HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33.uucp!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Daily verse BG 1.11
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 02:50:18 EST
Reply-To: kalki33.uucp!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

                                TEXT 11

                          ayanesu ca sarvesu
                         yatha-bhagam avasthitah
                        bhismam evabhiraksantu
                         bhavantah sarva eva hi

  
ayanesu--in the strategic points; ca--also; sarvesu--everywhere;
yatha-bhagam--as differently arranged; avasthitah--situated;
bhismam--unto Grandfather Bhisma; eva--certainly; abhiraksantu--should
give support; bhavantah--you; sarve--all respectively; eva
hi--certainly.

    
                              TRANSLATION

	All of you must now give full support to Grandfather Bhisma, as
you stand at your respective strategic points of entrance into the
phalanx of the army.

  
                                PURPORT

	Duryodhana, after praising the prowess of Bhisma, further
considered that others might think that they had been considered less
important, so in his usual diplomatic way, he tried to adjust the
situation in the above words. He emphasized that Bhismadeva was
undoubtedly the greatest hero, but he was an old man, so everyone must
especially think of his protection from all sides. He might become
engaged in the fight, and the enemy might take advantage of his full
engagement on one side. Therefore, it was important that other heroes
not leave their strategic positions and allow the enemy to break the
phalanx. Duryodhana clearly felt that the victory of the Kurus depended
on the presence of Bhismadeva. He was confident of the full support of
Bhismadeva and Dronacarya in the battle because he well knew that they
did not even speak a word when Arjuna's wife Draupadi, in her helpless
condition, had appealed to them for justice while she was being forced
to appear naked in the presence of all the great generals in the
assembly. Although he knew that the two generals had some sort of
affection for the Pandavas, he hoped that these generals would now
completely give it up, as they had done during the gambling
performances.

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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24465 rec.arts.books:23074
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: PIPI
Date: 23 Dec 1992 00:36:56 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

Graham " no, not related to Sir Michael" Redgrave writes:

	Nichael Cramer writes:

		This practice --of replacing "foreign" characters with 
		more familiar characters-- is quite common, of course.  
		A common occurance in English is the transformation of 
		the signum "IHS" into the English letters eye-aitch-ess, 
		whereas in fact they are the first three greek letters 
		of the name "Jesus" (i.e.  iota-eta-sigma).]

	I thought IHS stands for In Hoc Signum (In this sign, though I've 
	probably butchered the Latin), or something like that, meaning, 
	"Check out this otherwise unobtrusive cross-thing."  I usually see
	IHS over unadorned crosses.

I cannot imagine anyone aeround at the time knowing enough Greek to put
up cryptic Greek messages -- it sounds like something from a Quattrocenyo
painting -- Joann Zimmerman knows this sort of thing. But wasn't INRI
also common enough in Renaissance paintings of the Crucifixion? Jesus
of Nazareth King of the Jews.

							RABworm
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/24/92  God's Promise in James 5:16
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:55:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Confess your faults one to another,
	and pray one for another,
	that ye may be healed.
	the effectual fervent prayer
	of a righteous man
	availeth much.

	James 5:16
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: mimir@hardy.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 06:41:39 GMT

In article <25DEC199214323283@elroy.uh.edu> lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>
>A "witch" was (as I understand it, please correct if wrong) a member of the
>wiccan.  Members of the wiccan studied wicca.  Wicca means something like
>"ways of the wise ones" or "ways of the old ones".  Therefore the original
>meaning of the word witch is "practitioner of the old ways" or something like
>that.  I really wouldn't call that devil worshipping.
>
>
>Tammy the tired of such bullshit

 Can you back this with anything verifiable or academic?

Grendel the tired of the folklore passed off as fact
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 28 Dec 92 16:53:38 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

> I disagree.  This attitude can help clear up some problems
> in Bible interpretation, except there is no indication in the
> Bible that this is so.  "Progressive revelation" looks appealing
> to Christians, but far less so to Jews.  Frankly, it is rather
> insulting to the ancient Hebrews that they were somehow too
> simple minded to "understand" the word of their God.

This seems odd considering the position of modern Talmudic Judaism which
presupposes that "new understandings" are constantly being offered by the
rabbis.  One example is the matter of blood atonement.  In today's rather
sophisticated climate the "shedding of blood" is seen as primative and
repugnant.  The Jews of that day must have been too "simple minded" to
understand the true (modern) nature of atonement for sin.

> If one already has a pre-conceived notion that christianity is
> correct, or at least an improvement on OT Judaism, then 
> progressive revelation would explain it.  However, it seems
> much more likely (to me, anyway) that the OT authors meant
> what they said, and that the NT authors distorted OT writings
> (either by using poor translations or attributing "prophetic"
> meanings where none was intended) so that the Jesus-cult
> could gain adherents among Jew and Gentile alike.

From your perspective you are no doubt correct.


--
Tom Albrecht
Date: Sunday, 3 January 1993 09:16:58 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <C09w0o.K6p.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)  wrote:
# 
# jimgar@scorch.apana.org.au (Jim Garner) writes:
# 
# >Maccabees. But does anyone really believe that God would want us to
# >allow torture to continue, for want of saying a few words that we
# >don't really mean?
# 
# The pertinent question, though, is what happens if you are tortured and/or
# brainwashed to the point that you really DO mean those "few words?"

  I can't answer from an Xtian perspective, but the Jewish responsa
  on the subject (and, Oy!, there's been a lot) are very liberal.
  Basically, anyone under such duress is understood to NOT be
  responsible IN ANY WAY.  Slaves are largely exempt from religious
  obligations, etc.  Similarly, a child raised in captivity is not
  held responsible for transgresions committed in ignorance.

  This isn't to say that there aren't plentiful tales of heros who
  breathed their last praising God (Kiddush HaShem); the story of
  Rabbi Akiva reciting the Sh'ma as torturers ripped him with
  hot combs is classic.  BUT these are understood to be heros;
  ordinary folk aren't measured by the same standards.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: On faith  (was: ... least common denominator)
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:20:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec16.133241.27708@cass.ma02.bull.com>,
ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) wrote:
> 
> Well, here we are talking about faith again.... :-) 
> 
> In article <1992Dec16.053718.25421@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> 
> >Paul Tillich would argue that the "faith" required for religion
> >(perhaps contrary to your assertion) is trans-rational, i.e., 
> >that it transcends both rationality and irrationality.
> 
> I'm tempted to say that Tillich could write whatever he wanted, but
> he needed rationality on both ends to get it across. I'm tempted
> to say that, mind you, not that I actually would.  :-)

I agree, if he wanted to make his point that faith supersedes
rationality/irrationality, he had to use rational tools for this.

If this was the case, faith would be taken for granted, and the 
discussion was not needed at all! 

And now theists would get in stating that agnostics/atheists
have faith in gravity. And yes, in this case we do know the
implications of gravity on a human being, and both camps agree
on this issue. In other words there are many premisses nearly all human
beings could agree upon, but in the case of religion we don't.
This clearly shows that religion is a personal attribute, and 
attempts to streamline it using universal doctrines are always
doomed to fail, ultimately. 

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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 29 Dec 1992 16:03 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: elroy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec29.194839.9570@HQ.Ileaf.COM>, raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes...
>In article <1992Dec28.212413.5974@mercury.unt.edu> gene@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Dr. Gene De Lisa) writes:
>> It's time for some facts.
>> 
>> Pagan is the term that early xians used in a derogatory sense for non-xians.
>> You cannot be a xian pagan any more than you can be a non-xian xian!
>>
> 
>Gene the word 'pagan' was in use long before Christianity and the Roman Empire
>squared off.
> 
>And the only thing 'derogatory' is your use of the 'x'
>as a substitute for the letters 'Christ' 
> 
>Christopher


There is absolutely nothing derogatory in the use of the letter X for 
Christ.  Might I point out that it was the Christians themselves that
began this practice.  The letter is not our "X" or "ex", but the greek 
letter "chi" or "X".  For many centuries Christians used it to denote Christ.

For someone who claims to know history you are truly showing your 
ignorance of it.

Tammy 

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_. 
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 10:05:11 GMT

jimgar@scorch.apana.org.au (Jim Garner) writes:

>Maccabees. But does anyone really believe that God would want us to
>allow torture to continue, for want of saying a few words that we
>don't really mean?

The pertinent question, though, is what happens if you are tortured and/or
brainwashed to the point that you really DO mean those "few words?"

