From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Emery as an irritant
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:23:33 EST

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. 
No more hypocritical than Mr. Emery constantly saying there is only one way.
> Where folk of the
> newage are supposed to be tolerant of all beliefs, and the
> newage is just a term for a big umbrella which covers an
> extremely wide spectrum of beliefs, there is certainly
> very little room for one person--John Emery and his beliefs.
You seem to lack a basic understanding of what goes on in this newsgroup, not
that I understand everything.  Mr. Emery does not seem interested in discussing
common approaches, but only having everyone come to his conclusions.  
> 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. 
Whether or not I agree with Mr. Emery or most of the other poster's to this 
newsgroup on the content of their messages, there is rather a difference in his
approach as opposed to most others.  If you cannot detect that, just take it on
faith. :-)
> Len B. accused Christians posting in t.r.na:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You are hypocrites, vicous backstabbing little cowards who will sink to the
> pit of Hell itself just to win a point. So here's a judgement for you:
> 
> 	You have been judged even as you judge! Sentence will be pronounced,
> 	you know when, you know who, I am officially out of this disgusting
> 	loop...I leave it to the Man.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The accusation that John Emery is judgemental is unfounded.
> Show me one judgemental statement John has made.  John
> does not consider himself superior to anyone on this newsgroup.
Wished I'd saved it.  There was a statement something like "he died because he
sinned..."  Who is Mr. Emery to judge whether someone has sinned?
> If you got to know John, you might be surprised to know
> what his past was like.
Irrelevant.
> John Emery's posts are hardly turning t.r.na into a 
> 'Christian' newsgroup.  He has instigated posts, 
> which probably get the *most* discussion and add
> flavor and variety to this group. 
How about irritation.
> 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.
Because IMHO Mr. Emery wishes to exclude all others, whether he is correct or
not.  His discussions usually seem to be "my belief is better than yours",
rather than "my evidence is better than yours."
> 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?
> 
> Granted there may be a more appropriate place for John
> to post on *some* of his topics--he wants to talk to 
> you folk on t.r.na.  He has a special place in his heart 
> to speak with you.  You can either whine about his posts,
> ignore his posts, or intelligently challenge his posts,
> or irrationally challenge his posts.  I know John
> wants you to intelligently consider and challenge his
> posts in discussion that does not involve flames.
> John wants intellectual conversation, not responses
> such as John Wiley's.
> 
> Is there nothing good or worthwhile John can contribute
> from the Christian viewpoint?  Then I would first define
> newage as NOT-Christian as its first and major tenet.
> 
Non-judgemental as always......

GXKambic
standard oldage disclaimer