HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:57:26 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Sep.10.03.34.56.1992.24095@athos.rutgers.edu> tford@convex.com (Tom Ford) writes:
>
> ...  Anyway, he half-jokingly said, "I know we cant know the day or
>hour, but can we know the year, month and week?"  :-)

No, because on the Year/Month/Week, as each day passes without incident we
know that it is one of the days remaining.  And on the last day of the Year/
Month/Week, when we know it IS the Last Day, as each hour passes without in-
cident we know it is one of the hours remaining.  As it approaches midnight
we know it IS the Last Hour.  And that violates Jesus's statement that no one
will know the Day or the Hour.  Therefore it must, according to Jesus, be un-
predicted and unpredictable entirely.  We will know neither the millenium nor
the millisecond until it actually happens.  (This also undercuts the predic-
tion that the Rapture will occur 7 years before the Last Day: if the Rapture
occurs at noon (PDT) tomorrow, then people will know that the Last Day will
be noon PDT September 12, 1999, and the Rapture prediction makes Jesus a
liar.)


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		----------------------+
| "She loves to laugh, and when she smiles you just see teeth for miles and   |
| miles, and tonsils, and spare ribs, and things too fierce to mention."      |
+---------------------------- from  "A Horse Named Bill", children's folksong-+
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Bashing that Bad Old Government
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:54:46 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

You know, I appreciate the thinking and discussion that's gone into a lot
of the postings debating the appropriate role of government and Christians
in regard to providing for the needy, etc., but I just want to throw some-
thing in here.  I think we'd all do well to be a little more careful about
how we charactarize the efforts of conscientious humans who happen to be
trying to use governmental action to address real needs.  Now, I won't
debate the general idea that public/government charity is not only in-
ferior to private giving but may actually be harmful to society: but
what I'm reading here on s.r.c. characterizes these efforts as malevolent,
evil, unGodly, anti-Biblical...
   Now THINK for a minute, folks.  What would you have government officials
do?  If they do nothing about human needs and tragedies, we're all in an
uproar - "How can THEY stand by and do nothing while people starve?  How
can we send men to the moon and people live in cardboard boxes within
sight of the Capitol?"   etc. etc. etc.  We see a lot of this right now
in re: Florida/Hurricane Andrew - "Whose fault is it help didn't come sooner?"
etc.  When human need is before their eyes, nobody's in the mood to 
debate the wisdom of helping people.  "Well, am I really doing the best
thing by giving you and your starving kids these food stamps?  Aren't
I really destroying your family?"  There's a point where such philosophising
is bullshit.
  Now, it's obvious that all good intentions seem to mutate, often into 
bloated government programs, and can have consequences nobody anticipated.
I don't think that's an excuse for casting aspersions on people who, far
from seeing government as a means of power, have entered office with gen-
uine desire to _serve_ the people, and to "do righteously" regarding suff-
ering and injustice they have witnessed.  That sure isn't a description of
everybody in Washington by a long shot, but neither is it terribly rare.
The longer I live, the more convinced I am that in this country, we get
exactly the government we ask for and deserve, and I'm extremely loathe
to blame That Bad Old Government for this stuff.  Just be careful how you
charactarize people.
 
--
===============================================================================
paul marxhausen                              \/               grace 
university of nebraska - lincoln             /\              happens           
===============================================================================
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The O'Callaghan Case, part I
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:37:06 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>Wow, I think you overreacted a bit, Nichael!

???     How so?

In point of fact, all I did was point out several errors in the "30 Days"
article that you posted.  Moreover, if you read my posting you will see
that I limited myself almost wholly to simple errors of fact and was
somewhat careful to avoid anything that might be considered as merely an
issue of interpretation.

I find it, well, interesting, that you choose to see this as
"overreacting".

>You may find 7Q4 to be of more interest than 7Q5.  It has the same
>paleographic dating as 7Q5, ...

Much has been made of paleography in these articles, but it remains
something of a red herring.  Presumable both fragments come from a fairly
early epoch[*]. 

No, the issue is simply do this: does 7Q4 contain what O'Callaghan claims
it does?  This remains to be seen.  However, given how badly he blew it
with 7Q5, simple reason says we should approach his claims concerning 7Q4
with an appropriate caution.

  [* Specifically, if the fragments come from Cave 7 and were placed there
     by the residents of Q'mran before the Roman legions marched through
     the area --and as far as I know no one is doubting this-- then we can
     place a pretty firm upper bound on the date of these fragments.

     That said, it is worth making the point that, while it is very likely
     that the documents come from an early period, there is _nothing_ to
     support O'Callaghan's assertion that the fragment can dated to so
     narrow a period --within 5yrs-- purely on the evidence of paleography;
     i.e. of the nature of the handwriting.]

>... but is easier to work with.

In what way is 7Q5 particularly "difficult" to work with?  (See previous
postings for pointers to dozens of articles dealing with the contents of
7Q5.)

> ... It appears to
>be a fragment of I Timothy.  I will be posting some of the articles
>from 30Days on it shortly, including pro and con pieces.  

As with O'Callaghan, I think we would find it helpful if you could supply
an additional corroborating source.  Given how sloppily 30Days treated the
facts in the article that you previously posted, it is safe to say that we
should view any claim they make with at least some suspicion.

In any case, it would be helpful to give a source that supplied references
for --rather than simple assertions of-- its claims.

(NOTE: I've dealt with the rest of this article in a separate posting.)

BTW While we're on the issue: In other articles you have mentioned making
the GIFs of these fragements to the net.  Thanks for doing this.

Nonetheless, can you tell us where you found the originals?  I have access
to a couple pretty good libraries, and would just as soon avoid the
fuzziness introduced by the extra layer of GIF-ing if at all possible.

Thanks
NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --                Bush/Gorbachev: One Down, One to Go
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: "Cell churches" within the congregation
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:41:25 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

In reading the discussion of "cell churches" I'm strongly reminded of
an experiment (of mixed success) tried in our large Lutheran congregation
(about 600 active members).  They established small groups within the
church who met regularly in people's homes for study and fellowship.
My own such group (they call them "Careciple Groups", I'm used to the
name now but it is kind of silly) is still running and I believe this
system of smaller, intimate fellowships in conjunction with the broad
fellowship and extended ministries of a larger congregation is a potent
model.  I've seen and heard of similar approaches in other churches.  
Kind of like having your cake and eating it, too, in some respects.

--
===============================================================================
paul marxhausen                              \/               grace 
university of nebraska - lincoln             /\              happens           
===============================================================================
From: snorthc@nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hal Camping prediction for Second Coming, Sept. '94!!
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:11:53 GMT
Organization: NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER

>As a final note, I would think a more compelling prophecy of our
>times and where they might take us would be the economic picture
>of the modern world; in our own day, we are precariously balanced
>on the edge of a great worldwide economic debacle analogous to the
>great abyss faced by the generation of 1914.  They in their time
>could not see it; we in our own time, apparently, cannot see ours,
>either.

Well I think a lot of people see it coming!  I think it however is
such a big and momentous event, and that we are so wrapped up in
our everyday life that we just don't prepare for it.
  
How similar to the impending return of Christ.  
===================================================================
From: meggert@hto-06.usc.edu (Mark Eggert)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: The Mahashakti Yagna
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:10:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Sep7.103815.18593
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


  The Hard Light Meditation Center will present the Mahashakti Yagna -
Fire Ceremony for World Peace at the Hindu Temple in Calabasas, CA
on October 1-3 1992. 
  The Mahashakti Yagna is dedicated to The Divine Mother as well as
Swami Muktananda Paramahansa on the tenth anniversary of his mahasamadhi.
  Eleven Brahmin priests from around the country will perform the ritual.
  All are invited. For more information call Hard Light at (213)964-5077
or write to Hard Light, 1875 Century Park East, Suite 5273, Los Angeles, CA
90067.
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon)
Subject: Re: Enlightened Beings
Organization: ----
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:36:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.182450.2067@cco.caltech.edu> 
jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) writes:
>In <1992Sep3.083541.21990@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, 
fstawit@.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) writes:
>>It's considered polite in Thailand to ask 'Do you have any suffering?'
>>It really translates as 'Are you enlightened?']
>
>What is the polite reply?  If I say "no", I'm bragging (and unlikely to be
>telling the truth :-)); if I say "yes", is it polite to go into detail?
>Or is it like the English "How do you do", the correct answer to which is
>"How do you do"?
>

It would indeed be interesting to conduct a project asking all
the (seemingly) enlightened masters this blunt question
"Are you enlightened?". It would be interesting to compile all
the responses into a volume.

A true masters (in the buddhist tradition at least)
will have his/her way of answering the question without a positive
'yes' or a positive 'no'. (he'll beat the bush to death :--)

For your physical safety, try to avoid Zen monks. They had been
known to give a slap on the face or a hard pinch on the nose, to
the questioners :-)


Buddhadasa has never claimed himself to be enlightened. Make
no mistake, he's never humble either, e.g., never claimed that
he's not enlightened. He's probably the only highly-revered
monk in Thailand that has never experienced the great finale
of a sitting meditation in which the body and the entire Universe
explode into extinction (or something like that).

To me, anyone claim to be enlightened must at least be the most
ordinary person on earth, i.e., s/he shouldn't 'look' enlightened.
(e.g., walk slowly, with slowly gazing eyes, and all those traditional
holy manners)

-Tawit

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To all enlightened masters:

Not performing miracle is the greatest miracle that you could perform.
(I doubt that you could do it)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: cup.portal.com!Tagi%portal@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: No Soul
Organization: ----
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:21:18 GMT

9209.12 e.v.


Thomas McFarlane comments on previous posts:

..If anything is reified, it
is reified in the mind of the reader when clinging to the conceptions of
"Unborn," "Uncreated," and so on.  As the Buddha said in the Diamond Sutra,

     While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use
     of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep
     in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas.
     They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them
     in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the resemblance
     of a raft that is of use only to cross a river.  As the raft
     is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be
     discarded.  So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about
     things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment.


Response:

This struck me as utterly true, so I figured I better find a way to
combat it quickly. :>

The Buddha did not say anything in the Diamond Sutra.  The words quoted
above are those of the buddha-nature.  There is no one to 'attain
enlightenment' and thus all ideas about 'giving up' things are illusory.
The Tathagata does not cross a river, she becomes one.  The concepts and
ideas which cross her do so like fleas which jump from one leg to the
other.  They are pretty and entertaining, and sometimes they will stop
to suck her blood, yet they are utterly devoid of reality.


Thomas:

Or, as Nagarjuna said in the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra,

     Whether any teaching is true or not depends solely on whether
     one is non-clinging or clinging in regard to it.

A non-clinging mind will find the Truth revealed.  A clinging mind will
find it obscured.


Response:

I sure do love Nagarjuna.

No teaching is true, however.  All teachings are false because they can
only lead us to the bog of learning.  The useful teaching leads us to
a place where we can cease our clinging.  There is no mind which may find
revealed Truth.  Truth is revealed in every moment everywhere.  The
clinging mind is as illusory as the true teaching.  Both are dukkha.


Thyagi
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagarjuna (Arjuna of the nagas) got his teachings from water dragons.
He is said to have been the reincarnation of Ananda, Buddha's illustrious
disciple. 

Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Subject: Re: Sickness and Meditation/Retreats
Organization: ----
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:37:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.200509.6531@cco.caltech.edu>, tt@wag.caltech.edu (Toshi Takeuchi) writes:
> I was talking (over the net) to a friend of mine, and she said that
> she, too, gets some wierd symptoms/sicknesses right before a long
> retreat with her teacher.
> [...stuff deleted...]
> Toshi
> tt@wag.caltech.edu

I find that I will often catch colds, or the flu, before going to see
my teacher.  In my case, I think it is a combination of fear and
excitement, because I know I am going to disolve a bit, and my old
comfortable self is not so eager to disappear.  Also, my teacher puts
out an extra bit of energy in the week before we meet him, and my body
can't handle it all yet.  Not to mention the energy I get when I see
him.
			-Lorenzo
-- 

"No self, no problem!"			Lorenzo Farris
					farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu
From: mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Meditation and smoking
Date: 10 Sep 92 10:22:09 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim

Bonnie Forman <forman@ide.com> replied to the quote of Thaddeus Golas:
: >I am a lazy man. Laziness keeps me from believing that enlightenment demands
: >effort, discipline, strict diet, non-smoking, and other evidences of virtue.
: >
:     Enlightenment demands a pure heart.  Nothing more and nothing less.

Here are some more quote from him about purity and requirements:

The *motive* for purifying yourself - that you feel spiritually impure - will
prevent any genuine gain until you learn to love the impurity you started with.
Can any being seriously think that he is going to pass through the infinity of
time without ever making another mistake? Quite often a flash of enlightenment
will give you this message: Go back to where you started and learn to love it
more.

There are many paths to enlightenment. Some of us who have expanded to a degree
of illumination have thereafter preached the dogmatic certainty of one
particular path. But enlightenment doesn't care how you get there. And if you
aren't going to be thinking about it in paradise, then don't worry about it
now.

What does it mean, to be whole? It means that we must be willing to conceive
of, to contain within ourselves, whatever is "other than" any limited idea. It
means knowing that when we create a positive, we are at the same time creating
a negative. When we choose an ideal of knowledge, then we must deal with the
ignorance that is *other than* the knowledge. When we emphasize an ideal of
holiness, then we must live with the sin that is its companion, and accept our
responsibility for having created it.
     However, if we remain constantly open and unresisting to such negatives,
we are not compelled to dwell on them: If we allow that ugliness is always
within us, then we are free to create beauty. If we know that stupidity is
always within us, then we are free to emphasize this intelligence.
     Love is the highest and holiest action because it always contains that
which is not love within itself, it always and ever moves to include the
unloving.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Marc Wachowitz, mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de   /  life is live  /  life is life
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
From: Roger Adams <RADAMS@cerritos.edu>
Subject: Re: No Soul
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:07:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.053828.2632@cco.caltech.edu>, 
mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes:

> Yet note well:
> 
>      Verily, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid
                          ^^^^^
This is a positive existence.

>      nor the fluid, neither heat nor motion, neither this world
>      nor any other world, neither sun nor moon.  This I call neither
>      arising nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being
>      born, nor dying.  There is neither foothold, nor development,
>      nor any basis.  This is the end of suffering...
> 
>      There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed.  If these
             ^^
And this is an entity. An entity does not have to be born or created or 
formed or originated to be an entity.

>      were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncreated, this
>      Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the
>      created, the formed, would not be possible.  But since there is
>      an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is escape
>      possible from the world of the born, the originated, the created,
>      the formed.
>                          -The Buddha (Udana, VIII)
> 
> other world."  Shall we reify it and call it "Self" or "Soul"?  Surely
> this would be a mistake.  But is it a mistake to *not* reify it and still
> call it "Self" or "Soul"?  Is that any worse than *not* reifying it and
> calling it "Unborn" or "Uncreated"?  The mistake, it seems to me, is not
> that some people call this realm "Self," but that some people reify it.
> After all, some people call it "Emptiness" and reify it, too.  Here words
> fail us if we regard them as anything more than metaphors.
> 

I think the above quote attributed to Buddha already reified it in that
he speaks of an unborn or uncreated and uses the words "there is" this
                                                              ^^
unborn, uncreated. As soon as you use this verb "is", you reify in the sense
of referring to something that _exists_, but certainly not anything physical or
temporal which may be the usual meaning of "reify" (ie. making something 
concrete or tangible). The Vedantic concept of an unborn, uncreated, unformed,
unoriginated Self is not contradictory to what you mention above.
Thanks for the scriptural quote.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	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        		          292 Dwapara :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern