Conference hydra::dejavu

    Re .0 (Gil):
    
    Actually, my opinion, for what it's worth, is that it's less a specific
    new age (lower case or initial capitals) as it is a shift in
    perspective.  Will it be "better"?  I rather suspect there will
    be a shift in emphasis about certain things (brought about in part
    by increased ability to communicate) but that there will be a
    balancing. Some of the others in this conference are likely to see
    something Very Good coming; I have reservations, based on the twin
    ideas of human nature and the principle of Yin and Yang.
    
    In short, in this world, some things we shall always have with us.
    
    But that doesn't make things _worse_ than now, either.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    	I think some sort of "new age" is inevitable.   This can be
    seen in several trends;

        1) The great increases in communications and technology.
	2) overpopulation
    	3) The growing awareness of ecology, and the growing potential
    		for ecological problems.
	4) The beginnings of a true science of the mind, and of the
    		spirit.   (It may take another generation to sort out
    		which movement is making the real difference here.)
    
    I think all these trends together are going to inevitably cause
    a "new age" at least as much as the industrial revolution did.
    #4 above, in particular may really make a difference, if science
    can ever really clarify any religious and spiritual questions.

		    	Alan.

    
    
    OK Let us say that a new age is upon us. How will it change things
    in the areas that I mentioned in .0 ? 
    
    Gil 

    
    OK, Gil, I'll stick my neck out and tell you what I envision for
    the new age.   In .2 I state why I think, YES a new age is coming.
    As for the specific areas you mentioned;
    
    	1) Science.   I sincerely hope that there will be an end to
    		top secret technologies.   I believe there are methods
    		to tap unlimited energy sources that may become available
    		in upcoming years.   I think bio-engineering will
    		revolutionize our way of dealing with farming and
    		ecological problems.
    
    	2) education;  I see an end to the ongoing (thousands of years!)
    		history of child abuse.   Education will become less
    		coercive, more loving.   Education will become, once
		again, based on forms of apprenticeship, rather than
    		the extended babysitting as we have now.
    
    	3) spirituality:   I believe that the ongoing march of human
    		knowledge and experience (*not* excluding revelation
    		as a form of experience!) will shine a light on the
    		world's religions, separating the false from the true.
    		All religions will be recognized as being partially
    		valid.  Some may prove *more* valid than others.   

    	4) health care;  I believe that preventative, holistic health
    		care is the wave of the future.    We will get better
    		at curing without surgical and pharmacolgical intervention.

    	5) Economy;   people will finally realize that the ownership
    		of companies should not be 'auctioned' off on the
    		stock market every day.   A single world currency,
    		perhaps based on silver will stabilize international
    		trade.   There will be much stricter laws about the
    		charging of interest, (a return to old testament wisdom!)
    		and money excange rates will not be allowed to fluctuate 
    		as they do now.
    
    	6) politics;  eventually the growth of knowledge in psychology
    		and spirituality will aid us in choosing better leaders.
    
    				Alan.

    Re .-1 (Gil):
    
    >If we have, then how will this effect the areas of science, education,
    >spirituality, health care (holistic influence ?), economics, and
    >politics ? 
     
    Science: probably in time more caring in terms of such things as
             animal experimentation.  More likely to work on things
             that will ultimately improve human condition.  [Dark side:
             possibility of exploitation by the unscrupulous, a la the
             film _Coma_.]
    
    Education:  Sharp divergence and some breaking new ground.  Less
                depth in some subjects, and a lot of folk will get 
                degrees that are worth less than now (quality decline).
                The hard sciences will show more rigor, though.  However,
                more education will be made available to more people.
                [Dark side: some "education" might really turn into
                indoctrination of particular philosophies.]
    
    Spirituality:  Greater awareness of this aspect of our lives, and
                   greater sensitivity to the needs, hopes, aspirations,
                   etc. of others.  Some religious resurgence.  [Dark
                   side: some folk will try to exploit others in the
                   name of religion.]
    
    Health Care:  Improved understanding of different techniques to
                  improve the healing process, including some that
                  are currently considered paranormal (e.g., "laying
                  on of hands").  Integrating some of these for syner-
                  gistic effect.  [Dark side: proliferation of quacks
                  who will take advantage of public confusion from wealth
                  of new techniques.]
    
    Economics:  Still not well understood, but increasing awareness
                of interdependence internationally to ease strain on
                individual currencies.  [Dark side: increased attempts
                at manipulation.]
    
    Politics: Still to be a mess, but ability to serve augmented by
              a greater appreciation of perceived leaders as individuals.
              Greater idealism worldwide.  [Dark side: some will try
              to take advantage of greater trust.]
    
    These are the _trends_ of whatever changes are occurring.  As I
    noted in .1, I don't think the overall human condition will change;
    there will be primarily perspective shifts and new priorities.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Reply to .0,
    
    What we're talking about is a paradigm shift which seems to be saying
    that a change in our world view, or kosmic models is happening now.
    
    I picked up a copy of the _Aquarian_Conspiracy_ two or so months ago
    and read the first chapter. It seems to be pretty correct in saying
    that peoples thinking processes are changing. I haven't read the
    rest.                                          
    
    I guess there are two new ages. One is the forward historical, or as I
    sometimes call it future mythological, approach to the future. I think
    Assimov had something to say about future history and it's
    predictableness, although difficult. So some of the New Age could be
    predicted, if not just for the hit or miss fun of it. This is the big
    (marketting?) bash which tries to entice newcommers to join the
    swelling ranks to usher in the New Age. Although I don't agree with
    many of the basic premises of the New Age I can't really discourage it. 
    
    The other new age is a cultural rethinking process. Teaching people to
    heal themselves, to grow their own food, to live together in peace, to
    provide for and educate their young. Educated self determination,
    educated self responsibility are operative. This is where the rubber
    meets the road. Basiclly I already live in that enviroment so the new
    age has already happened for me and others that I know. This new age,
    however life changing and wonderful, is relative to humans, to their
    worldviews and their ability to relate to their enviroment. What may be
    new age for me may not be an important consideration for others.
    Pluralism is more the rule than the exception. 
    
    Looking at the model presented by the new age we find that women and
    men are equal partners in society, not diffrientiated units of sex.
    Neither submits to the other, both are in partnership. Even further we
    see that the model supports partnership with children and the
    non-sentinent. Eventually we find our selves as limited partners in the
    process Gaia, the process Earth, which some of us call the Mother.
    
    I think the new age reminds us that life is a process with points
    that humans can call beginnings and ends. Still these beginnings
    and ends are only relative to humans, part of the relativity of life.
    There are no beginnings and ends. The cycles spiral onward.
    
    The new age fosters a new time perspective. Our human history is but a
    drop in the kosmic bucket of linear time. We find oursleves in a new
    perspective when we look at stars and see light that was emitted before
    the race came into being. We look at mountains and see the mountain as
    a process, something doing mountaining. We only see a tiny cross
    section of the process. The new age tells us that what we see was not
    what once was or what will be, but what is now, something changing. 
                                                                
    For me the keywords here are pluralism, process and perspective, all
    relative to the human condition but with a new awareness of what humans
    are and what their relationship to other species is. 

    Reply to .0; Bernier,
    
    I see I didn't answer some of your questions.
    
    When do we enter the new age? When the individual has a shift in
    thinking. As far as I can tell astrologically the next age won't
    be for another 400 or so years. I won't be there. What we're doing
    now is gearing up for it.
    
    Will it really make anything better?  I hope so. I really don't
    want to see the race repeating history. We do really seem to be
    past that vicious cycle for now.

I agree with a lot that is being said here, but is this strictly        
New Age thinking? It sounds more to me like futurology, simple 
prediction, or wishful (fearful?) thinking.

There always has been, and always will be, changes in how the 
human race has viewed itself. Technology has been the driving 
force for hundreds of years. Human beings no longer think of 
themselves at the apex of creation with the earth as the center of the 
universe. 

