HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: Alignment of will, asking for help!
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 04:07:15 GMT

moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:

> Again, let me reiterate that Judaism does not seek converts nor does
> it assert that non-Jews should convert to Judaism.  I also have
> nothing against Christianity or Islam except when their adherents try
> to missionize Jews.

There is a point of view which suggests that Judaism is less of religion
than a nationality, or ethnicity. Of course nations or ethnic groups rarely
try to seek converts.

People with a religious understanding are usually eager to share it with
others. Christianity claims to be a universal religion, that Christ came to
save all people, not just Jews. Jews first, but not just Jews. I think that
this is the main Jewish objection to Christianity, that it let in the rabble
- nay it *encouraged the rabble* to join in the fun.

If Judaism is so good, and really has the true way to God, then why on earth
would one *not* encourage others to share the Good News?

Most people find aggressive and beligerent evangelizing to be quite rude and
unwelcome, whatever faith is being evangelized. Exclusivity - Judaism is for
Jews and others aren't really wanted, thankyou very much, strikes me as
being just as rude.

Time and again in the Old Testament the prophets speak of God choosing
Israel to be a light to the nations, to demonstrate to the world God's
Glory. Time and again the prophets berate Israel for *failing* to live up to
it's part of the Covenant.

It is only through Christ and Christians that God's revelation to Moses, for
instance, has been made accessible to the world.

If God is so Great, isn't it rather selfish of Jews to sorta keep it all to
themselves and let everyone else wander around in the dark?

=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:3532 alt.alien.visitors:4881 sci.skeptic:13298
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Prime Directive
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 06:26:26 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>

Dear Drew and Bob: I'm really not going to say anything to you two
wonderful gentlemen because I got about 17 bits of E-mail from a person
of the female gender commanding me not to respond to people in a personal
manner. That's supposed to be done through E=mail.
  In accordance with the suggestion that was given to me by Shannon
I did send Him-Her a picture of myself through the mail for identification
purposes only (just in case I come by in astral projection mode). This
picture was sent through the regular post office mail. 
  On yes Drew and Bob.  Please don't hold your breath till I respond to 
you by E-mail.
  Cheers and all that old stuff.  John Winston.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:32:52 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Doug Thompson writes:

>Which leads me to conclude that independent existence is one perspetive from
>which we can experience things, but not the only one available.
>
>My hunch - or belief if you will - is that the idea of independence is quite
>useful for certain things. I likewise believe that one can step out of it if
>one chooses and that when one does, everything looks quite a lot different.
>I am also aware that it is difficult to do this and it is difficult to
>operate (or live) with another when the ego boundaries are very permeable.

Sounds right to me.



-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: heksterb@cs.utwente.nl (Ben Hekster)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: University of Twente, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:42:02 GMT

In article <62796@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
>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
>[&c., &c.]

As much an accomplishment as interstellar subhyperastral travelling may
be, the Antahkaranians cannot be *that* highly advanced--  their e-mail
messages always seems to be limited to exactly one screenful.  Perhaps
their terminal emulators don't implement scrolling..?  I know, I bet
they still use those old storage-tube displays, heh, heh.

	Just imagine what an absolute *pain* it would be to mail an
Ant'an binaries-- having to split your uuencoded file into 20-line
chunks <shudder>.  Remind me *never* to let one of these guys beta-test
for me!  On the other hand, I suppose that by now they must have
developed some pretty neat shell scripts to do this sort of stuff.

	They *do* use UNIX, don't they, John?

-- 
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
From: mw@frodo.ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Subject: Re: Enlightenment (was Re: about absolute truth; Krishnamurti)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 07:54:16 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Greg Pivarnik <gpivar@maestro.mitre.org> wrote:
: In article <1992Jul21.142913.25882@tronsbox.xei.com>, moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com 
: (Len Moskowitz) writes:
: |> Why don't you go sell water by the riverside!  Ha!
: Little comments like the one above can be damaging.

