the Thai gov is very susceptible to
foreign criticisms. Any open criticsm from people from the West
will greatly help this compassionate buddhist monk, Phra Prajak.

The PM can also be reached at
    PM Chuan Leekpai
    The Government House
    Nakorn Pathom Rd.
    Bangkok 10300, Thailand
    Fax: (011-66-2) 280-1443    

Phra Prajak himself could be reached at:

    Venerable Prajak Kuttijitto
    c/o INEB Secretariat  (Inter. Network of Engaged Buddhist -tawit)
    127 Soi Santioap, Nares Road
    Bangkok 10500, Thailand.

----------------------------------
In Gary's post, Phra Prajak was quoted as saying that 'forest is an
integral part of buddhism.' I would say this is especially true
for Thailand where, since the Sukhothai era some 800 years ago,
the Order has been divided into Urban Tradition (Kaamavasi) and
Forest Tradition (Aranyavasi). They enrich as well as keep check
and balance of each other. The UT is good in scripture but lack in practice
while the FT is the opposite. Buddhadasa seems to be a rare exception;
he is an FT monk who excels in scripture as well. I would count
Phra Prajak as an FT monk.

-tawit

The Buddha was born in the forest, attained the enlightenment in the forest,
and died in the forest.   --Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
From: Roger Adams <RADAMS@cerritos.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: revelations or lack thereof...
Date: 6 Jan 1993 23:35:53 -0800
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

In article <1ifs8cINN23q@gap.caltech.edu>, 
billc@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Bill Carter) writes:

>>A wealthy prince who renounces *everything* to go out into the
>>wilderness in search of Truth is hardly an "ordinary guy"!
> 
>    Buddhism appears somewhat unique in that even on the surface,
>    there is no claim that Guatama had some special divinity apart
>    from ordinary people like us.  

We all have the same divinity but some like Buddha and Christ manifested it
fully. Therefore, they can be said to be divine regardless of whether or not
any particular religion wants to say they are divine. If your point is that we
can all be like Buddha, and Buddhism as a religion upholds that fact
contrasting with the usual Christian viewpoint that Christ was an  exception
and the rest of us can only hold on to his robe to have a better hereafter,
then I agree even though not all christians have this view. However, Hinduism, 
which is a huge glob encompassing Yoga,  Vedanta etc., as well as
fundamentalist elements, cannot be characterised in such a simplistic manner.
Vedanta, for instance, says there is one reality without second. In this
non-dual perspective, who are the ordinary chumps and who are the divine
incarnations? Yoga philosophy is a little more practical in that it recognizes
differences between those who are deluded and those who are fully awake and
even those who are partially awake, and discusses the various kinds of  masters
including avatars who achieved enlightenment in a previous incarnation and
return to this plane to help others - they are subjected to delusion again as
are the rest of us but they inevitably overcome it whereas the rest of us can
also overcome delusion or go on for many more lifetimes in delusion depending
on whether or not we are willing to overcome attachments of the ego  and
surrender to the divine. My master said that Buddha, Christ, and Krishna
all fell into this category of master (ie. "avatar" as defined above). This
is not to say that any of them had an easy ride. What you said was "neat"
about Buddhism not claiming divinity for Buddha is actually still true even
if he is seen as divine, for we are all divine and need only to surrender 
fully to this divinity.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Roger Adams
	radams@cerritos.edu               To those in whom love dwells,
	Cerritos College                  the whole world is one family.
	11110 Alondra Blvd                             A Hindu Proverb
        Norwalk, California 90650
	USA        		          293 Dwapara :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Cosmology
Date: 7 Jan 1993 10:38:56 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

Cosmology is back in the news. It appears the theory of dark
matter is picking up some weight. This theory supports the
notion that the universe will contract again. Buddhist cosmology
as presented by Vasubandhu posit that some beings suffer
through the destruction/rebirth of Universes, as a form of
apparitional "hell" beings, i suppose. The Dalai Lama also
presents the notion that the birth of a Universe is intimately
linked by the karma of all destined to grope about on its
planets and such. In fact it this karma, they believe, that
"causes" universes. Food for thought...

P.S I am currently reading _The Two Truths_ by Guy Newland.
Very exciting book. I will make some notes and may post a review.
It really brings alive the extent of the accomplishments of
Tsong Khapa. Truly exciting. This is a nice respite from
the Chandrakirti/Madhyamika bashing i've been exposed to
by Kalupahana, with much benefit i should add, since Newland
also skillfully criticizes many Western interpreters of Madhyamika.
Highly Recommended!

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: abulsari@aton.abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Happiness
Date: 9 Jan 1993 14:19:44 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

What is happiness ?

Happiness is a state of mind in absence of desires.

When is this possible, in practice ?
When there is no fear, anxiety, boredom, desires, wants
or unfulfilled needs. A feeling of all round satisfaction.

Then how does one avoid fear, anxiety, desires, etc. ?
By realising that fear and anxiety are empty and unnecessary concepts,
by realising the futility (undesirability) of desires and wants.
Unfulfilled needs (e.g. hunger) could be a problem, until you make those
needs unnecessary.
What are fear and anxiety and how are they related to uncertainty ?



I will be glad to be corrected.

Abhay