HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 18:01:19 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

1>+T
Subject: History of the 
Earth (4.5 billion years).
  There were upheavals, eruptions of  volcanoes and land movements and this 
caused that colony to go out of existence.  
  The third colony vanished as the sun underwent minor changes and all but 
scorched most of the life on the earth.  After that time there were the heat 
resistant brutes or dinosaurs came into being  The sun was very hot it was 
scorching the earth and these animals came into being.  These dinosaurs 
ruled the earth for tens of thousands of years.  The dinosaurs defied even 
the star men's efforts to exterminate them. The space people came and tried 
to exterminate them, to kill the dinosaurs off.  They were getting out of 
hand, they even defied them (the space people). 
  The earth went into kind of a ice age.  It became sort of a waste land and 
this caused the dinosaurs to go out of existence and this lasted for tens of 
thousands of years.
  The fourth time man came from the stars he returned to replinsh the earth, 
the fifth, sixth and seventh time, again and again the colonies were 
destroyed by cataclysms, by large animals, by heat, by cold, by war and by 
nature.
  When ever the eight colony came along man with a war like energy came to the 
earth in search of fortuns of inner glactic war. They came here and they 
were very energetic people. Many colors, mentalities and temperaments were 
the space people that came.  They were the forbearers of those who populated 
Atlantis.
Part 2.
John Winston.
asaurs ruled the earth for tens of thousandsTwZ
"<m

e"e8
-jF-u8]-
D-9zU,4x.xlxxx<xExTx
e"e8
-jF-u8]-D-9zU,<	

0Roman 10cpie brutes.  Tkhe earth went into kind of a ice age.  It became 
sor of a waste land and this caused the dinasau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: yahnke@macc.wisc.edu (Ross Yahnke)
Subject: Re: Heaven (was Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day)
Followup-To: talk.religion.newage
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 13:56:22 GMT

In article <Sep.30.21.41.08.1992.18445@ruhets.rutgers.edu>, 
> ...I think Jesus said "The Kingdom
> of Heaven is within" (maybe he didn't, I'm not sure :-))...


"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! For, behold, the 
kingdom of God is within you"
     Luke 17:21

Comments?

- Ross
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:4474 alt.alien.visitors:6993 sci.skeptic:17061
From: redd@mpx2.lampf.lanl.gov (Dale Redd -- MP-6 Operations)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:05:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: mpx2.28SEP199209052567
Distribution: usa
Organization: LAMPF Data Analysis Center, Los Alamos, New Mexico
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <66617@cup.portal.com>, John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes...
>Subject: Baby Talk. 

(stuff deleted)

>  This last week I saw where Sara Inserra has started talking at 20 minutes 
>old. The first thing that she said was to tell the nurse to take her to her 
>mother because she wanted to give her a message from her grandmother (Nana). 
>She told her that her mother, who died three years ago, wanted to assure her 
>she was all right and that she would be waiting for her and her husband when 
>their time comes.  Sara told them the following information about heaven; It 
>is a wonderful place, a lot like Earth, but with perfect weather.   There 
>are hills and mountains, meadows and gardens, lakes and oceans, and you can 
>live wherever you want. Everyone loves one another and there is harmony 
>everywhere. happiness is eternal. And God is everywhere, doing whatever it 
>takes to make you happy.  It is the happiest moment of your life expanded 
>for ever and ever. 

(stuff deleted)

Hey John,

For months now you've been posting stuff about your former lives and all your
"Mentors'" series of lives, etc.  Now, you are saying that people die and go
to heaven?  What, do some of us get lucky the first time around and end up
in heaven after just one terrestial trip and others have to go 'round and
'round a few times with the reincarnation thing?  I'm truly confused.

Dale

(on my first life)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:4483 alt.alien.visitors:7057 sci.skeptic:17186
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 06:36:02 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <66693@cup.portal.com> <66752@cup.portal.com> <66827@cup.portal.com>

Dear People: In regards to the question of frequency and consistency
it is my opinion that it can be explained by using the colors of the 
rainbow.  Red in the lowest which is hate, lust and etc. Not in order 
you come to blue which is when you are in a blue downcast mood. Purple
is good and high. Gold and white is the best and highest which are true
love. These colors come through in the aura and the frequency of a person
in the color of the aura. The higher the frequency of your aura is the 
higher evolved you are. In most cases the finer the consistency of a 
being the higher the developement of that being.  It appear that some
people are now picking up my spirit at other times other than when we
are having the experiments. My spirit seem to do that without my 
concious mind being aware of it. Tonight is OOBE Wednesday. John Winston.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: gorski@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Tom Gorski)
Subject: Personal Science (was Re: Heaven)
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, University of Wisconsin
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 13:29:00 GMT

In article <Oct.1.16.43.23.1992.1400@ruhets.rutgers.edu> farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.144846.22393@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>, gorski@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Tom Gorski) writes:
>> As for your approach....
>> Sounds more like a personal brand of empiricism to me.  
>> 
>> --Tom G.
>
[...]
>What is the scientific method? As I recall, it goes: do a literature
>search; form a hypothesis; design an experiment to test that
>hypothesis; perform the experiment; analyze the results.  Perform a
>series of such procedures to eliminate competing hypotheses.  
>Am I missing anything there?  If this is in fact the scientific
>method, then I have indeed used it in the exploration of my
>consciousness. 
>			-Lorenzo

Well...there's one more thing about science that you neglected to
mention, and that is the concept of the detached observer.  (Somebody
else has to be able run the same experiment and get the same results!)

Now, it's going to be kind of hard for *somebody else* to observe *YOU*
the exact same way that you do, don't you think?  :-)  

That's why I called the process you described as something more like
empiricism.  Just an observation on my part.  Not an attempt to start a
debate or irritate you!!

So long!  :-)

--TG
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:4533 alt.alien.visitors:7167 sci.skeptic:17408
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Heaven (was Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day)
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 3 Oct 1992 11:21 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Keywords: Heaven
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Oct1.182744.19849@ntb.ch>, milsom@ntb.ch (Paul Milsom) writes...
>Well, when it comes to this kind of question, I can't resist biting either, 
>as I've got a copy of the book with all the answers to this kind of question. 
>YES. It's called "A Course In Miracles". With "Heaven", we have to define our 
>terms. There does seem to be a state ("level") like John mentioned, where 
>you're in a wonderful "country", and everybody is happy and loving. I heard 
>Neu-Technikum Buchs Switzerland

Please see Martin Gardner's column in the latest issue of the _Skeptical
Inquirer_ for the details on _A Course in Miracles_.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Personal Science (was Re: Heaven)
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:23:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct2.132900.4308@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>, gorski@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Tom Gorski) writes:
> 
> Well...there's one more thing about science that you neglected to
> mention, and that is the concept of the detached observer.  (Somebody
> else has to be able run the same experiment and get the same results!)
> 
> Now, it's going to be kind of hard for *somebody else* to observe *YOU*
> the exact same way that you do, don't you think?  :-)  
> 
> That's why I called the process you described as something more like
> empiricism.  Just an observation on my part.  Not an attempt to start a
> debate or irritate you!!
> 
> So long!  :-)
> 
> --TG
Sorry if I came off as irritated.  Of course, when studying
consciousness, the idea of a detached observer if problematic.  You do
the best you can in such a circumstances.  You also double check your
obervations of yourself, whenever possible, with others.  But the idea
of replication of results still holds.  I try to replicate the results
that others describe, as others may try to replicate the results that
I describe.
The idea of a detached observer is highly problematic for physical
science as well.  Aside from the observer-created effects that are
unavoidable when examining things at the quantum mechanical level,
there is the more human problem that perceptual and cognitive biases
heavily influence the methods used to study a phenomenom, the effects
perceived, and the interpretation of the results.  This is just a lot
more obvious in a personal study of consciousness.  
However, in both regimes, it is possible to take steps to reduce
theses effects.  The foremost example I know of in the area of
consciousness is probably Aleister Crowley.  Let me hasten to say that
I am NOT a Crowley devotee, but he did attempt to bring in large
measure the techniques of science into the study of consciousness.
And esoteric Yoga and Buddhism also fall into this category.
				Peace and Love,
					Lorenzo
-- 

"Ask me a riddle, and I [should] reply,       Lorenzo Farris
`Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie'"     farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu
                -Winnie the Pooh          
[bracketed addition mine]                 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:4464 alt.alien.visitors:6956 sci.skeptic:16992
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 06:40:48 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <66617@cup.portal.com>

Dear Earth People: I'm telling you we are having more fun than a barrel
of monkeys with this OOBE thing. E. picked up D. and Kumar came along.
The old lady didn't mess up things this time. I  got lost a little but
I showed up looking like an old man. All you people please don't be 
mad at me for telling you about Baby Talk. That is pretty heavy stuff
but some of you should be ready for some meat now even though I would
encourage you to be vegetarians and some people have the nerve to say
I talk in riddles.
John Winston.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 2 Oct 92 08:52:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.newage

In <66979@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:

>Dear Astral Flyers: It seems that my last posting about the history
>of the earth got shot down towards the end by some flamer.

No, it was NuWaveOrderPhysicUsenet which caused John's fingers to hit
keys at random during the posting.  Since this effect usually doesn't
kick in until the second page, it would be best for John to go back to
sending his articles one screen-dump at a time.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     Th'HOSTESS FACTORY is closin' down and I just heard ZASU
 |warren@      PITTS has been DEAD for YEARS.. (sniff)
/ nysernet.org 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: Heaven (was Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 17:07:10 GMT

yahnke@macc.wisc.edu (Ross Yahnke) writes:

> In article <Sep.30.21.41.08.1992.18445@ruhets.rutgers.edu>, 
> > ...I think Jesus said "The Kingdom
> > of Heaven is within" (maybe he didn't, I'm not sure :-))...
> 
> 
> "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! For, behold, the 
> kingdom of God is within you"
>      Luke 17:21
> 
> Comments?

There are some Greek Scholars, inlcuding my prof in New Testament Greek
who suggest that a better translation might be:

"The Kingdom of God is in your midst" or "The Kingdom of God is among
you".

Translation is always a tricky business and *always* fraught with some
degree of uncertainty. No two languages directly match, word for word.

Separated by 2000 years in time and clutural history, there are a lot of
cultural concepts which don't translate either.

The whole constellation of ideas in the moderm west relating to "inner"
(or inward) experience and "outer" (or external) observation or
experience, are a case in point. This kind of separation between the
inner existential awareness and the outer phenomenological observation
is something that didn't really exist as a cultural concept 2000 years
ago - the words "inner" and "outer" sure exist, as did some of the same
philosophical questions, but the modern habit of seeing the two as quite
different, and interacting in some kind of dialectic process is, quite
bluntly, modern. It is very unlikely that a First Century author would
have the 'modern' idea in mind when writing about something that was
'inner', 'inside', 'internal', etc. 

On the other hand, the modern idea of individuality - of what a person
really is - is modern. 2000 years ago 'people' were generally understood
more in terms of their family, community, nationality, and assiciations
than in terms of their 'individuality'. Thus the 'idea' which would be
conveyed to a First Century audience by the very word 'person' is not
identical to the 'idea' most of us would get from the word 'person'.

If you want to know what a First Century Author really meant, you not
only have to get inside his language, you have to get inside his
culture.

It takes a fair bit of work to do that but is enormously worthwhile and
exciting! It certainly helps one understand one's own language and
culture and its biases.

=Doug

----------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: uunet.ca!uuisis.isis.org!doug                Voice: 613-722-4724
DNS:  doug@uuisis.isis.org, doug@uuisis.UUCP, doug@isishq.fidonet.org
                      SKAN Communications Inc
      POST: P.0. Box 3041, Stn C., Ottawa, K1Y 4J3, CANADA 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:21:53 GMT
Subject: Shakti Gawain Interviews?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage

I would be interested to know if there are any recorded interviews with
Shakti Gawain. I recently read her book "Living in the Light" and thought
it was wonderful! 

Anyone know???


Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:53:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.193913.1366@unislc.uucp> erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
>Arnold E. Nordeng (nordenga@tc.fluke.COM) wrote:
>
>: An omission or addition is *not* a contradiction.

	An addition can contradict something already present.

   The fact that
>: we have three separate accounts that share the main details made
>: by three authors at three different times gives veracity.  More so the
>: fact that we have 40 authors over 1500 years on 3 continents that say
>: one message that man is sinful and needs a savior adds veracity.

	The OT does not claim that were are all miserable sinners in
desperate need of salvations. Ask your Jewish friends about that :-)

>: If you want to claim the bible is untrustworthy in its facts or details, 
>: then how can you as a "christian" support the resurrection as a fact or 
>: detail, the cornerstone of our faith?  The common theme of all non-Christian
>: religions is to first doubt the bible as the inerrant word of God--something
>: that Jesus Christ did not do.

	Actually, it is more than "doubting", but often accepting only
part of it (Judaism, Islam), or viewing it as irrelevant and probably
erroneous (most of the others). Arnold Nordeng, you have a lot to
learn about other religions.

	Of the Bible, Jews accept only the OT, as well as stuff
supposedly revealed to Moses but never written down in the OT that can
be found in the Talmud. Muslims believe that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus
Christ were Mohammed's predecessors (or some of them, at least), but
that the OT and the NT are both corrupted. Muslim apologists will
gladly point out Biblical contradictions.

	Hindus, Buddhists, many New Agers, neo-pagans, and others
often couldn't care less about the Bible, as far as I can tell.

>: Just look at JW's, Mormons, Islam, Newage, Christian Science, Moonies & the
>: Unitarians, Bahai's etc etc etc......  

	JW's, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Moonies, (at least some)
Unitarians, and apparently some Newagers consider themselves
Christians, though not necessarily of a Fundamentalist sort; Arnold
Nordeng has a rather narrow definition of Christianity, it seems.

	These religious arguments are a great source of amusement to
me, I must confess.

/Loren
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:4480 alt.alien.visitors:7028 sci.skeptic:17107
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 06:28:43 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <66693@cup.portal.com> <66752@cup.portal.com>

Dear Question Askers: Good questions. I'm late and have to go to work.
I will hope to answer you later. Big Al I'll try it again with you. This
time I'm going to blast you out of bed with some elementals.
John Winston.
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Heaven (was Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day)
Keywords: Heaven
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:51:48 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <1992Oct1.182744.19849@ntb.ch> milsom@ntb.ch (Paul Milsom) writes:
[...]
>Reincarnation (acknowledged nowadays by very many people) 

Paul - which people acknowledge this, and do they have any scientific
basis for doing so?

	RA

rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu
--------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.
From: gorski@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Tom Gorski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Heaven (was Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day)
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:48:46 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, University of Wisconsin

In article <Sep.30.21.41.08.1992.18445@ruhets.rutgers.edu> farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.174134.11019@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>, gorski@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Tom Gorski) writes:
>> Lorenzo Farris writes:
>> 
>> >The truth is, you don't even have to die to get there.  It's simply a 
>> >different state of awareness.  You can see evidence of it by observing
>> >a being who is in that state of awareness.  You can "know" it by
>>                                                      ^^^^^^
>>                                     what's with the quotes here?
>The quotes are there because I don't mean knowing be means of reason.
>It is an intuitive knowledge, because it is beyond reason.

Hmmm...by "reason", I assume you mean, "to think", and you say you don't
reason to have this intuitive knowledge.  But doesn't this intuitive feeling
manifest itself as thought?  Are you thinking or are you not?  Just asking.

>> Your heaven sounds like different animal than the original poster.
>> Wish you fellas would get together on your terms.  Yours sounds like
>> a personal thing, whereas the other heaven sounds like a big country
>> club run by God.
>> 
>> In either case, you're both offering hearsay, something you've read or
>> heard someplace, and only the unusally soft-headed would believe either
>> of you word-for-word.  Don't you agree?  
>> 
>> --Tom G.
>It is only hearsay in the sense that you hear me say it, and don't
>experience it.  But I'm not just repeating what someone else has to
>say about it.  The idea of God's country club is there for people who
>don't want to think about it hard enough to realize that the bliss of
>eternity is not something you can even conceptualize.  

Really?  This sounds like a pretty broad and definite statement.  
Once again, how do you *know* this?

>I am a scientist, and the approach I take is that: if I can't
>test it, within my own experience, it's useless mumbo-jumbo.  But I
>will not reject out of hand what anyone else tells me they have 
>experienced.  If it is the kind of experience that sounds worth
>having, I may take appropriate steps to experience it myself.

[Bible paraphrasing deleted.]

So then, heaven is an experience?

Assuming you've been to both places, tell me how does one tell the difference
between having a really, really good moment, and being in God's heaven? (albeit
heaven within, if you like.)

As for your approach, I'm not sure science has a lot to do with it.
Sounds more like a personal brand of empiricism to me.  

>"Ask me a riddle, and I [should] reply,       Lorenzo Farris
>`Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie'"     farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu

--Tom G.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: scorched@milton.u.washington.edu (Brian Taylor)
Subject:  WANTED: ISOLATION/FLOTATION TANK IN SEATTLE AREA
Summary: do you know where one is?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:44:52 GMT

Does anybody out there in the Seattle/Puget Sound area know where
there is a flotation tank available for use?

If so please call (206) 720-1472.  Thank you.