HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Rational Religion
Date: 29 Jul 1992 21:43:49 GMT
Organization: Theologia Informatica
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Ken Stuckas) writes:

      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)

Forty-five percent (according to a recent denominational survey) of 
Unitarian-Universalists might describe themselves this way.


Dano

Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3598 alt.alien.visitors:4969 sci.skeptic:13476
From: caina@merrimack.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Get Off John's Back Please!
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:13:31 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA

In article <d5ms022K1bcy01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, dfs30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Denise Solis) writes:
> 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         ||<<<<<<<<<<<
> =========================================================================

   Likewise, we have the freedom of speech to criticize whomever we want,
whenever we want.  Likewise, we have the right to say whatever we want. 
Just as you do.

AC
From: Linda.Birmingham@brunel.ac.uk (Linda Birmingham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Krishnamurti's Falsehoods
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:35:09 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

In article <1992Jul20.171019.30389@davidsys.com> khan@davidsys.com writes:
>
>  I can understand why Krishnamurti would be very
>popular among certain peoples of today. You see,
>people who are in the arrogance of denial of God
You are retaliating against K's words without questioning what he
means by the words.. He doesn't believe in the
God that has dogma and religion surrounding it. But he talks
about love. Isn't God Love ??

>Krishnamurti asserts that he has no belief,
When you know something you don't need to believe it.

>  Krishnamurti's philosophy is married to
>this world. He has no belief in afterlife,
>and in the afterlife is where he is at right

I haven't read his talks on this but I suspect .. as in many of the talks I
have read .. he doesn't answer a question about his belief in after life
but instead gets the questioner to look at him/her self.

>now. How can anyone get any hint of truth
>by believing in the illusion of this life.

That IS his philosophy. That we must not be misled by the illusions of
this life.

>we are going thru a test. Those who design
>a philosophy that is married to this life,
>will reject the test and the commandments
>of God that differentiate between Right and Wrong.

He hasn't designed a philosophy - how can he if he doesn't believe in beliefs !

Linda.




-- 
Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, England.
janet: Linda.Birmingham@brunel.ac.uk
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 22 Jul 92 10:19:06 EST

In article <1992Jul9.185030.9988@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
> In article <31994@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>  As for myself, as soon as I define something as absolute, something else
>>comes along to show me that I was off, or even wrong in my perceptions.
> 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

Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3523 alt.alien.visitors:4863 sci.skeptic:13285
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 16:59:04 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Jun15.000927.14468@uwm.edu> <1992Jun15.143917.16445@rhrk.uni-kl.de>
  <1992Jun16.014515.24059@uwm.edu>

Part 2. J. has two friends that want to get in on this. Their names are 
Allen and Bill.  Some people may wonder how I'm going to get from one 
place to another so fast. This Astral Convoy will be traveling at the 
speed of thought.  I'll need 8 seconds or less for each person visited.
That's all for now. 
John Winston.
From: moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: alignment of will, as
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:14:13 GMT
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.

Ken Stuckas writes:

>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)

I tried replying via e-mail but the mail bounced saying there's no
such user as Ken.Stuckas!

You might try the Noachides.  They worship the One but don't have much
in the way of dogma, tradition, or mysticism.

-- 
---

Len Moskowitz
moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (preferred address)
moskowit@panix.com (alternate address)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3580 alt.alien.visitors:4927 sci.skeptic:13381
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: John's Astral Convoy (Was: Re: The Prime Directive)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 19:19:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <cass8806.108@elan.glassboro.edu> <l6u3buINN9fc@news.bbn.com>
  <62695@cup.portal.com> <62709@cup.portal.com>
  <1992Jul27.204837.20643@acuson.com> <62986@cup.portal.com>
  <63053@cup.portal.com> <l7dne6INN421@news.bbn.com>

Dear Clock Watchers:
The take off time for the Astral Convoy will be 1100 PM Milpitas, Calif.
daylight savings time.  I feel pretty good physically for the shape I'm in
but Astrally and Spiritally I feel that I cans leap tall buildings with 
a single bound. Loosen up everybody. Try not to be so serious. The 
more serious you are the more it is going to hold you back. I'll throw
in a little extra tonight (wednesday), I'll ask the space people to appear
to anyone that would like to see them. They don't have to do it but it
would be an added thing.
John Winston
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: mw@frodo.ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Subject: Re: Krishnamurti's Falsehoods
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 12:42:15 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

khan@davidsys.com writes:
:   I can understand why Krishnamurti would be very
: popular among certain peoples of today. You see,
: people who are in the arrogance of denial of God
: want to hear that everything is uncertain,
: and there is no need to be responsible.
It seems you are completely misunderstanding what he said (not that it all
were easy stuff).
What he denied are several traditional concepts (and he questioned the worth
of concepts in that realm).
Of what are you so sure _by_direct_experience_, not because someone told you
so or because you like the idea?
It seems one has to start from a viewpoint of uncertainty when one wants to
find out about truth, instead of penetrating one's prejudices.