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
From: arron@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A deep bit of flame bait
Date: 23 Dec 92 12:55:31 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

>>I will keep you in my prayers.
>>
> This statement is the epitome of condescension.  I have always felt, even
> when I was a christian, that praying for a person should only be done with
> that persons consent.  To do otherwise is to make choices for a person that
> are not yours to make.  Anyone who has left the church has their reasons
> and it is not up to *you* to second guess those reasons.

I can't agree with that statement. If I see something I would like God to
change, then I MUST pray, as that is how I most commonly communicate with God.
In saying I will keep you in my prayers, I am just informing someone of what I
am doing to follow the call God has for my life.

If I don't pray for things then I am not really showing God how I feel about
situations. I also am prepared to tell someone that I am praying for them, and
don't hide it behind their back.

Finally if someone really does care about whether they have made the right
choice or not, then they should be prepared for me to do my part to help them
discover if they did choose correctly. If there is no God, then my prayers will
go unanswered, if there is (which of course I believe there is), then my
prayers may help them make the right choice.

I don't see that I am being condescending in ANY way, just me doing my part to
follow the faith I believe in.

*******************************************************************************
from:arron@waikato.ac.nz			Arron Scott
						University Of Waikato
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24335 rec.arts.books:22925
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: PIPI
Date: 21 Dec 92 09:30:08
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
	<1992Dec17.171741.16018@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Reply-To: ncramer@bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: kariba.bbn.com
In-reply-to: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:17:41 GMT


A bit of pre-holiday amusement:

   Subject: Re: PPYE  (was Re: YHWH)
   >>> "I AM THAT I AM"
   Jeff West writes
   >Or, "I ams what I ams!"
   >	- Popeye
   > [...]

Those following this thread saw how the string "YHWH" transmogrified
into the string "PPYE".  This is interesting in that this form has a
very near ancestor in the history of Greek text of the Bible.

As most of you probably know, the Hebrew for "YHWH" looks something
like the following (making allowances for Ascii):

    ******  **    *****  **
         *    *       *    *
    *    *    *   *   *    *
    *    *    *   *   *    *
    *    *    *   *   *
    *    *    *   *   *
   **    *    *  **   *

or (reading from right to left) YOD-HEH-VAW-HEH.

Now, among some early Greek manuscripts of the Bible it was common
practice to leave certain holy words in the original Hebrew; this was
most commonly done with the divine name YHWH.

However, as time progressed, fewer and fewer of the scribes could be
expected to know the original Hebrew and consequently the (Greek-
speaking) scribes gradually (and probably unconsciously) began to
replace the letters of the Hebrew with forms with which they were more
familiar[*].

In particular, the above Hebrew spelling of YHWH gradually took on a
orthographically "similar", pseudo-greek spelling as:

    ******  *  *****  *
    *    *  *  *   *  *
    *    *  *  *   *  *
    *    *  *  *   *  *
    *    *  *  *   *  *
    *    *  *  *   *  *
    *    *  *  *   *  *

which, in the final stages, came to be read as the greek PI-IOTA-PI-
IOTA.  And specifically there is some indication that in some cases
the divine name came to be pronounced in some cases as "PIPI".

So, all in all, Jeff may not be that far off.     ;)

   [* This practice --of replacing "foreign" characters with more
      familiar characters-- is quite common, of course.  A common
      occurance in English is the transformation of the signum "IHS"
      into the English letters eye-aitch-ess, whereas in fact they are
      the first three greek letters of the name "Jesus" (i.e.
      iota-eta-sigma).]

Nichael                  "... and they opened their thesaurus and 
ncramer@bbn.com        offered him gold and frankincense and myrrh."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Reply-To: raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 18:36:42 GMT


Christianity is concerned about the souls of men, the economic
conditions that damn the soul, the social conditions that corrupt men,
and the city goverments that cripple them.

Any religion that is not concerned with these things is as Dr Martin 
Luther King Jr said, "...a dry, dead, do-nothing religion in need of
new blood."

In Christianity the principle of evil is mans will.
By having been given a free will, man has the ability to choose
between alternatives, choose the good or the evil, the high or the low.
Man has misused his freedom.

We are sinners in need of Gods divine grace.
We know how to love, yet we hate. We take the precious lives that
God has given to us and throw them away in riotous living. We are
unfaithful to those to whom we should be faithful. We are disloyal
to those ideals to which we should be loyal.

In our collective lives our sin rises to even grater heights.
See how we treat each other. Races trample over races; nations trample over
nations. We go to war and destroy the values and the lives that God has
given us. We leave battlefields painted with blood, and we end up with wars
that burden us with national debts, filling our nations with orphans
and widows, sending thousands of men/women home psychologically deranged
and physically handicapped.
This is the tragic plight of man.

As Christians, we know that man isn't made for that.
We know that man is made for the stars, created for the everlasting,
born for eternity. We know that man is crowned with glory and honor
but as long as he chooses to live on the low level he will be frustrated,
disillusioned and bewillered.

The GLORY of Christianity is that when man decides to rise up from
his mistakes, from his sin, from his evil, there is a loving God
saying, "Come home, I still love you."

This same loving God is also crying out to our country to return to 
our heritage, "...All men are created equal." Forgotten words from the
Declaration of Independence.

"And he's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over,
and I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you,
but I want you to know  tonight that we as a people will get to
the Promised Land."   Martin Luther King Jr (4/3/68)

This is Christianity

Christopher Raczka


-- 
"Any comments, opinions, and views expressed here (on Usenet) are MINE
and are in no way shared nor endorsed by my employer."
                        christopher raczka
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "What does science tell us about God?"
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:03:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec23.191606.5584@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) wrote:
> 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. 

Hehehe, time for a little bit Wittgenstein, wait, Socrates is 
actually quite good:
 
                 -- "I only know that I know nothing"
                                      - Socrates


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: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "What does science tell us about God?" (Time Magazine)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 22:04:36 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>Time Magazine's latest issue has a cover story on religion versus
>science.  I was rather surprised that they'd do a cover story on this,
>so I read the article with great interest, and was quite impressed by it!
       (and a lot more that is worth reading.)


            The article in Time focussed mostly on the creation-
       evolution disagreement, as if that were the crux of the matter.  
       Specific disagreements, on such matters as the flat earth, 
       geocentrism, supernatural causes for disease, and evolution, 
       are not really the cause of the warfare between science and 
       religion, although at various times they were thought to be. 

            The essential conflict between science and religion is in 
       how one arrives at conclusions.  Religion generally is based on 
       authority: a person, a book, or a set of traditions.  It has 
       Eternal Truth, coming from authority, which its adherents stick 
       with regardless of any evidence.  Science is based on reason 
       and evidence.  It does not recognize absolute authority, 
       considers "truth" to be relative and tentative, and takes the 
       attitude: Don't tell me, show me. 

       Edgar Pearlstein, University of Nebraska, Lincoln


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: On Neurosis ( was 'Re: God etc' )
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:04:37 GMT

>>In article <1992Dec22.215451.2019@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM 
>>(John Emery) writes:
>>
>>> The observed fact that humankind has always searched for something 
>>> outside of himself points to the conclusion that we are incomplete in
>>> ourselves.  
>>

Really?  Or maybe it just says we grow up in a chaotic world and in general
we turn out somewhat neurotic in general. How many people do you know who
are comfortable talking in front of people? How many people do you know who
have a high level of self confidence such that it impresses you? How many 
people are always worried about their looks, their weight? Or look at it this
way- some 10% of children are estimated to be physically abused.  Considering
this the number that must be emotionally abused, or at least stunted must be
50% plus.  Consider all the priests that are now getting busted for molesting
children in the 60's and 70's ( several large cases in Canada ).  The world
is mostly neurotic but people try their best to look mostly normal.  Everbody
has all kinds of little and large neurosises and most have low self-esteem
and confidence.  Is it any wonder that people feel incomplete?  Many people 
feel more then incomplete- they feel violent ( eg. spouse battery ), etc.
And why is this?  The environment that people grow up in- and not just their
families but this whole fucked up planet!  The above statement by Emery is 
idiotic as an argument supporting a deity.  Of course humankind feels 
'incomplete'!  What do expect considering the world in which we live?
Its a side effect of neurosis! And its no wonder people come up with and 
follow so many lame and moronic religions/ philosophies/ etc.
  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc