HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage?  Just do it!
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:23:49 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Dec.20.17.26.04.1992.22113@farside.rutgers.edu> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>I believe that casual dating is wrong.  The sole purpose of dating is
>to assess whether or not to get married.  If one is willing to perform
>acts which can lead to the birth of a child, I think one should be
>ready to make a lifelong commitment to marriage.  The Apostle Paul
>advised us that if we felt powerful sexual urges we should marry.
>This is not the same as playing around in a series of sexual
>relationships which have no future.

I think I agree with the theme of your post. (This following is my
view, which seems to be similar to what you stated: "love is an act of
the will - it involves emotions and such, but it is not just emotion.")
One should be able to commit to a person for a lifetime or at least be 
working on getting to the point of being able to do that, if you want
to be married.

However, your above introductory paragraph struck me as pretty odd.
You must have a different understanding of the term "casual dating" than
I do.  Casual dating just for the sake of going out with some one
may not be the wisest thing to do, for the others emotions or understanding
of the situation may not be able to take your casualness.  Your implication
of casual dating as meaning having sex with whoever you go out with is
a bit of an overstatement, to say the least, in my humble opinion.
Are "casual sexual relationships" what you mean by "casual dating"? 

I agree pre-marital sex for testing purpose or whatever purposes is wrong.
Dating provides a way of getting to know the other person (mentally, desires, 
emotionally, etc) but that doesn't mean they should have sex.  

Paul tells us that it is better to marry than to burn within from sexual
passions.  Being able to commit to someone is a big part of this.  Don't
just get married to have sex, but make the commitment - sex is one of
the pleasurable things of wedded life, but it is not everything.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
                          --|--   
Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6
From: gslade@nowhere.uucp (Greg Slade)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Looking for an online bible
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:14:05 GMT
Organization: Cyberstore Online Information Systems Inc.

Daniel Hazel (odin@cs.uq.oz.au) wrote:
: I'm interested in acquiring an online copy of the
: `New Jerusalem Bible' (Standard Edition if possible).
: 
: The program is to run on a PC.
: 
: All I've been able to find are King James Versions which seem ideal
: in every way except that I really need New Jerusalem text.

Sorry: out of all the computer Bibles I know of, none uses the NJB text (or
the JB text, for that matter.  Part of the problem may be that the JB (I haven't
gotten my mitts on an NJB yet) uses a paragraph format, rather than a verse
format.  I know it was really tough to get the TEV (Good News) Bible into a
computer product.  The only Catholic texts I know of on disk are several 
vedors have the RSV with Deuterocanon, and one or two now have the NAB.

If you do find a Computer Bible with JB or NJB text, please let me know so
I can add it to my database.
From: coen@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Chuck Coen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: submittal to soc.christian.religion
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:14:39 GMT

To: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu
Subject: reply to hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (posting by Matt Harelick)
Message-ID <Nov.20.00.14.13.1992.7770@athos.rutgers.edu>

>I am not interested in starting a flame war nor am I looking for philosophical
>proofs. I can accept the idea of an intelligence managing the universe. 
>
>What I am trying to find out is why christians chose christianity for their
>view of the universe as opposed to Judaism or Wicca, etc. 
>
>Matt Harelick

Like you, I accepted the idea of an intelligence managing the universe at 
some point. Perhaps like you, I desired to read everything I could find on 
the subject.

I am much impressed with the work done by Dr. Smoot's team at Lawrence Labs
in California w.r.t. COBE. Dr. Smoot's findings lend credability to the 
big bang model. About the time, that Dr. Smoot's findings were being made
public, I happened across a book by a Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D. entitled
"Genesis and The Big Bang."

The findings by Dr. Smoot and the book by Dr. Schroeder combined, provide 
a powerful incentive to believe that the Genesis account is far more
accurate than even the average, lay Christian can begin to fathom.

Cosmologists are beginning to accept the idea that the universe was created
out of nothing. As true scientists, they can not give in to speculation about
the existence of God, but instead must present theories, and then seek data 
to support those theories.

Dr. Smoot is quoted in a newspaper article as saying, "it is sort of like 
finding the driving mechanism for the universe and isn't that what God is
all about?". This is probably as close to speculation as I've seen any 
respected scientist come in print. 

Dr. Smoot's findings and Dr. Schroeder's explanations do not, in and of 
themselves, constitute 'proof' of anything. However a powerful incentive
is provided for me to begin 'taking some things on faith'; something many 
Christians have been doing for slightly longer than 1900 years.

Charles (Chuck) Coen
Software Engineer at Hewlett Packard
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Help For Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:27:45 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <Dec.20.17.32.50.1992.22196@farside.rutgers.edu> harling@miki.pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:

>I don't intend to get involved debating the scholarship of another's
>book, but I find the extensive notes and attributions (over one hundred
>in some chapters) of Walter Martin's _Kingdom of the Cults_ to be
>indicative of anything but "shoddy scholarship and deceptive
>reporting." 


If only it were that easy!  Unfortunately long lists of references
guarantee neither the competence nor the integrity of an author.  To
determine the trustworthiness of a work we must check at least a
representative sample of those references:

1.  What is the quality of the work referenced?

2.  Does the reference indeed say what the author claims it does?
(ie. reference not taken out of context, honestly used etc.)

3.  Is there any attempt to distort the meaning of the reference?

(I'm sure others can add more criteria.)

It is just too easy for an author to either be fooled himself or
deliberately give the wrong impression while citing copious
references.  We have to dig a bit deeper if we want to know if that
author is trustworthy.  Indeed, one trustworthy publication does not
guarantee that other works by the same author will be of the same
quality.

> Ruth Tucker's _Another Gospel_ points out places where
>Martin's book sounds confrontational, but both authors emphasize that
>members of these groups should be treated with love and respect, even
>in doctrinal disagreements.

Such expressions of "love" are common in books against most any
religious group you want to name.  They do nothing to assure the
veracity of the books containing these statements.
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph W. Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (12-23)
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:26:30 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Wednesday, December 23:

     Jehovah . . . kept sending against them by means of his
messengers . . . because he felt compassion for his people . . . But
they were . . . despising his words and mocking at his prophets,
until the rage of Jehovah came up against his people, until there was
no healing.  <2 Chronicles 36: 15, 16>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.  NOW LOOKING FOR A JOB!
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: martin@scs.carleton.ca (martin chidyausiku)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: praying for leaders
Date: 25 Dec 92 09:21:26 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

I have noticed that there is a general misconception held within the christian
communy that being right-wing or to be sympathetic with such views is a sign
of being a strong christian. To me a christian is neither right wing nor left
wing. It is such kind of thinking which has spawned Christian Identity
Movement, KKK etc. Jesus said that a Christian would love his enemies and do
good to them that would hate him or her. He also said that anyone who calls
himself a christian and does not do what He said is just deceiving himself.
How many such "christians" do we have today ? As Christians we can't put our
trust in a man, be he Republican, Democrat or anything else. A man can fail
even with the best intentions. We do however wish every man the best from our
hearts. We do understand that every influential politician is linked to
several interest groups, some even with opposing agendas and hence the
politician must walk this tight rope. If he manages to remain balanced after a
prolonged period then he is usually rightfully accepted as a statesman for his
country, e.g. the late Willy Brandt. We as Christians aught to pray for all
our leaders so that they can lead our countries to better times. I guess I can
make this statement based on the Bible:
Anyone who can use the statement "I hate John/Jane Doe" is not a Christian
because Jesus said so. Having said all that I guess I should also say that
there are some political leaders with whose agenda one agrees more than others
and also that two born again Christians can differ in that. 

Martin.
From: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christmas break
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:34:54 GMT

I'll be gone between Christmas and New Years.  Probably the last batch
to go out will be early Christmas morning.  I plan to set things up so
that postings received after that are returned to the sender.  If I
don't do that, I'll end up with 1000 postings in the queue when I get
back.  As we get later this week, you might want to hold up postings
and responses until after the new year.  If people feel strongly, 
I can try to find a replacement for periods like this, but I think
many of our readers are out of contact with the net for the same
period.
From: amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: CURSES??????
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:21:01 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin

baresson@cbnewsi.att.com writes:

>Susan, I would ask you to give your involvement in witchcraft
>some serious thought. The Bible teaches that the devil is 'the
>father of lies' and comes to 'kill, steal and destroy': surely
>no good can come from one whose ultimate goal is your
>everlasting destruction, whatever the short-term comforts. And
>you do expose yourself to the judgement of God in breaking the
>commandment 'You shall have no other gods before me' (Exodus
>20). How much better it is to know the one who redeems us from 
>the curse of the law and promises us his blessing.

Umm, I hate to burst your bubble, but I *have* given it serious
thought.  What, you think I just got mad at God one day and said,
"Hey, I'm gonna be a Witch now"?  This was not something I entered
into lightly or unadvisedly, you silly person.  It doesn't contain a
lot of "short-term comforts," either -- in fact, I'd love to know what
you think those are. This is a spiritual path with lots of work
involved, and even though it's joyful and fulfilling, it's not just a
game so I don't have to deal with the rigors of Christianity.

Thank you for your concern, but I think I'll stick where I am.

>Barney Resson
>"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)

-- 
-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik-------------------------------*<:-)-------------
"Queens never make bargains."  -- The Red Queen, _Through the Looking Glass_
-----amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu--------------The University of Texas @Austin---
From: dlittlej@csulb.edu (Darren Littlejohn)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: 4 Noble Truths
Date: 28 Dec 92 01:52:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.47767
Distribution: world
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1hg72dINNa6t@sandman.caltech.edu> asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders) writes:
>| I am not suffering. I am wealthy, healthy, in touch with 
>| my surroundings and those around me. Further, I am happy 
>| and optimistic...
>|
>| Can someone out there tell me what role 'suffering' plays 
>| in such a life?
>		     -Kris
>
>Everyone without exception, even the richest man in the world,
>can lose everything he has, can become fatally ill (or die 
>accidentally) AT ANY MOMENT. To realize this fact is suffering.
>To live with this realization calls into question ALL our
>assumptions about life. To be distracted by trifles is, of
>course, a kind of way out. But the bill eventually comes due!
>
>					-Alan
>

Wow, that is one point that I try to make all of the time. I need to be
conscious of it more often. To realize this is suffering. Man. At any 
moment. It makes me want to appreciate life right now. It makes me want to do 
what I want to do at any moment instead of unpleasant tasks.......ALL of 
my assumptions about life have been in question may times, and now more
than ever. 

Thanks Alan for bringing this up....

DARREN
 


-- 
"The Harvests are plentiful, the laborers few" Jesus Christ

"what you're lookin' for, you're lookin' with!" Chuck C.
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Tagi@uunet.UU.NET
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Intro to Sufism: Osho (2)
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:12:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.47840
Distribution: world
Organization: ----


9212.30 e.v.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.

                  ______________
                 /              \
               \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
                      OSHO (2)

Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) was born in India....
His writings encompass Zen, Sufism, Tantra and 
interfaith mysticism the world over.  The excerpt below 
is one of a series from his book on Sufism.
____________________________________________________

Remember this: Sufism is not a church.  It doesn't belong to
any religion.  All religions, when alive, belong to it.  It is a
vast sky of a particular quality of consciousness.  How does it
happen?  How does one become a Sufi?  Not by belonging to a
particular order, but by dropping from the head to the heart,
one becomes a Sufi.

You can exist in two ways.  Either you can exist as a head-oriented
person - you will succeed in the world.  You will accumulate many
riches, prestige, power.  In politics you will be a successful man.
In the eyes of the world you will become a pinnacle to be imitated.
But in the inner you will fail completely, you will fail utterly -
because  into the inner the head-oriented person cannot enter at
all.  Head moves outwardly; it is an opening to the other.  Heart
moves inwardly; it is an opening to yourself.  You can exist either
as a head-oriented person, or you can exist as a heart-oriented
person.  When your energy, your life-energy, falls from the head
towards the heart, you become a Sufi.

_____________________________________________________________

>From _Journey Toward the Heart: Discourses on the Sufi Way_,
by Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), Harper and Row, 1976; page 5.


Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.

I am I!

Frater (I) Nigris (666)
From: schiller@whorf.UCAR.EDU(Eric Schiller)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: 4 Noble Truths
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:39:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.47839
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <47420@ogicse.ogi.edu> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak)  
writes:
> 
> I've got a problem with the 4 Noble Truths.
> 
> I think that 'suffering' as a basis of spirituality has no relevance in
> Western culture.
> 
> I am not suffering. I am wealthy, healthy, in touch with my
> surroundings and those around me. Further, I am happy and optimistic.
> 
> I believe and espouse non-dualistic teachings. But avoiding or ending
> suffering has nothing at all to do with it.
> 
> Can someone out there tell me what role 'suffering' plays in such a
> life?
> 
> -Kris
When your friends go away you are happy?
When friends and relatives die you are still happy?
When the IRS takes some of your money you are still happier?
When the Post Office fails to deliver your mail you rejoice?

if you are in touch with your surroundings, surely they change
from time to time in ways that do not please you. If you are
attached to your friends and possessions you will suffer when 
they are gone.

If you have managed to detach yourself from these things, bravo!

As for me, even running out of Ben & Jerry's creates a minor
pang of grasping for material things...

--
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Sometimes my head is in the clouds of theory, but often it is just a fog.
My feet, meantime, tend to stay more or less on the ground. I think.
***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** **** ***** ** *** ****
Eric Schiller                              schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu
Dept of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago      schiller@whorf.uchicago.edu
From: billc@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Bill Carter)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: revelations or lack thereof...
Date: 25 Dec 1992 15:56:43 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu


In article <47421@ogicse.ogi.edu>, 
billc@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Bill Carter) writes:
>>  formulate it's appeal quite this way before.  Anyone care to
>>  defend Hinduism as "revealed" and rightfully so, or maybe
>>  to deny that it is "revealed"?

In article <47566@ogicse.ogi.edu> radams@cerritos.edu (Roger Adams) writes:
>Christ became the Christ by his own efforts, all the great ones became
>so by their own efforts. According to Paramahansa Yogananda, the great
>ones like Christ did not just fall out of some heavenly sphere onto earth
>to help us mere mortals.

   Thanks for responding to my post, but hey, no need to get your
   underwear in a bunch.  That may be what Yogananda said, and I
   don't disagree with him, but don't you agree that most modern-day
   Christians see Jesus as the product of an "immaculate conception",
   the Son of God from day one?  And would you say that most Hindus
   see Krishna as an ordinary human Joe Chariotdriver?  This is in
   contrast with Buddhism, where Siddhartha Guatama is supposed to
   have been a plain old ordinary guy like you and me.  Come to think
   of it, I suspect there are Buddhist sects which deify Guatama
   but I don't think they are the mainstream.

You wrote;
>This is a nonsectarian issue. Truth is not in words, philosophy, and scriptures
>which only point to Truth. Truth must be experienced directly. All arguments
>are among the followers and not the founders of Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu-
>sim, etc.

   I think that whether Hinduism, say, is a "revealed" religion or not is
   indeed a sectarian issue.  It may not be the issue you really want
   to discuss, fine with me.  And Truth may not be in philosophies,
   religious systems, or scriptures as you say.  I didn't claim it was.
   I do think you have to be careful.  Some religions sort of point to
   the Truth and others point off into some deep woods you might have a
   lot of trouble finding your way out of.

======================================================================
Bill Carter
                   "We're on a mission from God!" -the Blues Brothers
From: abulsari@abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Buddha and Malunkya Putta
Date: 27 Dec 92 08:14:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.47843
Distribution: world
Organization: Abo Akademi University

In article <1hg6s4INNa3c@sandman.caltech.edu> farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
>
>The point is that certain questions are irrelevant to the issues the
>Buddha chose to teach on. He was a very practical teacher. His point
>is to teach one how to end suffering.

OK.

>
>Discussions of metaphysics are pure speculation, in the context of the
>Buddha's teaching. The Buddha could be considered the master of a
>particular technology of consciousness. 

To call someone's question a idle fancy because one does not find it
relevant does not sound very much like what Buddha would have done.

>To ask him to discuss metaphysics would be like asking a master
>carpenter which gods help him in his craft. He would probably tell you
>that if you want to talk about gods, go to a priest. If you want to
>learn carpentry, then watch what I do and say. 

Right, but if the carpenter calls me a stupid idiot, then I could lose
my respect for the carpenter. Buddha would not have made such a mistake.

With regards,

Abhay
From: jethro@netcom.com (Jeffery Tye)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Mother Meera
Date: 25 Dec 1992 15:58:00 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu


I just finished reading Andrew Harvey's book, "Hidden Journey," and am
blown away by it. It's the most amazing account of a spiritual awakening
that I've ever read. I'm starting to read his teacher's book, "Mother
Meera: Answers."  She seems to be the most clear and loving teacher
on the earth at this time. I feel like jumping on a plane to Germany
and surrendering myself at her feet!

Have any of you visited her? Does she come to the U.S.? I would like
to hear about your experience of this extraordinary teacher/Avatar.

Namaste,
Jeffery
-- 
=====================================================================
``You are the passage through which time flows. You are the emptiness
that holds all space. You are the center that is everywhere, turning
on itself in an endless dance of ecstasy.'' -- Judith Whitman-Small
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Buddha and Malunkya Putta
Date: 25 Dec 1992 15:52:36 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu


In article <47571@ogicse.ogi.edu>, abulsari@abo.fi (Abhay Bulsari VT) writes:
> 
> So will the protagonists of Buddha tell us what questions (or what
> kind of questions) are idle fancies and what are profitable exercises ?
> This might sound a bit harsh, but I really wish to understand this
> point. 
> 

The point is that certain questions are irrelevant to the issues the
Buddha chose to teach on. He was a very practical teacher. His point
is to teach one how to end suffering.

Discussions of metaphysics are pure speculation, in the context of the
Buddha's teaching. The Buddha could be considered the master of a
particular technology of consciousness. 

To ask him to discuss metaphysics would be like asking a master
carpenter which gods help him in his craft. He would probably tell you
that if you want to talk about gods, go to a priest. If you want to
learn carpentry, then watch what I do and say. 

Buddhism may have evolved into a religion, with its own metaphysics.
But it was first and foremost practical technology for ending
suffering.

				-Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************