Hey, I don't see Len's comment as anyhow negative. In some sense, the remark
is correct, except that I haven't got to sell something (see my reply).

Zen master Hakuin compared humans seeking for reality to someone thirsty
crying loudly while standing within water.

Drink well :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
From: richa@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Rich Amber)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Harmonic Convergence in Sedona
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:31:19 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.


I have been to Sedona numerous times (I used to live in Grand Canyon).
I have visited the vortexes (vortices?) to see what all the foofoorah
was about. I *am* sensitive to mother earth's energies. There *is* a
lot of that all over the valley Sedona is in. Any individual vortex
however, is marketing hype to get you to bring your money and leave it
in Sedona (or some gurus pocket).

IMO, the energy of the vortex is in your mind. If you *want* it to be
there, it is. If you don`t want it to be there, it isn't. If you step
into a vortex with an open mind, you will not notice that there is any
greater intensity to the energy that what is ambient in the valley.

Examine your own attitude, then spend your money accordingly.

In the Light,
Rich Amber
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:19:52 GMT

kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) 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?
>Hypothetical situation.

>Someone might feel that it is wrong for you to do it.  However maybe this
>person feels that it is ok for a third person to do it.  Why?  We don't know
>the context.  Do you know enough about the internals of the person's mind to be
>able to judge?  Will  you judge?  What if it happens during wartime?  IS  that
>justifiable?  Is it a sign of insanity to want to kill a random person?  If the
>potential killer is insane, do they know right from wrong?

>Dunno, John.  Interesting question, tho.....

  well, the question doesn't seem to have been intended as a hypothetical.
despite the interesting questions and issues you raise in your hypothetical,
the question to each of us remains: do you feel it is right or wrong to
shoot and kill any random person just for the sake of killing?  moral issues
are meaningful in the hypothetical, but only relevant when human beings
address them as real, not as hypothetical.  it is an interesting question, tho.
i think it's wrong.  what do you think?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng)
Subject: Re: absolute truth tests
Keywords: Re: absolute truth tests
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:35:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.203743.17306@linus.mitre.org> tucker@mitre.org (William Tucker) writes:
>Hi Arnold- 
>
>You said 
>
>  (Norman Kraft) writes:
>  >
>  >Wrong. I take it that you are not familiar with dialetic both/and 
>  >philosophical structures? The above statements are not conclusive that
>  >God has no meaning, but rather that God has *all* meaning. 
>  >
>
>  Wrong?  Now Norm, coming from the sea of relativity,  and both/and
>  philosophical systems, how can you say this? ;-)
>  Reality must be non-contradictory.  It is so interesting how you come
>  out of your relativistic to make an absolutist statement such as "wrong."
>  Aren't I right as much as I am wrong? ;-)  You are untrue to what
>  you believe.
>
>
>I (Wm Tucker) say:
>
>Good catch. Look out! you're starting to understand. Given a point, that point
>is your reference point. Establish a point anywhere. A leaf falls from a tree
>into a lake. 

Hi Wm Tucker.

No, I've understood all along......I just don't buy it......

I'm just amazed to see so many people all in one newsgroup who make
absolutists declarations of "no absolutes" with absolutists flamboyance.  
George Orwell was not too far off afterall.  1+1=3.  

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

>
>Wm T.
>
>.standared disclaimer

-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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: mw@ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 11:28:56 GMT
Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik Mannheim
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

John Emery <emery@tc.fluke.com> wrote:
: >> To kill an innocent person in cold blood is wrong.
: >> Does anyone disagree that this is not an absolute truth?
: 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?
If someone does what you talk of, he/she obviously doesn't consider it wrong
(otherwise it wouldn't be in cold blood, if I interpret the term correctly).

But I think the whole discussion about this being right/wrong (and yet none
of the posters advocated doing it) somewhat misses the point. It's talking
about _opinions_ (however common) about how reality _should_ be, not about how
it actually _is_ or _can_be_. That doesn't mean at all that our opinions would
be irrelevant for our actions - but concerning reality it's a bit like arguing
whether "pi" should have the value 3,141... or 3,0.
Perhaps it would clarify matters if we'd use the word "absolute reality"
instead of "absolute truth" in this context.