: Krishnamurti asserts that he has no belief, and there is no god.
May repeat the quote:
>I have never said there is no god, I have said there is only god as it is
>manifest within you. But I will not use the word "god" ... I prefer to call it
>"life" ...
Note that "within" here doesn't mean "as ideas of the ego".

:   Krishnamurti's philosophy is married to this world.
No, he just doesn't dismiss it. When asked about rebirth, he once asked:
Why do you worry so much about rebirth, aren't 60 years of suffering enough
reason for action?

: He has no belief in afterlife,
May be he was dealing with the facts, and therefore didn't need beliefs?

What he asked, again and again, is to find out _directly_ what this supposed
"self" is you consider to be and to be reborn, instead of quoting scriptures
and living in imaginations.
He wanted people to realize, instead of believe.

: we are going thru a test. Those who design
: a philosophy that is married to this life,
Neither did he intend to form a philosophy. He wanted people to actually LOOK,
instead of only thinking about things.

: will reject the test and the commandments
: of God that differentiate between Right and Wrong.
Can you imagine there are other approaches to life than commandmends, fear and
doctrines? Isn't all this suffering enough to act?

I would recommend to read some of his books before deciding about him (if you
wish to do so), and listen to what he really said, instead of repeating your
prejudices.

Some recommendations:
- "Freedom from the Known" (the essentials of his teaching; about 100 pages)
- "Commentaries on Living" (three volumes; includes many discussions)
- "The Future is Now"      (speeches and dicussions)
- "The Ending of Time"

Best wishes,

  Marc

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: sallyb@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Sally Bowley)
Subject: Re: sun bear
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:43:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.190137.11727@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rjp1@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (be here now) writes:
>Greetings!
>
>I have perhaps some unpleasant news...
>I've heard a rumor that Sun Bear is dead.
>Can anyone confirm this? 

yes, i can confirm this, unfortunately. i attended the pacific nw
medicine wheel gathering about a month ago - he passed over the week
before (maybe 10 days before) it occured. the gathering was held in
his memory.

>During this gathering, I stood at the southern gate dispensing tobacco
>to those who would seek the humbleness of Tunkasila.  It was truly an
>unexpected and enlightening experience, one that I won't forget.

it *was* a unique experience - however, it was very overshadowed by
his passing, which was something i had not been prepared for. 
sally

>--
>Bob Pietkivitch     |  "Moon, my long lost friend, is smiling from above."
>rjp1@ihspa.att.com  |   -- Genesis, Stagnation 1970
>


Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3571 alt.alien.visitors:4917 sci.skeptic:13364
From: dternes@duke.cdc.com (David Ternes)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Get Off John's Back Please!
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:28:21 GMT
Reply-To: dternes@mips.COM (David Ternes)
Followup-To: talk.religion.newage
Organization: Advanced Product Development

>
>   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
>
Come on Denise! Give us a break. I know everyone and they're all 
really nice.  If you don'l like our posts then skip them.  But geeze
why so hostile?  Freedom of speech is for everyone not just the 
people you agree with!

				   David

;-)


E. David J. Ternes                                       dternes@udev.cdc.com
Goal: To live either in obscurity or in competance.
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: New Thread, an impersonal God
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:26:12 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <3927@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> jethro@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us (Firewalking Tantrika) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.181101.1347@tc.fluke.COM>, nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
>> 
>> Honest question.  Why do you believe God is All?  All can equally 
>> not be God.  And there is no real difference.  The belief that
>> everything is God is equivalent to athiesm, that everything is
>> not God, or there is no God.  To fully know that everything is
>> God you cannot be God which then is a self defeating belief.
>
>Arnold, it's an _experiential_ knowing. I've read your posts for
>a while and it appears to me you view the source of ALL as _outside_
>yourself. We could 'wind each other's watches' on this issue and
>not get anywhere. You have a particular type of belief system which
>makes it difficult to understand how God is ALL and the ALL in ALL.


  I'm one who is not an athiest, and I have absoutely no trouble knowing
God, in the experiential sence, as ALL and the ALL in ALL. In fact, for 
me, anything less would make God not-God. The idea that God is with out
limits is one of the things that does make God God to me. To be ALL and
the ALL in ALL is one of the very things that does make God unlimited
in nature.  




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

	David Hatcher
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:29:43 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Jul30.231732.10770@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>Dear friend, I'm only saying that if each instrument tuned to a different
>frequency, the resultant music is a badly tuned dissonant sound.  It has
>nothing to do with music styles.  Whatever the style, if the instruments
>aren't properly tuned, the music is dissonent.  Perhaps you misunderstand
>what I was saying.  I used this as an allegory of why it seems reasonable
>that there would be an absolute truth.

  Given within your allergory is the suggestion of a perfectly tuned 
instrument as the picture of ideal truth. 

  Personally, I for one could life with this concept with out much of a 
problem at all.

  But I want to point out that it is very hard for people to catch the 
instrument itself at play. We seem to be easly destracted by the infinite
variety of perfectly pitched harmonics that flow through and within
the very foundation of life. All of which originate from our agreed
upon picture of a perfectly tuned instrument.

  What's wonderful, at least to me, is that occasionally, during those
times of peek religious experience, we sometimes are able to look past 
those outer harmonics and get a glimpse of the shadow of the instrument
itself at play.

  What is also very wonderful, at least to me, is that that experience
is NOT restricted to ONLY one true way in just the same way that the
appreciation of the perfectly pitch harmonics that the instrument
is putting out is there for ALL, and I do mean "ALL", to bask in. 


  *Special Note: I'm going to be away on vacation for all of next week.
So if you
what ever you post will surely be purged from our machine by the time 
I return. So email me a copy of what you do post if you decide to respond.
	

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

	David Hatcher











Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: Alignment of will, asking for help!
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 23:41:20 GMT

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

> moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:
> 
> >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.
> 
>   and that might be pretty hard to do.  doug doesn't sound like any christian
> i know when he says the bible does not contain truth.

Seems I manage to offend *somebody* no matter what I say. Ok, so 'contain'
is the wrong word maybe. What I'm getting at is that the words themselves,
in Scripture, point to the *reality* of God, and are not themselves that
reality. In the same way the Rabbi or Priest or Preacher behind the pulpit,
points and directs our minds and hearts toward God, without himself *being*
God. 

Words, whether spoken or written, depend on the open heart of the hearer or
reader in order to convey a message. The message begins with a sender, ends
with something understood by a recipient, and what is in between is just a
medium, a device, a technique, a tool, and *not* the actual substance
itself.

Words are symbols of real things, and not the real things themselves. In
that way, Scripture does not *contain* truth, but is rather a symbolic
representation of the truth, a truth that will not be understood except by
the reader with enough sensitivity to interpret the symbolic representations
accurately.

THE TRUTH, when one is confronted with it, is irresistable. Symbolic verbal
or written representations of the truth are wide open to interpretation and
misinterpretation.

I would argue that the Bible is not in itself the truth, although it *is* a
symbolic representation of truths. The truth is God, and the Bible is not
God, though it does point to God, and represents symbolically many aspects
of God.

Hopefully this will clear up any misunderstandings.

=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: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: God, the Universe, and You (Creation)
Summary: What physicists mean by big-bang theories
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:19:55 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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.  But to add a little more fuel to this,
if you have a look at _Perfect Symmetry_(I think) by Heinz R. Pagels
(this part I'm sure of), there is the possibility implicit in the
mathematics of string theory, which some push as the theory of
everything, that if the universe is of the right number of dimensions,
say 10, then it can just pop into being out of nothing.  And I can no
more tell you what that means than I can tell you what it's like
between lifetimes.
			-Lorenzo
"Don't mind me, just poked my head in to say hello!"
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Faith vs. periodic reality-checks.
Date: 20 Jul 92 11:36:06 EST

In article <1992Jul17.205120.2288@tc.fluke.COM>, nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
> In article <1992Jul15.140438.8492@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.) writes:
>>however, you told me once that according to the bible Israel is going to
>>convert to christianity very soon. 
> 
> Very soon?  Don't know.  In my lifetime; I'd bet on it.

OK! this touches the heart of the matter, namely: do you really
have a grip on reality? (i don't mean to be rude, but this has to 
be the main criteria for evaluating your ideas). or are all your 
ideas just stomach-rumblings from ga-ga land? 

I have a christian brother-in-law who is always in an emotional state
about some stupid thing - gorbachev is the anti-christ and his 
birthmark is the sign of the beast, or the gulf war was supposted to
be the biblical armageddon - predicted in the bible as the end of the world.
  -- Every week it's some new looniness that in the end proves to be 
just nuts. i'd be a fool to believe anything he says about this world 
or the next.

makes me very glad we live in a universe where reality is partly verifiable.
Nothing definate that any christian has told me has ever proven to
be true. not that this will have any effect on christians, after all
seventh-day adventists have flourished despite all their end-of-world
predictions being bunk.

but i think you'd agree - what christianity is basically about is
blind faith.

   ando.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3476 alt.alien.visitors:4775 sci.skeptic:13176
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Prime Directive
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:52:40 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Jul23.191218.4759@walter.bellcore.com> mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch) writes:

>I had a dream that grey empaths dressed in black had taken over New
>Jersey.....

But would anybody notice?

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth tests
Keywords: Re: absolute truth tests
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:45:52 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Arnold E. Nordeng writes:

>And these folk want to be enlightened?  I have concluded rational 
>thinking is an impediment to newage enlightenment.

In my opinion, you'd be wrong.  There's simply no rational proof of
G-d's existence and so rational approaches to enlightenment (whatever
that is) are doomed to failure.

In this world, G-d's existence is necessarily hidden and not subject
to rational proof.  If it were otherwise we wouldn't have free will.

-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage