HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joseph@bse.com (Joseph E. Richardson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Faith vs. periodic reality-checks.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 09:41:13 EDT
Organization: Berard Software Engineering, Inc.
Reply-To: joseph@bse.com (Joseph E. Richardson)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v0


In article <1992Jul20.113606.8516@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> (talk.religion.newage), walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.) writes:
> but i think you'd agree - what christianity is basically about is
> blind faith.

Christianity, without doubt, has a strong faith component.  To say in
general that it is blind is most likely too strong.  To say that some
Christians follow their leaders blindly is obviously true.  (Do I need
to give examples?  I thought not.)  It is equally true to say that some
people can follow any type of leader blindly.  (How many times has this
happened politically with unfortunate consequences??  Russia, Germany,
Iraq,... America?)

Although the Bible often speaks of faith and trust and gives many
examples of divine commands or instructions that seem to defy the
current reality (e.g., the instructions given to the Israelites leading
to the fall of Jericho, Noah's ark, Jesus telling a disciple to walk
across the water to him), the Bible also speaks of verification and
testing.  ((And here I paraphrase...) "By these fruits you shall know
them....", Paul:"Test me to see if what I say is true." and many other
examples.)

Follow-ups to talk.religion.misc.

Yours for more parenthetical writing,

--------Address--------Phone Number-------FAX Number--------Disclaimer-----
Joseph E. Richardson         | Phone: (301) 417-9884 |"He said WHAT???!!!"
Berard Software Eng., Inc.   | FAX:   (301) 417-0021 | - my boss expressing
101 Lake Forest Blvd,Ste 360 | Email: joseph@bse.com |   his agreement with
Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2611  |                       |   anything I say.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 04:53:01 GMT

John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:

> Dear Doug: You ask if I can control the messages that are sent. In the 
> past the experimenter just wanted to make contact so I just looked 
> around and observed the one I went to see.  This lady later just sent
> me a message of love and  good will.
> John Winston.

Thanks John. "love and good will" is content. I don't mean to be trite here,
but could she have sent "the car broke down 25 miles south of Snowville,
would you call a tow-truck for me?"

I've had people get in touch with me telepathically - very close friends -
at points of crisis when they did need help. The messages were quite garbled
- I'd wake up for instance in a cold sweat, knowing that my friend was in a
crisis - and then get a phone call a little later which explained it all.

Another friend knows when I want to talk to her. She'll often phone at such
points when I consciously ask her to (telepathically). What I'd like to do
is understand this phenomenon better.

So far it seems to me that it is fairly easy to communicate emotions,
especially when they are strong, telepathically. The communication of ideas
and thoughts though, appears more difficult.  I have heard it said that one
can communicate pictures sometimes, and that if you want to get an idea
across to someone clearly, visualize it and then attempt a telepathic
transfer - i.e. the 'funnel technique'. In the above example, if I wished to
call for help I would form a clear mental picture of the problem (broken
car) and the location (picture the map) and the request (make a phone call). 

One more thought on the 'trite' aspect. I am aware that there is room for
abuse in 'playing' with powerful forces that are not well understood. I'm
interested in any observations anyone might have on this topic.

I don't want to end up playing with something dangerous but some of my
far-away friends don't have e-mail (alas) and long distance telephony is
horribly expensive. :-)

=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 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3491 alt.alien.visitors:4801 sci.skeptic:13214
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, 25 Jul 92 07:47:52 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Dear Fellow Earth Travellers: I will now put down the second part of the
information that was sent to me by the lady that founded the Antahkarana
Organization and she is also the person who put the information down that
is found in this particular collection. This from Ashtar---We wish to 
inform those of Earth who work with us: NOW IS THE TIME TO UNITE into
the oneness of purpose that will be required of you to create the 
vibration for us to land, and join hands, minds, and hearts in this joint
endeavor between dimensions.  As in the movie ET, when the finger of the 
alien ET touches the finger of Earth, so can the energies of higher
frequencies reach and work with those in the third dimension. We wish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: timpson@acetek.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Get Off John's Back Please!
Reply-To: timpson@acetek.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:52:19 GMT


>
>I am amazed that fully half of the traffic of this newsgroup is comprised
>of your three-line messages ("I'm having an astral wank, everybody!"),
>empty posts (" "), and one-screen text dumps. 
>
>Call me a skeptic, but I would think an intelligent life form who
>wanted information distributed would get in touch with someone who had
>a clue.
>


>   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!

>                                  Denise

	It's not a question of freedom of speach it's the quality/quantity
	of John messages.  It is rediculous and should be tempered.


	Steve Food_for_the_Grays
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:33:42 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Jul27.221921.12518@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>Is there anyone out there that feels it would not be wrong for you
>to shoot and kill any random person just for the sake of killing?


  Well, I do not feel that it is right to shoot and kill any random person
just for the sake of killing. 

  Does this make absolute truth something we can absolutely hang on to?
Personally, I think that that is a pretty tenuous trick to try at all
times from all perspectives.

  See, I could just as rightly ask: Is there anyone out there that feels
it would not be wrong for you to shoot and kill any random "mosquito" just 
for the sake of killing? Why just limit the possibilites of random killing 
to people only? 

  Where does one draw a line? Absolutes seem to get pretty fuzzy when ones
perspective is changed.




	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher




Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.peeves
From: hillman@carina.unm.edu (Dan Hillman)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 03:47:39 GMT
Organization: Holy Order of Quadra 950 Lust

In article <62551@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
>Well is everbody ready for July 22, 1100 PM Milpitas, Calif. time?
>I hope to take off then pick E. and go by and get J. then we may all
>drop in on Shannon.  It will be an astral convoy.
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gosh, an astral *Smokey and the Bandit*! My engorged mantool is already 
reaching for the stars!!!

Don't forget the platform shoes and the mood ring, John-boy. Four out 
of five unwashed holy men stress the importance of 70s accouterments
when communicating with the dead.

-- 
| _   ;/                                                          Dan Hillman
|(")_/   "I'm right and you're not."                   hillman@carina.unm.edu
|~~/                                                 University of New Mexico
|~/                                               Land of Fucking Enchantment
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: gpivar@maestro.mitre.org (Greg Pivarnik)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Reply-To: gpivar@mitre.org
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:05:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.153339.19569@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul22.101906.8532@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
|> >In article <1992Jul9.185030.9988@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
|> >> To kill an innocent person in cold blood is wrong.
|> >> Does anyone disagree that this is not an absolute truth?
|> >
|> >Please define innocent.  If you choose to do so, why do you have the right to
|> >do so?  What is cold blood?  What if the person committing the act is 
|> >"insane?" 
|> >Who judges?
|> >
|> >GXKambic
|> >standard slightly cynical disclaimer
|> 
|> Even if the person is insane, that doesn't justify the act, does it?
|> Are you saying it is right for insane people to kill people?
|> 
|> -- 
|> John Emery


John,
I think the point that was trying to be made was that for that particular
"insane" person, he is justified within his own reality/belief system in 
commiting the murder.  Perhaps the original question needs to be rephrased.
To say that killing is immoral is a generalized assumption. Each incident of
a particular action must be seen on a case by case basis.  Within a given 
belief system it may or may not be socially acceptible to commit a murder.
For example, in the United States, generally speaking, killing another
human being is not seen as a prefered action where in many African and 
South American tribes it is not only acceptible but encouraged. Some do it
as a way of life others as a rite into manhood,etc. So you see, by the belief structure
which may hold great truth to you, may or may not have weight to another.
Life...no existence, is relative to the individual.

Just a thought.
-- 
Greg 

--  Be still, be silent...the rest is easy.  --
From: Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: alignment of will, as
Date: 27 Jul 92  19:31:00 EST

The way you've described Catholicism, it sounds like polytheism.

Are there any religions out there who worship one God without resort to mysticism, dogma or tradition.  (No three-part gods allowed.) (or without superstition)

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:40:06 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Arnold E. Nordeng writes:

>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.

I think that you're confusing non-existence and the non-applicability
of the concept "existence."  They're not the same.  It's just as wrong
to say that G-d "exists" as it is to say that G-d doesn't exist.

>Can't I say God existed before time?  Of course I can.  

No, because existence is dependent upon time.  Before time there was
no "existence" per se.  Before creation what was there?  You get
beyond the point that words and concepts can describe.

>Can't I say God existed in order to create space.  Of course I can.

That puts a constraint upon G-d which is by definition impossible.

>Existence is
>not bounded by space and time....but existence is necessary for creation
>of both space and time....for nothing cannot create something.

To say that G-d is "nothing" is as bad as saying that G-d is
something.  Either way you hang yourself.

>The concept does apply.

Believe what you like but vehement assertion doesn't constitute a proof.

-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: lever@voyager.corp.sgi.com (Karen Lever)
Subject: Free Classes in Tantric Meditation
Followup-To: poster
Originator: root@voyager.corp.sgi.com
Keywords: consciousness, meditation, Enlightenment
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:36:03 GMT

Free intensive workshops will be offered in the Bay Area:

Stanford University                       U.C. Berkeley
    Thursday, July 30                         Monday, August 3
    Thursday, August 6                        


Topics include: Meditation, Buddhism, Power, Balance, Wisdom,
Enlightenment, Personal Happiness, Reincarnation, Career Success
and Miracles.  Classes consist of discussion and meditation, 
and are designed for individuals age 29 and under. 

Stanford classes will be held in the Escondido Village Center 
(next to the E.V. office), from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.

U.C. Berkeley classes will be held in Wheeler Hall, Room 223,
from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.

Additional classes will be offered in the Bay Area this summer
and fall.  For information, please call 415-995-4721.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: cary@carina.unm.edu (Ithlial the Archer)
Subject: Re: The Prime Directive 
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:56:20 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Jul22.174720.16281@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>|> Glenn "if they come, they better bring beer!" Tinseth
>A LOT of beer!  (And maybe some pizza.)  :-)
>
>-- 
>  Robert E. McGrath
>  Urbana Illinois
>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu

Only if it's good beer, none of this soda water with alcohol stuff.

Ithlial

My opinions, mine, mine, mine!

I bet the main reason the police keep people away from a plane crash 
is they don't want anybody walking in and lying down in the crash 
stuff, then, when some comes up, act like they just woke up and go, 
"What, was THAT?!"
  
  
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: mw@frodo.ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Subject: Re: God, the Universe, and You (Creation)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 07:53:49 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Thomas J. McFarlane <mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu> wrote:
: The origin of the universe is by no means a "closed book" for the physicists.
: Even if we suppose that the latest model for the big bang is true, it still
: doesn't tell us what happened at or before the big bang, whatever that means.
Some say the words "before big-bang" are completely meaningless, since time is
not "outside" the universe - the question is like asking what is "outside of
absolutely all".
Also I've recently seen a note that some physicists seem to have support for the
assumption that the so-called "big-bang" wasn't the beginning, but that the
universe always existed.
Don't ask me what all that means - I'm no physicist (and don't have references
for the second statement, sorry).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3562 alt.alien.visitors:4908 sci.skeptic:13346
From: dfs30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Denise Solis)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Get Off John's Back Please!
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:28:09 GMT
Reply-To: dfs30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Denise Solis)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <fmkmg3c@lynx.unm.edu> hillman@carina.unm.edu (Dan Hillman) writes:
>
>Dear John,
>
>Your (sic) right; I fudge my Levis in glee every time I see one of
>you're (sic) posts.
>
>I am amazed that fully half of the traffic of this newsgroup is comprised
>of your three-line messages ("I'm having an astral wank, everybody!"),
>empty posts (" "), and one-screen text dumps. 
>
>Call me a skeptic, but I would think an intelligent life form who
>wanted information distributed would get in touch with someone who had
>a clue.
>


   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!

                                  Denise



--
=========================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>||      Copyright (c) Denise faith Solis 1992    ||<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>||             dfs30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com         ||<<<<<<<<<<<
=========================================================================
From: nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Faith vs. periodic reality-checks.
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:41:41 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <1992Jul20.113606.8516@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.) writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.205120.2288@tc.fluke.COM>, nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
> 
>but i think you'd agree - what christianity is basically about is
>blind faith.

I would *not* agree that it is based on *blind* faith.  Its faith based on
based on a historical narrative.  It is a faith that is based on that which
has taken up time and space and has made a greater impact than any figure
in history.

For what is so "blind", more books have been written about the one person
than any other person in history, analyzing everything upside down and
sideways.  This same person gets more discussion in this newsgroup alone,
the posts are still rolling in.  And many have died for the sake of His
name.

Whether or not this person was who he claimed to be does not change the 
above facts.

I know your simplistic reply is that Christians persecuted non-believers.  
But the bible predicted the apostate church--which I believe was
the catholic church (for many of the prediction match what catholics
have once believed).  And it was the catholics who persecuted non-believers.
I'll bet I know of as many believers of Christ who died
at the hands of the Inquistion for not submitting to the catholic tradition
as you can name non-believers that were persecuted .
And for the catholics who are offended by my statement, you should look 
at your offensive history starting with the papal office.
Catholics and Christians are not the same.  There may be many catholics
who are Christians, I won't dispute that.   

You can dispute Judaism, but I can't quite see why a bunch of arabs want
to fight over a little strip of land which has little natural ($) resources,
yet cannot overcome the Jewish inhabitants.  The existence of a jewish
nation is more than a miracle.  The recent invaders of Israel have lost
more land due to their invasions than they have gained (which is zilch).

Why are the Jews singled out as the most sought after people in history...
(Hitler, Catholics, Islam, etc.), yet today they are returning from
Russia and the rest of the world to their nation.
>
>   ando.

Its not blind faith, ando.  Its a faith based on events.

-Arnold
-- 
_______________________
-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.
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Keywords: Re: absolute truth
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:37:51 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <1992Jul14.233239.29569@linus.mitre.org> tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker) writes:
>In article <1992Jul14.202709.12884@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>>>>To kill an innocent person in cold blood is wrong.
>>>>Does anyone disagree that this is not an absolute truth?
>
>I (William Tucker) think:

[...]

>How many truly bad people do you know that don't have a reason for
>being messed up? Isn't it really comic book mentality to not see 
>the "offending" party as human, probably a scared, brutalized human.
>How many Rambo movies do you see where you see the bad guys being 
>kicked around the kitchen by drunken fathers (themselves originally victims)
>or slapped by frustrated, overworked, mothers. That would probably 
>change our gleeful shouts as Rambo blows away another slime ball
>(maybe show an inset where the man as a youngster is lying in a 
>bed in his own urine, crying because his mother beat him). I've
>been around enough to not enjoy having people do negative things 
>to me as much as the next person. However, people always have 
>reasons for doing whatever they do - as twisted as those reasons
>may be. Killing in cold blood is an event - taken out of context
>of the persons life - it's a meaningless event. There are always 
>multiple points of view, the individuals, societies, and the 
>victims. Take which ever side you wish - it's still only a 
>single side - take all sides and it goes back to being an
>event. Hope you understand this - no dogma please...

This still doesn't make killing an innocent person in cold blood
right, does it?

God bless,



-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.peeves
From: swells@triton.unm.edu (Ed Gruberman)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 16:34:24 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <dbfmz-+@lynx.unm.edu> hillman@carina.unm.edu (Dan Hillman) writes:
>Gosh, an astral *Smokey and the Bandit*! My engorged mantool is already 
>reaching for the stars!!!
>
>Don't forget the platform shoes and the mood ring, John-boy. Four out 
>of five unwashed holy men stress the importance of 70s accouterments
>when communicating with the dead.
                             ^^^^ ?!
>
>-- 
>| _   ;/                                                          Dan Hillman
>|(")_/   "I'm right and you're not."                   hillman@carina.unm.edu
>|~~/                                                 University of New Mexico
>|~/                                               Land of Fucking Enchantment
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
hey, DAN -                                                i've been quite
i'm not dead yet!                                        disenchanted with
                                                         this aspect of it...
i'm feeling much better!

i feel happy!

i want to dance!

oh, by the way, johnwinston - a friend of mine will be with me
a) to stand "guard"  (ie make sure i'm not bothered by people)
and 
b) to provide testimony if necessary.

so i guess this is midnight my time then.  did you send a photo yes-
terday?

you aren't in any way related to johnbigbooty are you?
:)  :)  :)

dude!
shannon the not-having-any-Expectations-of-any-Kind-so-as-to-be-
        Non-Biased mouthy pushy ranting broad who isn't dead