HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Religion
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:05:12 GMT

William Perrin Slease (ws1q+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:

: So you see we've sort of shut God up in the Chruch and now the battle
: that is going on is to see whether we want to lock the door or let him
: out.  Locking the door would be to give up even the little bit of
: obediance we have left in ceratin areas and write our own rules:  "Do
: what thou will shall be the whole of the law."  kind of stuff.  Openeing
: the door would be recognizing or submitting to God's guidance in
: Everything.

Perhaps this will make the belief of "Do what thou wilt..." a bit clearer.
Serious devotees of spirituality acknowledge a higher form of Justice; that
they call karma.  Karma says, "hey, you can do what you want, but you can't
outrun Motorola!"  Oops, wrong quote - but you get the idea. :)

A better (or more extended) quote might be to say, "Listen to your Higher Self
and you'll be OK."  "Do what thou wilt" is *NOT* a license to commit crimes,
to steal, kill, or rape.

Of course, a parallel to "Higher Self" in Christian thought would be God.
The concept that Arnold and John find so distasteful is that one can find the
answers "within"; they interpret this to mean that me, myself, and I has all
the knowledge, etc. of the world, and I need nothing outside myself.  Well,
in a way, that's true -- and that's where these guys are stumbling.  And since
Paul says that one shouldn't be a stumbling block to one's brother, I'll try
to clear it up.

In meditation and reflective contemplation, one tries to communicate with
the "Godhead" within.  It's like going deep within yourself to find the
door to God, the way out of yourself.  Since most who meditate believe that
is the way to talk to God, I see no fundamental difference between meditation
to touch, to talk to God within one's soul and what Jesus did in the wilderness,
or in the garden at Gesemane.

I hope I've cleared up one or two points here...
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG                  erc@apple.com                     801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:4641 alt.alien.visitors:7304 alt.religion.kibology:4155
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Lots of questions
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:15:30 GMT

In article <1b7bi3INN9k3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) says:
>>The "new age" was essentially started by Madame Blatavsky (sp?) in the late
>>1800's.  Why?  Money, what else?
> Not only can't you spell (are you a republicanoe?) but you are the first
> 'scholar' in the world to state that Blavatsky (Helena Petrova) started
> her organization (name it!) to MAKE MONEY, HA!  Grow up! Study *HARDER*!

You're absolutely correct.  It is Blavatsky.  Of course, you are correct about
the money.  She did not organize it for money.  She organized it for *power*.

GXKambic
sd
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: radams@cerritos.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:17:01 PST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA

In article <183910@pyramid.pyramid.com>, 
pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:

> According to Ramakrishna, the three greatest blessings are,
> 
> 1.) to be incarnate (to have the opportunity to evolve)
> 2.) to be on the spiritual path while incarnate
> 3.) to be in the presence of a spiritual master.

To be in the presence of a spiritual master can be done internally and is
not necessarily a physical meeting. I want to clarify what I previously
said about St. Francis communing with Christ daily 400 years after Christ -
I meant that literally, ie. Christ came to him in physical form. So
a master can appear in physical form even after "death" (I refer you to
The Autobiography of a Yogi  by Paramahansa Yogananda).


> 
> He also maintained that final illumination usually required an impulse
> from a living master.  Don't ask me why, or if it's true -- I don't have
> the faintest idea, but he did say it.

Ramana Maharshi is said to have had no physical guru so I think there may
be exceptions (I notice you used the word "usually" rather than "always").
I also think there is no limitation on a master to give the so called "impulse"
to the disciple. A master does not read some book on what masters can or cannot
do in order to comply with it :-), there are no limitations except the free
will of others to follow their guidance or not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Roger Adams
	radams@cerritos.edu               To those in whom love dwells,
	Cerritos College                  the whole world is one family.
	11110 Alondra Blvd                             A Hindu Proverb
        Norwalk, California 90650
	USA        		          292 Dwapara :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:24:13 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <1992Oct5.193913.1366@unislc.uucp> erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
>Arnold E. Nordeng (nordenga@tc.fluke.COM) wrote:
>
>
>First off, let me say "welcome back!" to Arnold.  I haven't seen his posts in
>a while, and they always give me pause to think. :)  So, here's what I think...
>
Thanks for the hearty welcome back Ed.  On vacation, ya know!

>
>First off, the bible wasn't even written when Jesus was here.  The "scriptures"
>that he referred to were (please correct me, Len; it's been a while since I've
>seen the inside of a synagogue) the Torah, plus the commentaries written by the
>rabbis (Hillel, etc.) which if memory serves is called the Midrash.  Jesus
>never made any claims one way or the other as to the "inerrancy" of either
>the Torah or of anything else.  He questioned the *interpretation* and the
>application of certain passages.

Jesus referred to the Law, Psalms and Prophets in Luke 24:44.  From Josephus
we know externally, that it is the Old Testament.  As to your claim about
Jesus never making any claims of inerrancy, I remind you that Jesus said,
"the scriptures cannot be broken."  And Jesus said that what is testified
about him in the Law and Psalms and Prophets MUST be fulfilled.

>
>Second, where is it that the resurrection of Christ is claimed as a
>"cornerstone" of Christian faith?  Theology or doctrine, perhaps; no more than
>that.  The apostles creed was written many years after the fact (at the
>Council of Nicea, I believe).

See my other post.

-Arnold Nordeng
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: waddell@firnvx.firn.edu (Kathy Waddell)
Subject: Re: Dream in a dream...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: waddell@firnvx.firn.edu
Organization: Florida State University Computing Center
Distribution:  world
Date:  8 OCT 92 15:44:01    

In article <1992Oct6.182402.6647@nynexst.com>, pjc@mirage.nynexst.com 
   (Peter Colonel) writes...
>... 
>I am dreaming(d1) of laying asleep dreaming(d2)...watching myself sleep. 
>In the dream(d1),I start having a dream(d2) of intrusion...just a sense, 
>not a physical confrontation. In d2, my spirit is yanked from my body...
>I am now dreaming(d1) of laying asleep dreaming(d2) and watching my 
>spirit watch my dreaming body. In d2, my spirit is in panic. Something
>is about. It is filled with terror. I leave the room and run to the 
>front door. 
> 
>I freeze a few feet from the door. A tingling sensation runs up my 
>spine. Just outside the front door are four entities. Powerfully 
>evil is the only way I can describe them. My first instinct is to 
>shape shift into a wolf( which I have used before to great 
>success..), butsomething stops me. I know I cannot win this time. 
>I look at them. 
> 
>The closet one is in the appearance of a man. It is dressed very 
>regally in red. On its head is a huge crown-like hat. It forms 
>an arc about three feet over his head; much like an inverted letter
>'u' with the oval part wider than the top. The fringe is decorated in 
>gold. It wears a robe of read and gold...it drapes over its whole 
>body. In its hand is a scepter with a circular globe on the top.
>It leers intently on me. Eyes burning...mouth bearing a sardonic 
>smile. Behind it are three other entites...I think they are also
>similar to the first. They don't move.
> 
>The first projects into my mind that they are the Four Horseman
>(although they are not on horses..). The Horseman of the Apocolypse.
>(Later when I wake, I rethink this part to believe that they are
> not the Horseman, but Entities unleashing the Horseman, and also
> that the red color of the entities garp is significant..). They
>appear before me as a priviledge, it seems. 
>...
> 
>Well, what do you all think? I have had many more of such a 
>strange nature. I have not felt the urge to post before but 
>since these are strained times, maybe someone would benefit
>from this. By the way, I *do* have my own opinions about 
>this...
>

I have had a few prophetic dreams, nothing earth-shattering, just a warning
of confrontations at work the next day.  The first time it happened I hadn't
realized until that evening that my dream confrontation and strong
feeling of foreboding was a warning.  The next time it occurred I was a
little more prepared.

It has been awhile since I have done much conscious work with dreams, but I
think the best person to interpret your dream is yourself.  After all it
is created with you as the viewer in mind.  I would be interested to hear
your interpretatio, it sounds like an intense one.

Have fun!

   =-Kathy->                                      waddell@firnvx.firn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Sexuality & Religion
From: William Perrin Slease <ws1q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:39:56 -0400 
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

:In meditation and reflective contemplation, one tries to communicate with
:the "Godhead" within.  It's like going deep within yourself to find the
:door to God, the way out of yourself.  Since most who meditate believe that
:is the way to talk to God, I see no fundamental difference between meditation
:to touch, to talk to God within one's soul and what Jesus did in the
:wilderness, or in the garden at Gesemane.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Ed.  What you say makes sense.
 But I can understand where John and Arnold are hung up too.  If you go
deep within yourself to find the door to God, aren't you in reality
trusting in your own efforts to reach [the ambiguous] "Godhead."  What
Lorenzo and John (and I) would say is that you are denying Jesus death
in our stead as the only way our relationship with God could be
reconciled.  Now I guess the problem is that some don't feel we need to
be reconciled but that we sort of simply lost touch with ourselves
somehow or have forgotten or haven't realized/developed into our full
potential.  But I don't see how a follower of Christ (a Christian) could
say that.  As you can tell, I'm confused still...
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Becoming aware
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:21:04 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Oct10.213354.7488@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
yunus@loro-next.Stanford.EDU (Jonas Sami Celebiler) writes:
|> 
|> As written in the previous post, meditation and supression of emotions is  
|> definatedly not the only way to achieve awareness (is it a way at all).   
|> On the contrary, for me what has given me alot of my awareness, is the  
|> intelligent use of alcohol (something 99% of the population of this stupid  
|> country--hate to say it but it's also my country--- don't understand or  
|> know anything about).   I guess if you push that logic to its extremes you  
|> go into drugs and induced states and stuff, but I myself haven't gone that  
|> far, and I'm doing just fine with alcohol (where I can find it in this  
|> dictatorial oppressive police-state).

Some of my fellow Spiritual path walkers and I frequently call many 
activities in our common lives "the XXX practice", understanding that
getting one's driver's license renewed, or going to the airport, or
visiting one's mother-in-law offers little jewels for expanding
awareness about ourselves.   Our teacher taught us, through his actions,
that our relationship with the mechanism of Life IS our Spiritual
practice.  He did not teach a schizophrenic spirituality in which
spirituality was separate and apart from living -- while I'm meditating
I'm being spiritual, but when I'm walking the dog I'm not.  Sure, you
need to do more than just unconsciously walk the dog, but every moment
is an opportunity for applied mindfulness.

Each path is highly individualized.

One job of the teacher is to break the student's limited concept of
"teacher." To enable the student to see the "teacher" in the unfolding
of life's events, rather than only in the particular person.

When awareness is applied it causes an effect, though the effect is not
one consciously chosen by the Ego.  Awareness applied to breathing
alters the rhythm and pacing, etc.  There is a difference between
"awareness" and "judgement".  Being aware of one's sexual desire is
different than consciously trying to resist the fact of it, which is a
still more sublte kind of desire based on (subtle) ego judgment.  I give
in to one fragment of my identity and attempt to endorse another that
ego considers more flattering.

One purpose of meditation is to create a framework in which we can
expose all of the shenanigans to awareness, favoring none of it.  The
truth is just what it is; no-one said that it would be pretty.

Paul Collacchi

Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: waddell@firnvx.firn.edu (Kathy Waddell)
Subject: Re: Becoming aware
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords: anger,meditation,balancing,healing
Reply-To: waddell@firnvx.firn.edu
Organization: Florida State University Computing Center
Date:  8 OCT 92 10:48:01    

In article <1asuspINN13p@ef2007.efhd.ford.com>, smd@sl0091.srl.ford.com (
   Steve Dahmen) writes...
> 
>I think expressing your feelings to God about the fact you are not receiving
>what you want can accelerate spiritual growth hundredfold.
>
Often times wanting something too strongly creates a block that keeps you
from getting what you want.  By removing that constant nagging pressure to
get you way, by accepting not getting your way you remove the block and allow
want you want to flow to you.  You say "I would like such-n-such but I will
accept what's best for me".  You have expressed your wishes but you have not
emotionally bond yourself to get what you want.  If in your heart you have 
truelly accepted not getting you way, you have created a win-win situation.
You win if you get what you originally desired.  You win if you *don't* get
what you originally desired because you are not bummed out.  You also win
a third way because by letting go you are not stressed out waiting for
what you want to manifest.

To *loosely* paraphrase Edgar Cayce, prayer is our talking to God and
meditation is our shuting up long enough to listen for God to talk to us.
Until recently I have had a rather negative attitude toward prayer.  I had
viewed it as an endless stream of "I want this, Give this to this person, it's
for their own good", (after all I know what would be best for them), etc.
I still do a fair share of "I would like this and please help me" type
supplication to the Power(s) that be, but I have been re-introduced to 
another type of prayer.  A pouring out of graditude and thanks for this
incredably wonderful gift of life that we have each received, for the spark
that makes us what we are.  You can build this "pleased with life" feeling
until it overflows in tears of joy, no need to hold back.  This is the type
of emotion I want to feel and express.

We can play the cards we are dealt, and enjoy the game.....or not.
Our choice.

Have fun!   

   =-Kathy->                                     waddell@firnvx.firn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Lots of questions
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:24:28 GMT

Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo (kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com) wrote:
: In article <1b7bi3INN9k3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
: > 
: > In a previous article, kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) says:
: >>The "new age" was essentially started by Madame Blatavsky (sp?) in the late
: >>1800's.  Why?  Money, what else?
: > Not only can't you spell (are you a republicanoe?) but you are the first
: > 'scholar' in the world to state that Blavatsky (Helena Petrova) started
: > her organization (name it!) to MAKE MONEY, HA!  Grow up! Study *HARDER*!
: 
: You're absolutely correct.  It is Blavatsky.  Of course, you are correct about
: the money.  She did not organize it for money.  She organized it for *power*.

Oh, *nonsense*.  The so-called "New Age" has been around for thousands of
years.  It's only now that we have instant global communication and all the
other goodies that the Industrial Revolution gave us so we can mass print
books and get stuff on TV so that millions of people can be exposed to
"new" and different ideas.

