HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:01:31 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan) writes:

>Can somebody enlighten me on this question:

>If God is All Powerful and All Loving, why does He allow sufferings
>to exist?  Why did He create humankind with the propensity for
>Greed, Hatred and Delusions and then allow us to murder and harm
>each other?

>Thanks

	This is one of the great mysteries which people of faith have wrestled
with for centuries.  One attempt to explain this revolves around the notion of
free will.  God, in His wisdom, created men and women with free will, i.e., the
ability to choose actions of their own accord, whether they are according to
God's will or not.  Thus, they have the ability to choose either right or
wrong.  The notion of the Fall says that at some point mankind chose not to
follow God, and today the world continues to suffer from the effects of this
choice.
	Why does God allow things to go this way?  Certainly NOT because He
enjoys the circumstances as they are now.  It is because He continues to 
respect His gift of free will to us.  If at some point God intervened and made
everything right, then we wouldn't really have free will would we?  God would
want us to use His gift of free will to return to Him, in cooperation with His
grace.
	Some may think that because God does not intervene directly in the
world more often that He is unable or powerless to do so.  To that I would
propose pondering how difficult it is to restrain oneself from doing something
as opposed to taking some action prematurely.  As an example, it is far easier
to strike back when someone has struck you, than to restrain oneself and for-
give the aggressor.  As applied to God and us, the Lord who does love us
unconditionally and infinitely shows His awesome power by giving us time to 
come to Him on our own, instead of simply railroading us to accept His love.

God bless,
	Bernard Schnaufer




>C. M. Tan
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Handmaid (was "I feel threatened...")
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:02:30 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

In article <Jan.22.03.55.35.1993.6104@athos.rutgers.edu>, cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:
|> 
|> There seem to be a number of people around who were fundamentalists
|> in the past, but who aren't now and who are critical of those whom
|> they have left behind. But one question they should look at is their
|> own impact on the health of the church. It just seems to me that the
|> trendy leftys do not see anywhere near the same level of conversions
|> from non-Christians to trendy lefty Christianity as the fundamentalists
|> do in converting non-Christians to fundamentalist Christianity.
|> 
1) In our particular parish the majority of converts to the Roman Catholic
Church are young adults who were raised without religion, became some form
of evangelical/fundamentalist in college, found that unsatisfactory 
intellectually and turn to Catholicism as the Church that maintains the
historic sense of the Biblical times and an intellectual honesty compatible
with contemporary times

2)  I agree that those who strip the church of its meaning by seeing everything
metaphorically are destroying the denominations they guide.  However, I resist
using the word mythology in a negative sense.  The difference between a myth
and a folk story is that a myth is believed to be true, to be a fundamental
defining event for the group believing the myth.  Ritual is the physical 
re-enactment of the myth.  Thus, for a mythologist, it is accurate to call
the Gospel story "Myth" and the Eucharistic service "Ritual".  I agree common
parlance is destroying this usage, but the mythologist/folklorist should not
be misunderstood.

3)  The idea of recommending another denomination appalls me - as the Body of
Christ we should not be divided; there are appropriately different spiritualities, different callings for different people but to be unable to
accept the different ways that Gods works within individuals implies placing
human judgment above divine judgment.  We learn from each other by being
together not by splintering.
From: rhm@hpfirhm.fc.hp.com (Bob Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: What is Theonomy?
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:48:53 GMT

I just recently saw the header on Tom Albrecht's post and it got me
wondering whether there has been a discussion on the subject of
"theonomy" here. All I really know is that it is a system of doctrine 
claiming that the laws of the state should be constructed around the
tenets of O.T law (Leviticus, etc.). 

I would like to see one of theonomy's adherents post an exposition on the
position, what it is and is not (e.g. caricatures by opponents) as the 
basis for a rational discussion. 

On the other hand, maybe this was beat to death while I wasn't looking ;-)

Bob (so...when do we get circumcised??;-) Miller rhm@hpfirhm.fc.hp.com
From: wcsa@iwtdx.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ARMSTRONGISM
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:31:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs

In article <Jan.22.03.39.04.1993.5895@athos.rutgers.edu> rpitts@darth.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes concerning the make up of CRI:

>They do consist of varied backgrounds, and not all charismatic ones
>at that.  Dr. Martin was an ordained Baptist minister.  Some of them
>are Reformed Lutheran and some Church of God.  Their guess have 
>included Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian. 

A minor nit: "Dr" Martin was not an ordained Baptist minister.

On a number of occassions Mr Martin claimed to be an ordained Baptist
minister. In 1973 (In a Reply Certification to the Court in response to
his second wife's suit for child support) he claimed to be "an ordained
Minister of the American Baptist Convention in good standing." In the
AMERICAN BIOGRAPHICAL INSTITUTE, 1975, he claimed to be an ordained
clergyman in the Southern Baptist Convention (information was supplied
by Mr Martin). In 1975, Mr Martin sued Bruce A. Johnson and in a
related deposition claimed that although he came from the American
Baptist Convention he was an ordained member of the Southern Baptist
Convention. In WHO'S WHO IN RELIGION, 1977 (again with material supplied
by Mr Martin) he claimed to be a minister in the Southern Baptist
Convention and that he was ordained in 1951.

However inquiries to the American Baptist Churches of America (as late
at 1984) reveal that he was not listed in the American Baptist Churches'
Professional Registry nor in the Directory of Professional Church
leaders. He was not registered with the American Baptist Churches of the
Pacific Southwest either. In short, he doesn't seem to have been an
"ordained" minister of either the East or West branches of the American
Baptist Conventions.

Inquires to the Southern Baptist Convention have likewise turned up
nothing. According to inquires made in 1984, Walter Martin was not found
in the convention annual, Southern Baptist annual, or Home Mission
Board personnel records. According to this inquiry, Martin was neither
a Southern Baptist nor was he ordained. They suggested that you try
contacting the American Baptist Convention. :-)
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is God male, female or neither?
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:18:53 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

I share your inability to meaningfully assign gender to God.  The
problem is that we translate from a gendered language (without a
neuter?) and that we translate the infinite into finite language.  So
yes I am as at odds with the feminist use of female as the dominate
use of male
From: J.Hale@latrobe.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: *   help    *
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:00:14 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University

In article <Jan.26.04.49.50.1993.15187@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
	cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
> I am trying to discuss with someone the idea of the historicity of the gospels
> and the trustableness(?) of Christianity in general.  He wants to know why he 
> should accept the miracle accounts and the general historicity of the New 
> Testament and not accept miracle accounts in other books and/or religions.  If
> you can help, thank you, and if you want me to explain further, I would be 
> happy to do so.

Well MAC,
Belief is one of those funny things, either you have it or you don't.
It does not lend itself to argument. 
Yes you can accept intellectually what someone has to say but that, albeit a 
start perhaps, does not make belief.
So you may receive some good intellectual arguments to help "convince" your
friend but it will only be a head trip (is this showing my age or what?)
How about telling him how you came to accept what ever it is that you want him
to accept. What comes from you will have more power than all the "supplied"
arguments that you can possibly muster. It may not convince him, nothing will
if he is unwillingly to be convinced, but it will be some experience for both
of you. 

In Christ

James

_____________________________________________________________________________
James Hale     			Lincoln School of Health Sciences
Computing Unit			La Trobe University,Bundoora, AUSTRALIA
                                
James.Hale@Latrobe.Edu.Au
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The grace of God rests gently on forgiving eyes,
and everything they look on speaks of Him to the beholder.
He can see no evil, nothing in the world to fear,
and no one who is different from himself."
						Text, P 418
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT prophecy about praying for CLINTON
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:33:42 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

hudson (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>The newsletter also warns about the spirit of intolerance that has infected
>many right wing Christians.  Though they may be fighting for just causes,
>many have allowed a self-righteousness and hatred to enter their hearts.
>If it continues, God will set His face against it.  We need to stop complaining
>and pray for Bill Clinton.

I like this (of course I always *did* like what the K.C. folks had to say).
I am reminded of hearing Hal Lindsey (a hard-core right-wing Republican
evangelical) down-playing the importance of the Marge Schott incident.
It was as if evangelicals had become so consumed by the issues of abortion
and homosexuality that they could no longer appropriately respond to the
the very real issues of racism and injustice in this country. At that
moment I began to sense that something had gone very wrong in the
Pat Robertson camp.
_______________________________________________________________________________

steven stovall
stovall@exeter.cs.ucla.edu
(310) 825-7307
From: manning@halley.est.3m.com (Arthur T. Manning)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: RE: Online bible
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:23:26 GMT
Organization: 3M Company, 3M Center, Minnesota, USA

After posting the request, I found a reference to what I am looking for.
The online bible is available via anonymous ftp from 
wuarchive.wustl.edu    /doc/bible/ibm-pc  and /doc/bible/mac

I'm amazed that this stuff is FREE!!!!
--
Arthur T. Manning   <manning@halley.est.3m.com>                       O
3M Center 518-1    St Paul MN  55144-1000        \___/______         o   
ph. 612 733-4401   fax 612 736-3122             __  / _ _ _  \      .
Allin1--> <MANNING @MRGATE @EST780>            (_/_/_/ / / /_/      <><
From: fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: revelations or lack thereof...y
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:24:19 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

In article <1jg3guINNjr7@gap.caltech.edu> 
"Prasad V.S. Jayanti" <prasad@cs.cornell.edu> writes:
>...................x
>........................................................ Buddhism and 
>Jainism are the two philosophies that originated in India ..........
                                                     ^^^^^
>...................
>     As you can see there is a wide variety of philosophies and popular 
>practices that originated in India. A hindu does not view these as 
                              ^^^^^
>contradictory. Nor is one school erroneous and another correct. In a hindu 
>.....................
>............................ Buddhism, which emphasizes "jnana" like the 
>hindu philosophy of vedanta, originated in India........................ 
                                            ^^^^^

To put racism and nationalism into religionism, may i say that i think
buddhism did not originate in India, nor was the Buddha Indian.
Back then, there was no such thing as India (as well as Hinduism).
The people in the Ganges valley at that time might not even be Indian 
in the popular sense. In fact, after some analyses of the description
of the buddha, Buddhadasa speculated that he was of Australoid stock
(not Dravindian, or Mongoloid). (These are the same type as the 
Mon-Khmer and the people of Philipine/Indonesia Islands as well as
Southern Thailand).  Buddhadasa was attacked by his fellow compatriots
for being a racist for that, so he now keeps his mouth shut :-)
In fact, there are still many
Australoid people live in many parts of Nepal up until today.
People always refer to Buddha as 'a former Indian prince'. If anything,
why not 'a former Nepalese prince'. 

Hey, don't get me wrong Indian friends. I love India and Indians very
much. I think Indian people doesn't get much credit as they deserve
in progressing the spiritual paths of humankind. (But sometimes
they get too much credits :-)

-tawit

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Prostrate to falsehood 5 time a day; it's the most sacred thing.
Without it, truth can never be found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ip001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Ivan Pulleyn)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Desires
Date: 24 Jan 93 07:18:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan25.094412.23616
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

>Here's an argument similar to what Abhay wrote:
>
>1. I dont know whether God exists or not.
>2. If God exists and I believe in God, then it is okay.
>   But if God exists and I dont believe in God, God will 
>   send me to hell. 
>3. So it is a good idea to believe in God.
>


  A probability professor put it this way:

	Multiply the miniscule chance that God exists by the infinite
suffering that I will get by not believing in him.  From this we get an
opportunity cost that is clearly in favor of beleif in God.

	Ivan......


-- 
	+----------------------------------------+
	| Ivan Pulleyn - University of Rochester |
	| E-mail - ip001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu |
	+----------------------------------------+
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to. -Bill Clinton)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: revelations or lack thereof...
Date: 22 Jan 1993 09:50:36 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

In article <1ii72hINNi9p@gap.caltech.edu>, farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
> 
> Buddhism is indeed unique in not ascribing divinity to the Buddha, but
> I would hardly refer to him as an ordinary guy.
> 
> 			-Lorenzo

there's a wonderful quote from Snelgrove's book on indo-tibetan
buddhism to the effect that western buddhists and scholars who
separate divinity from everything else are still thinking like 
crypto-christians. it's like separating the hydrogen from water. 
Not that I'd sink to calling people crypto-anythings, but it's
an essential point, I think -- divinity isn't "up there" according
to buddhism, it's the essential nature of everything.

> -- 
> Happiness is just a                     
> remembrance away.                       
>                                         

ah, you saw the first episode of Deep Space 9 too. 
linear time, my ass.


    ando.
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Individuality
Date: 22 Jan 1993 09:49:38 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu


In article <1jk811INNb07@gap.caltech.edu>, mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz) writes:
:Lorenzo Farris (farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu) wrote:
:: Self goes bye-bye. There is no experience of a separate self in this
:: state. There is pure, unmodified awareness, and that's it.

:Where is there an experience of a separate self in THIS "state" -
:just as it is now, independent on concentration, meditation,
whatever?

Huh? I don't understand this question.

:: The idea is that something is not really real unless it is eternal.
:Just another idea. Why does one need all this stuff, and not just keep with
:what's there - whether it is supposedly "eternal" or not?
:What does labeling with the word "real" change in actual experience?

Please keep in mind the context of the original post. I was explaining
the use of certain terms in Buddhism. I made no statements about
experience. 

:: Our personalities, and everything that exists in time, is in
:: this sense unreal.
:Do you directly experience time?
:Anything but the present experience - including memories, but still
now?

Time is a function of human perception, in fact. I don't think time
exists outside of our perception of it.
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: cabezon!kapila@uunet.uu.net (Kapila Ranasinghe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Books on the Buddha
Date: 23 Jan 1993 12:58:48 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

In article <1jhsfvINNasv@gap.caltech.edu> mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith ) writes:
>Check out the translation series of the Pali Text Society
>

Could someone mail me the address for the Pali Text Society,
or a place where I can get their catalog and order PTS books
from please?

Thanks in advance,

Kapila
kapila@lmc.com
From: ip001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Ivan Pulleyn)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Learning
Date: 24 Jan 93 07:23:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan25.094447.23730
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1jpc7sINNaso@gap.caltech.edu> BANNON@maine.maine.edu writes:
>
>While drifting along this electronic river to somewhere
>else I became distracted by this group.  I am not
>very familiar with all the terms and concepts but I
>will pose this question nonetheless, this thing that
>we are all a part of, you, me, the dirt, the bugs and
>the stars,--is it something that is capable of learning?
>If it could, what is there to learn?
>
>L.


  I'm not sure if learning comes in to question here.  As far as I see it,
our 'experience' is an illusion created by the fact that we think we are
travelling through time.  If the universe is one, some singularity, it IS,
and nothing else.  Learning implies comparison, which further implies
'other'.

	Ivan........


-- 
	+----------------------------------------+
	| Ivan Pulleyn - University of Rochester |
	| E-mail - ip001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu |
	+----------------------------------------+
From: vincent@erich.triumf.ca
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Tagore Poem
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:33:26 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

     Hi:

I'm hoping to find a poem by Rabindranath Tagore, which I first 
encountered in a lecture by Ram Dass, when he passed through
town about 15 years ago. I'm afraid I don't know the title, but
the first line was: "Which of these joys are you prepared to embrace?"
( It may have been one of his translations from Kabir }
The poem went on to describe a series of things which were 
increasingly difficult to regard as joys. I found it at once
inspiring and confronting. I immediately set about prowling the
large local metaphysical bookstores, but was unable to locate it.
Undeterred, I scoured the vast university libraries, to no avail.
So next time Ram Dass passed through town, I asked him about it.
Unfortunately, though he remembered reading the poem, he could
not recall for me the name of either the poem nor the book from
which it came. He could only recall that it was from "a slim
paperback, published in India." 
    In the intervening years I have kept my eye out for Tagore
books, but it has never appeared. I am hoping that the readers of 
this group might have some knowledge of it, as I would like to 
have a copy in my environment, to prod my psyche; mounted on the
wall or the fridge. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
           Thanx.

                *      *     *       *


100% hand made signature.             +   Pete Vincent
News software won't mail to           +
moderated groups. Mail software       +
won't recognize signatures.           +
From: fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Religions United (Re: revelations or lack thereof)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 10:00:55 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu

In article <1ji6g1INNf65@gap.caltech.edu> 
farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
>In article <1ji120INNcqr@gap.caltech.edu>, 
fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon) writes:

>:.................................. So are you saying that nirvana
>:is suffering?, i thought it was the end of it. ................
>
>On this one, I don't speak from direct experience (at least not in
>this life ;-) .) But the idea is that once one has transcended all
>dualistic notions, the nirvana-samsara dualism also disappears. This
>idea is prevalent in Vajrayana and Zen.
>


The ever-present duality is: duality and non-duality. In other words,
non-duality is the duality of duality :-)
 

>:
>:>"The opposite of a trivial truth is false, but the opposite of a great
>:>truth is also true." -Niels Bohr.
>:
>:This quote is a great truth. So the opposite of it -- The opposite
>:of a great truth is falsehood -- must be true. :-)
>:
>
>Actually, I misquoted. It should go: "The opposite of a trivial truth
>is false, but the opposite of a great truth may also be true."
>					    ^^^

Now, this quote is a trivial truth. We all know that a great truth 
MAY after all be false (so that its opposite is ALWAYS true :-)

-tawit (the next Nobel Laurette of Quantum Metaphysics, maybe)

---------------------------------------------------------------
Equanimity without action is like equanimity of a water buffalo.
  - The late Ajahn Cha (paraphrased)
---------------------------------------------------------------