From: nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com (Norman Kraft)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Emery as an irritant
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:36:55 GMT
Organization: Argus Computing, San Diego, CA
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga GRn V1.28 2/25/92 (Beta) by Mike Schwartz

In article <1992Apr15.170837.9106@tc.fluke.COM> nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.054510.10878@baron.uucp> johnlee@pnet07.cts.com (John Wiley) writes:
>>
>>I use a system without Kill file capability.  I've seen people yell at John
>>Emery, and just saw someone plead with him.  I'm curious: has anyone tried to
>>limit or revoke his net access?  He seems unwilling or unable to limit the
>>size and number of his rantings, much less share them in a group with similar
>>interests.
>
>This kind of response always strikes me as hypocritical of
>what 'newage' is supposed to stand for.  

In this, we agree on something. Revoking Emery's access is by no means the
answer.

>I find it so interesting to see the newage acceptance of
>people like Don Showen and his UFO / 'we create our
>own reality, but *reality is* that we are descendents from
>reptiles' type beliefs, but there is little room for 
>John Emery to say that Jesus Christ is Lord God, and that
>you can be released from bondage by submitting your life
>to Him. 

One of the problems with John's posts is that they are so very orthodox
Christian. The very reason many of us are here is to discuss various
unorthodox belief systems, which are more or less collectively the new
age movement. If I wanted to hear that Jesus Christ is Lord God, I wouldn't
be here, and neither would most of the others. The question, with me,
has never been John's Christian-ness, but his inability to stay on topic.

As to the tolerance issue, various people here have posted on the "you
create your reality" and UFO issues, but only you and Emery have come
across with this "new age lies" stuff. You may consider the new age
view of Christ counter to your own, but this is a forum for discussing
Christ in the new age, not Christ in the Pauline tradition.
 
>He has instigated posts, 
>which probably get the *most* discussion and add
>flavor and variety to this group.

Posts which generate endless strings of "not another fundamentalist
posting..." responses are not adding to the group merely by the
weight of message activity.

>Issues he brings
>up deal with 'truth', and 'peace', and 'path
>to God';  Since typical newage beliefs say there
>are many paths to God, why can't John include his.

He can - just leave others to theirs, and quit accusing people of being
misguided and far from God, just because they don't buy your brand of
thought.

>Is it any less acceptable for John to post that
>are path to God is through Jesus than for Don
>Showen to post that we are descendents of a reptilian
>race?

Of course not. More along the new age line of thought, though, would
be the statement that Jesus is *one* path to God, that folks might want
to try. The problem with John's posts has been the statements that
Jesus is the *only* path to God. Since new agers do tend to be accepting
of many paths, in a newsgroup such as this we expect people like John
to show similar courtesy.

>He wants to talk to you folk on t.r.na.  He has a special place in his 
>heart to speak with you.  

Why? To "save" us? From what? Most of us here, I would imagine, do not
buy the fall/redemption brand of theology. John certainly does not seem 
interested in an exchange of information. What he seems interested in is 
promoting his own beliefs to the exclusion of others. Take it to 
soc.religion.christian, where it is both appropriate and appreciated.

>I know John
>wants you to intelligently consider and challenge his
>posts in discussion that does not involve flames.

Actually, no he doesn't, and neither do any of the other fundamentalists
that have posted in this and other newsgroups. One cannot intelligently
challenge John's posts, if he will continue to self-support his arguments.
If his posts gleened from scripture are to be challenged, one must be
prepared to accept challenges to the source itself, and be ready to 
defend with something other than quotes from the same source. Quoting 
from the bible to support particular theological positions, and defending
those positions with more quotes from the bible, will only work if both
parties accept the infallability of the bible. In the appropriate christian
newsgroups, this can be counted upon; here, it cannot.

Norm.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Norman R. Kraft 			   INET  : nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com
Senior Partner				   UUCP  : ucsd!crash!bkhouse!nkraft
Argus Computing 			   GENIE : N.KRAFT3
San Diego, CA				   PORTAL: nkraft@cup.portal.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------