As for the Theosophists and Mme. Blavatsky, well, I don't think "Isis Unveiled"
or any of her other claptrap writings are worth a bucket of warm spit, to
quote Nash.  She was a con artist, just like 90% of the people involved in
this whole sorry mess.
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG                  erc@apple.com                     801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Lorenzo's response to bashing of non-Christianity
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:34:29 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <cep_nYO00WBKQ5pq9T@andrew.cmu.edu:, ws1q+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Perrin Slease) writes:
: 
: 1) Nowhere does the Bible say we were created imperfect.  In fact, in
: order to walk with God in the garden of Eden we must have been perfect
: otherwise we wouldn't have been able to exist in such a close presence
: with perfection, namely God.  We did have the choice to obey God's
: command or not though...

Can a perfect being sin?
: 
: 2)  We weren't cast out for acquiring knowledge but for seeking our own
: ends.  Notice the tree was the the tree of the knowledge of good and
: evil.  We already had a knowledge of that, we knew to obey God was good
: and to disobey was bad.  By succumbing to Satan's lies, we thought we
: could come up with better rules for ourselves if we defined our own good
: and evil.  We chose self-law (autonomy) over God's law.  Now obviously
: the creator of the univers would have a much better idea of how things
: work so we screwed ourselves and are suffering the consequences of
: seeking our own ends rather than God's.
: 
There you go, be my good little robots.... It's no wonder Christians
seem to go for authoritarian governments.  Once you get used to giving
over your autonomy to 'God' (yeah, right :-), it's not a very big stop
to giving some more of it over to your minister, the government, etc.
One big flock, asking to be fleeced. By the right, divinely ordained
person, of course.

: 3)  Jesus himself tells us that in the end there will be many who cry
: "Lord, Lord" to whom he will say "I do not know you."  Meaning there's a
: little more to it than saying at the last possible moment, "God, pretty,
: pretty please forgive me."  Forgiveness is conditional on repentance - a
: clear and true choice to stop following your own will and to begin
: follow God's.  God isn't easy, and you can't fool him the way you can
: fool yourself.
: 
: Bill
Such a terribly loving saviour. Jimmy, you were a bad boy, you watched
TV later than I told you.  I'm afraid I will have to shoot you.  This
is goint to hurt me more than it hurts you.

My point in my last post is not to bash Christianity.  I was once a
Christian, and there are aspects of it I find truly beautiful.  My
point was that Arnold was showing some pretty heavy handed bigotry and
close-mindedness. I don't think Jesus ever said 'taunt thy neighbors
with their problems, and tell them it is their own fault' :-).

A bit more loving-kindness would go a long way, both to having a more
fruitful dialogue, and to understanding what the hell it was your
'saviour' was trying to tell you.
			Lighten up, dude,
				Lorenzo
-- 
"the Hell Law states that hell is reserved  
for those that believe in it, with the          Lorenzo Farris
lowest rung of hell being reserved for          farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu
those that believe in it on the supposition 
that they will go there if they don't"      
        -Principia Discordia
From: waddell@firnvx.firn.edu (Kathy Waddell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Blindness & Justice (A Course In Miracles)
Date: 11 Oct 92 10:18:09 GMT
Reply-To: waddell@firnvx.firn.edu
Organization: Florida State University Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <yuyFsB1w164w@uuisis.isis.org>, doug@uuisis.isis.org 
   (Doug Thompson) writes...
> ...
>Karma, as hopefully everyone knows, is not a theory of vindictive
>punishment or retributive justice.  It's more like you simply reap what
>you sow and as you come to understand that you start to get more careful
>about what you sow :-) It is similar to the idea in a school that if one
>fails a grade, one repeats - you get another chance to get it right.
>This is not designed to 'punish bad people' so much as to give everyone
>the chance to get it right, even if they get it wrong the first time.
> 
>This is the schoolmaster's idea of justice which is intended to help the
>children in his charge learn.
                        ^^^^^
..
> 
>Karma is completely lawful.  For every cause there is an effect and
>there is no way to avoid the consequences.  Every debt must be paid. The
>essence is a cosmic law which cannot be bent or changed or violated.
> ... 
>    It is remoreselessly *fair*. You get exactly
>what you deserve, and what you have earned, nothing more and nothing
>less. Each mistake you make will be paid for in full by future bad
>karma.
>   
>Comments welcome. I hope I didn't offend anyone.
> 
>=Doug

My view of karma is closer to your first passage.  That karmic situations 
are set up in order to learn a lesson.  Once that lesson is learned the 
karmaic balance is paid in full.  Usually this is tied up with forgiveness.  
As we forgive, then we also are forgiven.  Grace can come in if we ask for 
help.

To paraphrase Edgar Cayce, you can turn a stumbling block into a stepping
stone.  He also says that one should neither give nor *take* offence.  

Have fun!

   =-Kathy->                                   waddell@firnvx.firn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage