HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:28:36 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Doug Thompson writes:

>> ...Does not doubting one's own existence suggest a bit of
>> >mental imbalance?
>> 
>> Hardly.  It speaks to the foundations of philosophy.  I think that
>
>Well yes, of course it does. That's the whole point! If the foundation of
>philosophy for the last 300 years is silly - and you have suggested as much
>by pointing out that the unquestioned assumption of independent existence is
>actually an error (error=silly?) - then the foundation point of philosophy
>is - well - silly. Or to put it another way, starts from a very fundamental
>error.

Your comment about mental imbalance led me to think you agreed with
Descartes.  Now I see it isn't so.

> ... The
>result may be knowledge of a kind, but in the absence of knowledge of the
>knower, that which is known suffers from almost inevitable error.
> ...
>And I would characterize a main cause of that sterility in much the same
>words you use - getting confused about the knower in relation to the
>assumption of 'independent existence' on the part of the knower.

Have you had any personal experiences that you might relate that led
you to conclude (or in a weaker sense, believe) that there isn't an
independent existence?

Personally, I'm not so sure.

-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: God, the Universe, and You (Creation)
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:16:22 EST

In article <Jul.24.19.19.55.1992.13288@ruhets.rutgers.edu>, farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
> In article <qjhm6q0_@aix01.rz.fht-mannheim.de>, mw@frodo.ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz) writes:
>> Thomas J. McFarlane <mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>> : The origin of the universe is by no means a "closed book" for the
> physicists.
> [stuff deleted]
>> Don't ask me what all that means - I'm no physicist 
>> (and don't have references
>> for the second statement, sorry).
> Speaking as an apprentice physicist, physicists often don't have a
> clue what they mean by some statements in any other than purely
> mathematical implications.  

Then these people would be by definition not physicists, because physicists are
intimately connected with the real, physical world.  Try reading Feynman a
little bit.  This doesn't belong on t.r.na.  If you have any further comments,
please email.

GXKambic
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,sci.skeptic
From: swells@triton.unm.edu (Ed Gruberman)
Subject: shannon's side:  nothing to do with The Prime Directive
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:25:33 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Keywords: astral projection, dreams, astral convoy, subject lines 

dear johnwinston:

whatever the negative energy you were getting was not coming from me.

my side of the story is unfortunate - i ended up falling into a deep
sleep during my meditation which is unusual, but i think it may have
to do with the rum and pepsi i had!  oops.  didn't think it would
be that influential.  so i didn't see anything consciously - if 
something happened in my dreams then i don't remember it.

(this next has nothing to do w/ sci.skeptic so skip it if you
don't care about my dream that morning)

i sure had a really cool dream that morning - all of it was
underwater in the ocean - i had apparently fallen from a great
distance and in the dream i was worried about having enough
air to get to the top without getting the bends.  but it
ended up being a lucid dream (pretty common for me), and i
somehow managed to rebreathe the air or breathe the water or
something and found huge bubbles just floating around under
the water that i could take breaths from.  i wasn't panicked,
in fact it was really relaxing.  i woke up before i got to
the surface but i was definitely getting there.  the other
neat thing was i had no goggles but could see perfectly, and
the water was this beautiful azure blue.  i didn't see any
other life, though.  it was kinda like being in a huge
swimming pool.

so anyway, i don't think i ended up with any evidence for or
against anything except that if you want to meditate for
longer than 10 minutes or so, don't drink a whole bunch of
alcohol, if any.  :)

it would be nice to try it again.  this time i think i should
give a description of myself or at least my surroundings and
whereabouts to attempt to clarify where to "go."

i'm going to mexico on the 30th and i won't be back until 
that monday night.  so if you want to try it again, you
will have to keep in mind where i am.

also i have a request:  do you think you could PLEASE change
your subject lines so they have something to do with what
you're saying?  it doesn't require that much effort and it
will keep people like me from killing your replies 'cos the
subject line is of a thread they aren't interested in.

i had to read cary's account to get your post about wed. night
because i had killed that thread.

shannon tmprb.
From: coody@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Harmonic Convergence in Sedona
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:48:06 GMT
Organization: Northern Arizona University

Are there any opinions or feelings about this weekends convergence
in Sedona, Arizona?  In my opinion and from my observations, it
appears that it is becoming highly commercialized and has lost
much seriousness.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: heksterb@cs.utwente.nl (Ben Hekster)
Subject: Re: Get Off John's Back Please!
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Summary: Oh please don't talk about "freedom of speech"
Organization: University of Twente, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:42:16 GMT

In article <d5ms022K1bcy01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> dfs30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Denise Solis) writes:
>   Come on guys! Give the guy a break. I know John and he's a really
>   nice man. If you don'l like his posts then skip them. But geeze
>   why so hostile? Freedom of speech is for everyone not just the
>   people you agree with!

No-one is questioning his "freedom of speech".  I wish people would
stop saying this every time someone tries to infuse a little sanity
into a discussion.  And remember that it works both ways.   Just as
Mr. Winston has the `right' to post his astral journal to the net others
have the `right' to respond.  And you have the right to respond to the
respondents, and I have the right..., &c &c ad infinitum.  It is a
non-issue.

	Nor would I describe the reactions he has been getting here
as particularly "hostile".  Although for the life of me I can't imagine
what kind of reaction he would have expected from a newsgroup called
"sci.skeptic" (note the "sci").

	I'm sure John is a nice guy, too.  Honest.  That's probably the
reason why he has been treated rather more charitably and humorously
than someone else posting 50+ messages of drivel (always IMO, of
course) in the space of two weeks would otherwise have merited.

(Any necessary follow-ups to sci.skeptic)
-- 
Ben `Hackster' Hekster		| "He bides his time and thinks,
heksterb@cs.utwente.nl		|  'There must be more to life than this!'"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.messianic,soc.culture.jewish
From: davef@cs.ubc.ca (David Finkelstein)
Subject: Re: Isaiah 7:14   (Re: Flames, Don Disappointed)
Followup-To: alt.messianic
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 17:03:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.160729.27508@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>But then how does Isaiah 7:14 apply to Jesus Christ the Messiah?

It doesn't.  Consider the entire context of the verses around Isaiah
7:14.  All the verses there, from 7:1 to 7:25, are related.  The sign
Isaiah speaks of is to be a sign for King Ahaz, who lived 500 years
before Jesus.  Why would G-d promise a sign to King Ahaz when that
sign won't appear for another 500 years?

>I cross-post this to soc.culture.jewish, not to seek converts, but
>to seek their wisdom and inputs.

Those of us on s.c.j who wish to share our wisdom and inputs on such
matters will happily do so on alt.messianic.  Please refrain from
cross posting similar articles to s.c.j in the future, as it is not
the forum for these sorts of discussions.  Followups directed to
alt.messianic.



--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Finkelstein               |"Nothing comes out of the faucet
University of British Columbia  | but strawberry jelly.  I guess 
davef@cs.ubc.ca                 | that's how rich millionaires live."
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:50:40 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Hannu writes:

>Isn't it that by describing God using concepts of the reality as it
>appears to us, we are limiting God.
>
>On the other hand, we have to use those concepts, as we haven't
>any others, otherwise we couldn't be talking about God at all.
>
>It would seem that ordinary concepts and attribute can be used
>to talk about God, but not to define him.

Some of the foremost Jewish sages have said exactly the same things in
almost exactly the same words.


-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3409 alt.alien.visitors:4658 sci.skeptic:13035
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, 21 Jul 92 19:25:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <62477@cup.portal.com> <1992Jul20.233307.21535@hobbes.kzoo.edu>

Part 3. The purpose is to combine energies so that the combined
light of all light workers will form an even larger concentric circle.
Through this interlinking they will be reaching a helping hand connecting
those of higher frequency to all Earth brothers.  In this way we hope 
to alleviate the fear, the agony of Earth people as they attune themselves
to the incoming energies of that called by the prophet of old, "The
End Times." As these energies wash over the land of Earth, all will 
receive or reject them as to the level of development they have
attained spiritually.  We hope, with the emphasis on unity, kto be of 
assistance to those of Earth who are feeling the residue of tension, 
anger, hurt, and dismay at the perceived chaos of their lives. --J.W.
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth tests
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:46:28 EST

In article <1992Jul28.193500.939@tc.fluke.COM>, nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
> 
> And these folk want to be enlightened?  I have concluded rational 
> thinking is an impediment to newage enlightenment.
> 

hi arnold,

  i notice that your tone has become stupidly insulting more and
more lately. are you having problems in your personal life? if so
please share them with us, maybe it would help.

  if you're going to act like a jerk, why not do it elsewhere?
Or is this a new technique to convince everyone you DO have the
ONE TRUE FAITH and this entitles you to act like a jerk, since you
are saved and have all the resulting jerk privilages.

  if your stupid behavior is an advertisement for your beliefs,
it probably *is* a good example of Truth in Advertising. 
                  
   ando.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3511 alt.alien.visitors:4826 sci.skeptic:13258
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: Mon, 27 Jul 92 09:01:33 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Dear Dan: I wish that I had you with me yesterday down in Souther Calif.
on a 5 miles hike into some American Indian ancient country. That would
have taken some of the starch out of your levies. We were in an area
where people have sightings of what the indians call Thunderbird and 
what scientist call the pterodactyl.
John Winston.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Subject: Re: alignment of will, as
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:09:58 GMT

My own form of Christian worship is the worship of one God:
Love.   Love is definitely NOT dogmatic or traditional.
Love is extremely flexible and dynamic.  It is exciting and
incredibly challenging.  I don't view love as mystical.  It
is nothing more than the interaction of my values with reality.   
 
Of course I take great liberties with traditional Christianity,
But I believe my understanding of it is much deeper than 
mainstream Christianity.  Recently looking for people who have
beliefs similar to the ones I have developed has led me to the 
Quakers and the Mennonites.  I will have to see how well I
adapt to organized religion. 
--
Love is the purpose of existence.  As such, love is the source
of all *MEANING*.  Use of power over another is not love.  Thus
such a use of power is meaningless.   -Me
Glenn                              glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

 

Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: mw@frodo.ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Subject: Re: Looking for the Self (was Re: absolute truth)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 09:21:56 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Len Moskowitz <moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com> wrote:
: Marc Wachowitz writes:
: >Better yet, look directly within and find out what this so-called "I" is
: >or isn't. Put aside all concepts, be they from any religion, from psychology
: >or convictions from previous experiences. That's all baggage.
: >Just look silently.
: 
: Aha!  A teacher!  (Quick!  Pounce on him!)
Bah, no! (un)teach yourself! :-)

: Many of us have done this (looking silently within) and continue to do
: so.  In day-to-day life, almost all of us acknowledge a self, a
: personal continuity mirrored in our memories.
There are memories and concepts, no doubt.

:  While it can be said
: that when we are in "thusness" (the term my Ch'an monk friend uses for
: being in the moment), there is no observer, no observed, no separation
: of subject and object, and therefore no self, in retrospect it is
: clear that we have personal identity and continuity.  This I've
: experienced first hand.
Three points about this:
1) The question is about some "separate self", and the focus in on the ego/I/
   psyche/mind/soul/whatever-you-call-it, not just about the body (hardly anyone
   doubt's our arms and legs are somehow different); though this shouldn't be
   seen as implying a separation of mind/matter.
2) What do we mean by identity? Some specific unchanging entity that exists, or
   do we also assign identity to the form of a wave, to use a common metaphor?
3) Memory and thinking only consists of pictures of something, and doesn't
   provide evidence for the existence of some entity.
Comments?

: The wood must get cut, the water carried, and the children fed.  We
: remember ourselves.  Isn't there a self?
It rains. What is "it"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
From: nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:53:36 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <1992Jul23.144549.18223@panix.com> moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:
>Arnold E. Nordeng writes:
>
>>Then, (no flame intended), you must hold that God exists and he is not
>>a being, or in a state of non-existence.  You must hold that God exists
>>and doesn't exist.  They seem pretty mutually exclusive to me. 
>>Can you support your reasoning to show how two contradictory statements
>>can be affirmed? 
>
>The world is full of paradoxes that don't yield to logic.  If you try
>to hold G-d to our human brand of logic I wouldn't be at all surprised
>if you encountered paradox.

Oh, yes, I fully understand this.  But compatability of existence 
and non-existence is not one of them.  It is illogical and inconsistent
which is not one of God's characteristics.

>
>Jews assert that G-d created time and space.  The concept of existence
>is intimately bound with our ideas of time and space.  G-d is not
>restricted to time and space so how can you even discuss G-d's
>existence?  

>The very concept doesn't apply.

Can't I say God existed before time?  Of course I can.  Can't I say
God existed in order to create space.  Of course I can.  Existence is
not bounded by space and time....but existence is necessary for creation
of both space and time....for nothing cannot create something.

The concept does apply.
>
>
>-- 
>Len Moskowitz
>moskowit@panix.com


-- 
_______________________
-Arnold Nordeng           
 nordenga@tc.fluke.COM

"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill 
 Him a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord
 and God.  But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense 
 about His being a great human teacher.  He has not left that 
 open to us.  He did not intend to."
                                        -C.S. Lewis.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz)
Subject: Re: Alignment of will, asking for help!
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:08:13 GMT

Doug Thompson writes:

>But the point here is that to get to know God, the Bible and the traditions,
>for a Jew or a Christian, are just - well - aids, so to speak. They do not
>'contain' the truth and I think very few Jews or Christians look on
>Scripture or Tradition as infallible. 

I suggest, lest he mis-state their perspective, that Doug speak as a
Christian and let the Jews speak for themselves.

> There were a lot of Christians before there ever
>was a Bible, and a lot of Jews before there ever was a Torah. 

Not so.  The giving of the Torah on Sinai marked the founding of the
Jewish nation.  Before that there were no Jews.

-- 
---

Len Moskowitz
moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (preferred address)
moskowit@panix.com (alternate address)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz)
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalization Alert!
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:03:26 GMT

Arnold E. Nordeng writes:

>Have you ever heard of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America?

Yes, it is a missionary organization aimed at deceiving uneducated
Jews to convert to Christianity.

>It is headed by a guy by the name of Bruce Cohen, a Messianic Jew, who
>has accepted Jesus Christ as Yeshua, the Messiah.

Keep in mind that *all* Jewish denominations have agreed that a Jew
who believes in the divinity of Jesus is not practicing Judaism and
has separated himself from the Jewish community.  Messianics are, by
their own definition, Christians.

Sad to say, but when Inquisitions and threats of death fail, I suppose
these extremist Christians have to try other means to fool us.

> Cohen claims there is a world wide Messianic Jewish Revival.

Of course he can claim whatever he wants, but he'd be wrong.  

Did you know that at last count, over 185,000 non-Jews here in the US
have converted to Judaism?

Did you know that there are many, many more lapsed Christians here in
the US than there are Jews?  Doesn't that make you wonder why
missionaries spend so much time trying to convert Jews instead of
concentrating on their own folks?

Ask yourself: Does this discussion belong on t.r.na?

-- 
---

Len Moskowitz
moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (preferred address)
moskowit@panix.com (alternate address)
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth tests
Keywords: Re: absolute truth tests
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:34:57 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Jul30.193257.1721@tc.fluke.COM> nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
>In article <33855@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.193500.939@tc.fluke.COM> nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
>>
>>>And these folk want to be enlightened?  I have concluded rational 
>>>thinking is an impediment to newage enlightenment.
>>
>>  If you don't dig it, than it is just as well that you do not join it.
>>But, that does not make it wrong, nor does it make you right.
>
>And is this an absolute? :-P  Why do you bother discussing right or
>wrongs....its only relative.

  What I was pointing towards had a lot more to do with an attitude
than absolutes.

  But you are correct, it is only relative. From your perspective, your
attitude is an OK one to have. So have away. But don't bother with
newage stuff, cause you just don't dig it. It's not relative to how
you approach reality. 




	Love is the life force breathed
	into the Heart/Mind flower center
	of harmonious human relationships.
			Al Huang

	David Hatcher






Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: htoyryla@ntc01.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Looking for the One (was: ...the Self)
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:45:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.135144.24782@panix.com>, moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:
> 
> True.  The question then becomes: are we ever aware of all as one.
> For most of us, the answer is: "no, never."  Tales of one-ness mostly
> have the quality of fantasies or dreams -- we don't have first hand
> experience of it.
>

Suppose an experience or awareness of all as one. How could we know 
that it would be about All or One. Wouldn't something just slightly
above our everyday separatedness be overwhelming enough ?

 
>>Btw, a good book about those "splits" is "No Boundary" by Ken Wilber; he
>>argues that the various therapies, from ordinary psychology over psyche/soma
>>until "spritual" practice, just address different kinds of "pseudo-separations"
>>of the spectrum of consciousness, thus healing the whole.
>>Though someone remarked that the whole doesn't need healing.
>>Don't know.
> 
> Do you have any personal experience that leads you to conclude that
> Wilber might be right?  Has Wilber related any experiences of this
> sort?
> 

Again, how would a man know ? Perhaps a whole was healed that was within
the man and not without ?


regards

Hannu