Any comments?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wachowitz, mw@gandalf.ki.fht-mannheim.de, 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de
  *  wonder everyday    *    nothing in particular    *    all is special  *
From: jethro@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us (Firewalking Tantrika)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: New Thread, an impersonal God
Summary: It's an experiential knowing ....
	 .
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 23:01:22 PDT
Reply-To: jethro@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us (Firewalking Tantrika)

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.

So, what is your _intention_ in posting to t.r.n.? To _learn_ or
to save us heathen new-agers with your brand of belief system?

Namaste,
Jeffery

-- 
======================================================================
Jeffery Tye                             cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us!jethro
Beyond Your Limits                                      (408) 688-6712
======================================================================
From: gpivar@maestro.mitre.org (Greg Pivarnik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Enlightenment (was Re: about absolute truth; Krishnamurti)
Date: 22 Jul 92 11:04:30 GMT
Reply-To: gpivar@mitre.org
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va

In article <1992Jul21.142913.25882@tronsbox.xei.com>, moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:
|> Marc Wachowitz writes:
|> 
|> >: Why would one strive to achieve this state?
|> >Don't know why one would strive for this or that, or about reasons.
|> >One just does what one does, clearly.
|> >
|> >(the answer isn't meant to be silly, either)
|> 
|> Too bad Gerald's not around.  I think that he would've enjoyed this
|> exchange, as I did.
|> 
|> >P.S. I'm not trying to convince anybody of this or that, and don't find much
|> >worth in arguing whether this teacher or that teacher is right or wrong.
|> >Contents of teachings can be useful to some extent, but then what matters is
|> >actual life, not speculations about it, yes?
|> 
|> Why don't you go sell water by the riverside!  Ha!
|> 
|> -- 
|> ---
|> 
|> Len Moskowitz
|> moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (preferred address)
|> moskowit@panix.com (alternate address)

Len, 
I think Marc has a valid point, so lighten up (figuratively speaking).
The one great thing about us as humans is free will or freedom of
choice. If somebody has a difference of opinion, fine, it is their opinion.
You have the choice to agree or disagree or totally ignore. 
IMHO!!! your particular brand of religion and philosophy seems
quite limiting to me. It does not mean it is wrong or right, it just has no
significance to me. My point is that if somebody does not see the 
world through your eyes that does not necessarily mean you should flame
them. Little comments like the one above can be damaging. I've read your
posts in the past and like alot of what I read, you seem to talk alot about 
respect for things, love, etc. Well, practice what you preech. Your 
comment was not directed to me but I feel the pain of your negativity. 
We are all connected, your joy is felt, your pain is felt. There is enough
unrest in this world already...lets not add to it. In the words of 
The Frugal Gourmet, "I bid you peace!" 
-- 
Greg 

--  Be still, be silent...the rest is easy.  --
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:36:55 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul21.104136.4349@verifone.com>, ed_l1@verifone.com writes:
> There _are_ no absolutes!  Absolutely!!!
>

How do you know that ?   

> ;^)
>  
> -- 
>  //=====================================================================\\
> || Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744  U.S.A. Earth ||
> || Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, Earth Native       Ed_L1@VeriFone.Com ||
> || * Opinions Copyright (c) 1992 Ed L'Esperance.  All Rights Reserved. * ||
>  \\=====================================================================//

Peace,
Ravi
From: moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:49:26 GMT
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.

Stephen Buckley writes:


>  if you are correct in you understanding of rock and car, it is logically
>inconsistent to say god may exist, yet not be a being.  can you show
>me how it isn't illogical?

"Being" implies an existence in the realm of time.  By definition, G-d
is time's creator and therefore not bound by it, so the appellation
"Being" doesn't apply.  Therefore G-d is not a "being."

How's that?

-- 
---

Len Moskowitz
moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (preferred address)
moskowit@panix.com (alternate address)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: Re: The Prime Directive
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:53:38 GMT

In article <62609@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:

>Dear Everybody: I don't have time to say much. A person by the name 
>of Kumar in Germany has been sending me E-mail and my E-mail has not
>been getting back to him so I sent him a telepathic message. He wrote 
>me yesterday that he was aware of me sending him a telepathic message
>and that I had woken him up and had also appeared in his dreams. This 
>has happened to me and other people before. On sunday and monday nights
>I did a little warm up astral projection.  Remember tonight at 1100 PM
>it the time we'll do the experiment.
>John Winston.

that's AMAZING! Kumar has been appearing in MY dreams too! though in the 
guise of a shoe salesman trying to sell filet mignon to sandinista rebels 
with inflamed salvatory glands!!

what could this mean?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3456 alt.alien.visitors:4736 sci.skeptic:13136
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Prime Directive
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:50:22 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu's message of 23 Jul 92 17:53:38 GMT

In article <cass8806.108@elan.glassboro.edu> cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
   In article <62609@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:

   >Dear Everybody: I don't have time to say much. A person by the name 
   >of Kumar in Germany has been sending me E-mail and my E-mail has not
   >been getting back to him so I sent him a telepathic message. He wrote 
   >me yesterday that he was aware of me sending him a telepathic message
   >and that I had woken him up and had also appeared in his dreams. This 
   >has happened to me and other people before. On sunday and monday nights
   >I did a little warm up astral projection.  Remember tonight at 1100 PM
   >it the time we'll do the experiment.
   >John Winston.

   that's AMAZING! Kumar has been appearing in MY dreams too! though in the 
   guise of a shoe salesman trying to sell filet mignon to sandinista rebels 
   with inflamed salvatory glands!!

   what could this mean?

Either:

	The owls are not what they seem

or:

	John_-_Winston is a bit of underdone potato(e)

-30-
Bob

``We're searching the universe for habitable life.''
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: Flames, Don Disappointed
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 03:54:36 GMT

moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:

> Messianic doesn't imply Jesus.  From a Jewish perspective, Jesus met
> none of the criteria for being the Messiah.

1) Jesus was a Jew. From the perspective of *that* Jew, He met all the
criteria.

2) Most of the first Christians were Jews. Until Jews kicked out the
Christians, Christians worshipped at synagogue and temple as well as
gathering themselves into churches.

3) Many Jews today recognize Jesus as Messiah, so I quibble with your 'from
the Jewish perspective'. "From the perspective of non-believing Jews . . ."
ok.

4) The Old Testament contains two very different messianic traditions. One
is the messiah as conquering hero, King David's heir. A warlord. The other
is that of the suffering servant most poignantly prophesying Jesus in Psalm
22. There is a great deal in Isaiah also.

5) By any analysis Jesus did not fail to meet *any* criterion. He
just failed to raise armies and conquer Rome . . .

6) This is not a subject very usefully argued. There are various points of
view on the matter, and having sifted through them and weighed the evidence
of science as well as the evidence of our own hearts, we have come to
different conclusion. But please don't imply that there is any one "Jewish
Perspective" or that you are the spokesperson for it. Jesus will have a bone
to pick with you if you do, 'cos he claims to have the *real* Jewish
perspective straight from God.:-)

You can believe that or disbelieve that, but you can't *argue* with it.

=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:3567 alt.alien.visitors:4909 sci.skeptic:13348
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: John's Astral Convoy (Was: Re: The Prime Directive)
Date: 29 Jul 1992 18:04:54 GMT
  <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>
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com's message of 29 Jul 92 13:27:08 GMT

In article <63053@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:

						   So long till tonight
   because 1100 PM wednesday is take off time again.

You keep saying this.  The question is ``1100 PM wednesday'' in what
timezone?  How are people supposed to know when to meet you if you
don't specify this and allow them to correct for timezone difference,
if necessary?

-30-
Bob

``...livin' in my own private Idaho...''