Fads come and fads go. Is New Age thinking new? Is it significantly 
different? Does it have some factual basis, other than someone's 
imagination? Will it last? I think not.

-bs

	Rather than discussing when a new age will occur and what it
    will bring us, perhaps you should ask what signs are there in place
    now of a new age!
    	First, how would you interpret a new age?  Not everything is
    going to change at once, things overlap, just as old traditions
    are carried over into more modern times.  I think with reference
    to a "new age" could best be interpreted as a "new age of thinking".
    Therefore a new age of thinking can occur at any given time on any
    given subject.
    	Examples of where over the past few years and just within the
    last year wear a new age/new ways of thinking have already begun:
    
    #1  The signing of the latest Nuclear arms treaty.  This is definately
    a new way of thinking!  If both sides abide by their agreements,
    then this is the first time in over 40 years that whole classes
    of nuclear arms are being eliminated.  There may be more and even
    greater effective agreements in arms treaties in the near future!
    Wouldn't you say this is the NEW AGE OF NUCLEAR REALITY!
    
    #2  The recent AIDS epidemic has already altered many peoples attitudes
    towards sex!  Divorce rates are dropping for the first time again
    in probably almost 40 years.  People are becoming more careful about
    choosing their sexual partners and then even may take extra precautions
    that only a few years ago they may not have even given second thoughts
    to.  Therefore, we are in a NEW AGE OF SEXUAL AWARENESS AND FIDELITY!
    
    #3  AIDS again I believe is playing a very large part in the evolution
    of new medical technologies.  Since the discovery of Aids there
    has been vast advances in cancer research, and many others diseases
    that until recently medicine did not really understand how these
    deseases affected the human body.  Its almost as though they were
    trying different treatments, hoping to find a cure that worked without
    really understanding why the treatment might work, etc.  Now medicine
    is digging deeper into the body's immune system and genetic makeup
    and actually finding the individual keys and answers for why certain
    deseases may develop.  They may not have found the cures yets but
    I do believe we are in a NEW AGE OF MEDICINE!  Atleast the beginning
    of one.
    
    #4  Russia, itself if beginning what may be one of the most advanced
    new ages of thinking.  They are beginning to completely restructure
    ways of thinking, openness, technology, workforce, etc. just to
    mention a few.  This may become one of the most extreme examples
    of a New Age, should it progress without too much interference and
    opposition.   
    
    	Perhaps more of you can bring up more specific examples?
    

    Some excellent points of view expressed so far !  For those of
    you reading my replies here and there, you will note (excuse the
    pun) my main theme - it is up to EACH and every one of us to
    create our own "new age", day by day and year by year.
    
    Unfortunately there will always be those taking advantage of
    the gullible and weak, selling us our "fortunes", praying
    upon our weaknesses, making a fast dollar on this and that.
    
    The rest of us must learn to shed our light so that these
    dark souls can be raised another notch higher. This process
    goes on whether we are in a so-called "new age" or in a
    "dark age" or whatever.
    
    Cosmically speaking, we are all subject to the cycles of nature.
    The planets, stars, the moon and other natural forces ALL play
    a part in our evolution. We must learn to understand these cycles
    and to take advantage of the "positive" periods and lay low during
    the "negative" ones.
    
    The Earth enters into a "new age" approximately every 2000 years;
    each one heralded in by a "world leader".  What the current one
    (Aquarius)* has to offer remains to be seen, but some advanced
    thinkers believe that this Age is a turning point for the current
    race. Armageddon is fought very day - one only has to look at a
    newspaper to see how the battle is going.
    
    Whether one subscribes to "new age" theory or not, the law remains
    the same; we are all subject to it. Now is the time to take
    advantage of some VERY POSITIVE forces. Those who are not making
    it are falling by the wayside and failing to uphold their share of
    the "work".
    
    * A previous reply stated that the "new age" doesn't start until
    about 400 years from now. I believe we've been in Aquarius since
    1964 or so. Any advanced astrologers out there to help us out ?  
    

    
    Josh,
    
      Each new age is heralded by a world leader ? Who is the leader
    for *this* new age ?
              
      Also, will the new age be able to bring an end to the problems
    that the world currently faces ? Examples: poverty, the homeless,
    teenage pregnancy, AIDS, war, prejudice, drug abuse etc...
    
    I guess I'm just looking for specific reasons why people feel that the 
    new age (if it really comes) is such a good thing.
                                                      
    Gil

    
    Gil,
    
    It is my belief that the *new world leader* will be ourselves. 
    Scott Peck (and countless others) describe a community in which
    all members participate equally.
    
    There are evidences of people throwing off the oppressive governments
    at every turn these days (Philippines, Haiti, S.Africa, etc.) in
    favor of something else.  What that 'something else' will be is
    hopefully a replacement for the prior 'top down' government as before
    (not necessarily a democracy as in the reflection of the US Government,
    but something which does restore power to the people in the long
    run.) Unfortunately this does not always happen, however it is
    something to work toward.  One of the most interesting books I've
    read on this subject is "After Apartheid - The Hope For South Africa"
    (I think this is the title - going from memory), which is supported 
    by a number of whites and blacks alike.  The 'solution' is based on 
    the Swiss canton system (similar to the US States system as well).  
    I am hoping that in the long run this can be used on a macro level 
    to define a 'United Countries of Earth' (read - not totalitarian in 
    nature).
         
    On 'problems' - the new age in and of itself won't solve anything.
    It is when we decide that 1. There are problems to be solved and
    2. Set programs in motion to go about solving them, that things
    will begin to turn around.
    
    The leader is 'us'.
    
    Just my thoughts.
    
    Cindy
                       

    
    	It sure is easy to get negative, when looking at the world
    as it is today.   There seem to be no easy solutions to the
    terrible problems posed by massive weapons, AIDS and growing
    ecological and social turmoil.    I believe that *information*
    will be the deciding factor in helping humanity in learning to
    choose better courses.
    
    	Some pieces of information are key;  That child abuse is
    passed from generation to generation, but that this chain can
    be broken.   That the ecology is an interlinked whole.   That
    communication between people can be vastly improved (as Cindy
    Painter and Scott Peck have reminded us    ;^)   ).
    
    	The reason I have hope, is because I believe in the power
    of this spreading, growing knowledge.   Also, I believe we are 
    not alone in our struggles.   Recently I found Mary Summer Rain's
    books "Spirit Song" and "Phoenix Rising" to be a powerful
    vision of a new future.   
    
    				Alan.

    RE: .0
    
    The New Age movement is a fad, just as the Jesus Movement was in
    the early 1970s.  These things tend to crop up whenever a new decade
    is about to be entered.  Five years from now, a lot of people will
    be looking back and laughing at all the crystals, channeling cults etc.
    just as we now do the light shows and love-ins of the 1960s.
    
    John M.

    Re .14 (John):
    
    "What _about_ Jack and the Giant?" -- Cpl. Ahern, _F Troop_.
    
    ... but there's a residuum.  When those not-very serious folk sigh,
    say "that's passe," and move on, there will still be those who will
    continue working for perceived goals after the fact.  We might chuckle
    at the naivetee of the 1960s love-ins; however, they changed some
    of our social mores.  The Jesus movement on the 1970s was probably
    contributory to Pat Robertson coming in second in the Iowa Caucus
    last night.  The light shows are now integrated into such things
    as First Night in Boston.  So there is an impact.  Whether for good
    or ill is yet to be seen in each case.
    
    Is everything being huckstered collectively ass "New Age" either
    new or valid?  No.  Will any of it make an impact?  Probably.  Will
    the impact result in a "new age"?  Stay tuned.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

It is easy to ascribe every little change in world affairs as 
evidence of whatever it is you want to believe in, for better or 
for worse.

But many of the events (or movements, if you prefer) that have 
been mentioned here, do not compare in impact with other historical 
events.

The nuclear arms agreement, for instance, certainly is not of the 
same magnitude as the attack on Pearl Harbor, or the end of World 
War II. The AIDs epidemic and associated medical advances does not 
compare with the advent of penicillin and other antibiotics, and 
the conquest of syphillis and other diseases. Stewart Peck does 
not (yet) have the influence and impact of, say, Sigmund Freud.

But, as Steve Kallis said, "Will the impact result in a 'new 
age'? Stay tuned."

-bs

    Ah hindsight!!  Isn't it wonderful?  

    Perhaps one measure of intelligence is the ability to discern history
    in the making, the future that is being formed by the key events of today.

The promise of the new age is that people are thinking about
possibilities and realities, and realizing that the future does not
have to be a continuation of the same old thing, just because "that's
the way it's always been done, and you can't change human nature." 

It's true that one can't change others' nature; but one can change
oneself. And i think the "new age" is defined by the fact that so many
people are trying to change.  Sure, there may be lots of false starts.
The path to the future is not clearly marked. But we know that we are
tired of the greed and hate and violence and destruction. 

What we are trying to do is expand and share our understanding of the
process of _being_. 

The new age belongs to us and it will be what we make it.

    hopefully/bruce

    Re.16
    
    Um....that was 'Scott Peck', not 'Stewart Peck'.
    
    With that minor error, I'd have to agree with your conclusion.
    
    (;^)
    
    Cindy

>>>    < Note 650.11 by NRADM::BERNIER "Jesus, Name Above All Names" >
                             -< New age leader ? >-
    
      Each new age is heralded by a world leader ? Who is the leader
    for *this* new age ?
              
      Also, will the new age be able to bring an end to the problems
    that the world currently faces ? Examples: poverty, the homeless,
    teenage pregnancy, AIDS, war, prejudice, drug abuse etc...
    
    I guess I'm just looking for specific reasons why people feel that the 
    new age (if it really comes) is such a good thing.
                                                      
    Gil

    ==================================================================
    
    I can't answer who the new world leader will be in this Age, if
    any. It is my personal opinion that there may not be one this time;
    that, to continue answering your question, we're teetering on the
    edge of self-annihilation. The EDGE, I said - there's STILL hope.
    
    Greed, malice, hate, etc. seem to be the norm - just look at the
    world today !
    
    We must individually pull ourselves out of the "muck" and set an
    example for those who've chosen the road of selfishness. No New
    Age can do this for us; we can only take advantage of the positive
    forces in the current cycle of events to take those steps which
    will help mankind.
    
    ONLY YOU, with the Grace of God, can save yourself - neither Jesus
    nor Moses nor Buddah can do it for you. You and I and the problems
    of the world ARE STILL HERE, right ?
    
    May the Force be with you !
    
     

    Why must each new age be heralded by a world leader?

    
    
    > Why must each new age be heralded by a world leader?
    
    I haven't the foggiest notion. But maybe we should ask Benjamin Creme.
    He seems to feel that the new world leader has already arrived, and
    is currently living in London ( a few years back he was in the
    Himalayas ). Creme ( pronounced Crem ) recently appeared on the
    tv program "People Are Talking" and spoke about him. I haven't
    seen the program but was told about it by some friends. Did anyone
    else see it ? Comments please.
    
      This new leader whom Creme has called "Materaiya" (sp ?) is sopposed
    to be the new christ who will bring us into a new age of peace and
    harmony. I bekieve the Theosophical Society has also made mention
    of him in their literature.
    
       Gil (who still can't see anything wrong with the first (only !)
             Christ )

    Re .21 (Mary):
    
    >Why must each new age be heralded by a world leader?
    
    It needn't.  [Remember the Ice Age. :-)]
                     
    Re .22 (Gil):
    
    Just because someone designates someone else as a "leader" doesn't
    mean that the second person is.  Check our current "opinion leaders"
    against actual opinion and you'll see what I mean.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                                 

    Steve,
    
      True enough. But I thought that I might see if anyone else had
    heard of Mr. Creme and what they thought of the whole thing. 
    
    Gil

     
    Gil,
    
    Well, *I* haven't heard of him.  (;^)
    
    I still stand by my 'we are all leaders' statement.  
    
    Besides, if that guy has delusions of grandeur and wants to refer to
    himself in that way, then he is quite free to do so (in the US,
    anyway).  Of course, the CIA, NSA, Secret Service, FBI and the IRS
    *might* decide to keep tabs on him (especially the IRS), but that's
    their job in life.  I suspect that there are plenty of people in the 
    world who are already referring to themselves as some type of leader 
    (especially on NYC street corners), so what's one more?  
    
    Cynically yours (for this example), 
                                                  
    Cindy 
                                       

    
    Well, I've heard of him.  Quite a few years ago (at least 5), Creme
    was doing lectures.  He was in Boston and spoke at the Arlington
    Street Church to quite a crowd of people.  He and his group believed
    that Christ had returned to earth in a physical body, and was living
    in London.  They were even publishing a date when Christ would make
    his presence known to the world.  They took out full page ads in
    many major newspapers pronouncing that the Christ had returned,
    and that simultaneously all the radios and televisions in the world
    would be miraculously taken over and the Christ would speak to all  
    people.  The date arrived and nothing happened.  I hadn't heard
    much about him since then.  
    
    Also, as I remember, the advertising was done by his group (sorry,
    can't remember the name they used) and not through the Theosophical
    Society.
    
    Carole
    

    	Who CARES if there's a New Age world leader?  I'm quite tired 
    	of being told what to do and how to do it by any of these so-
    	called "leaders", spiritual or otherwise, and strongly doubt 
    	I'd heed if someone got up on stage and claimed to be Christ, 
    	Buddha, Elvis Presley the New Age King, or God himself.
    
    	I believe a major premise of the New Age (a phrase I'm truly
    	beginning to dislike) is similar to what Cindy said -- WE are
    	the leaders.  I am living my own life, I am responsible for
     	my actions and their impact, I am the only one in my head
    	(hopefully ;-) ), therefore, no one else believes in quite the 
    	same way nor targets the same beliefs as I.  Religions, cults, 
    	and many other segments of society are so good at telling us
    	(and so incomparably willing to tell) the "right" way to live
    	and the "proper" modes of implementing belief systems.  THIS
    	is the path to Heaven.  You MUST believe this or you'll be
    	damned to Hell.  If you DON'T do such-and-such you're evil 
    	and will be severed from your belief system.
    
    	This New Age, new age, Age of Aquarius, Age of Spiritual En-
    	lightenment, Age of Loonies-waving-crystals-around, or what-
	ever you feel comfortable in calling individuals' path to 
	spiritual fulfillment is good and positive.  The power is
	being internalized then *shared* on an individual basis (at
    	least in my life) rather than giving it (and loads of $$$) 
    	to outsiders who really have no bearing on my reality nor my 
    	beliefs.  Beliefs are individual.  Humans are individual.  
    	The New Age recognizes and espouses that!
    
    	Many people are taking individual responsibility for their 
	own lives without telling others "how" to live, yet accepting
    	others' beliefs without condemnation.  People are locating 
    	their own niche in this crazy world we've created and finding 
    	peace, happiness, and megatons of love.  People are sharing 
    	that love.  I'm amazed the question of "how will this change 
    	things" even needs to be posed!
    	
						Carla
    

    
    
    	Re.27
    
    		I am currently reading FUTURE SHOCK by Alvin Toffler
    	for my Sociology class and I find this note interesting since
    	it matches the authors concept of how the future will be.
    
    		I believe "Dancing with My Self" hit it right on the
    	nose. The new age will be A time when current ideas, systems,
    	or ways of reasoning are let go and replaced with new ideas
    	too wacky to even guess at right now. I believe we are at the
    	point of just shunning the current methods in various forms
    	of amusement and disgust and clearing space for the new.
    	
    		Remember folks Law breeds Chaos and Chaos breeds Law.
    	Which means we most likely have  a ruff and rather lousey period
    	of time ahead to clear out all this bad and ill-used energy.
    
    	Re.14	"Will it last? I think not."
                 
    		Just the other day I saw A young woman in the local
    	New Age/Occult/Indian Trading Post/whatever-will-sell  Store
    	and she was buying a crystal for her 3yr old.
    		Now comming from a rather Christian/Baptist/Fundamentalist/
    	"come to church or we will beat you over the head with a Bible"
    	Family, I could never have experianced this as a young person.
    	It seems to me that the general exceptance of "A NEW-AGE" is
    	out there. Perhaps the crystals shall fade away but the imprint
    	of that mode of thinking will be there in that child. This and
    	the fact that this is an everyday occurance stress to me that
    	we are making the foundations of the New Age. Guarenteed it
    	will  not be all what WE picture it to be. But can  A 
    	Wrecking crew invision the house that is to be on the site
    	of the one they are dismantiling.
    
                      	NEXT SEMISTER...SPELLING!!!
    
    	b.b.
    

    
    RE .26 
    
    Carole,
    
     The name of Creme's group that did all the advertising is Tara
    Center. The reason that I made a connection with the Theosophical
    Society is that the name that Creme gives to his proposed new age
    christ is the name of one of the "Masters" revered by the Theo.
    Soc. The Theo. Soc also looks to the coming of a master that will
    bring about a new age. This master will posess the "christ
    consciuosness" but will not be Jesus, the Judeo-Christian Christ.
    
    
    Re .27
    
    Carla,
    
     You may not feel that the question I posed needs to be asked, but
    I do. I can't say that I'm convinced that moving into a new age
    is a good thing. I have some questions about it and this seemed
    like a good place to ask.
    
       I'm not sure if I can feel free to ask all the questions I have,
    though. A lot of the questions pertain to things mentioned in the
    bible as compared to a lot of new age practices. I think some people
    would have a problem with me using this medium to compare biblical
    teaching with the new age. I might come across as preaching
    Christianity.  And in a previous note on christianity there was
    some question as to whether this kind of topic really belongs here.
    
     What do all you people think ? Would you like to have an intelligent
    conversation with a fairly rational ( though opinionated ! )
    fundamentalist about the fundamentalist view of the new age ?
    
    Gil

    I would not like to see this turn into a debate about scripture...
    
    	/bruce

    
    Now you know why I asked first instead of preaching *at* you.
    
    Gil

    re: .31 (Gil)
    
    	Thank you for asking, I can certainly appreciate your
    	interest in pursuing this.  In a way, I would like to
    	also discuss this but am afraid I wouldn't be able to 
    	keep my end of it rational -- a mindblock can be a very
    	tough thing to break!
    
    						Carla
    

    I've read some interesting things in the Christian notesfile regarding
    the Book of Revelations.  Although I do not believe that the bible
    is necessarily the absolute word of God and therefore could not
    accept biblical statements (as interpreted by modern religions) as
    absolute truths,... I too have noticed similarities between some
    biblical statements and some new age statements Gil.

    Since we both know where we are coming from and the terms of our
    discussion,... I wouldn't mind comparing notes..  We may find that
    we have more in common than either one of us has realized.
    Mary

>    Since we both know where we are coming from and the terms of our
>    discussion,... I wouldn't mind comparing notes..  We may find that
>    we have more in common than either one of us has realized.

Ah, but knowing the terms and following them are two different things.
History, in notesfiles, DOES repeat itself, you know.  Regardless of
which file the discussion takes place in, it gives that group a home
court advantage of sorts.  The 'visitor' has to work hard to overcome
the supposed bias therein (whether it is DEJAVU or RELIGION or whatever).
They almost always devolve into ratholes of some sort.

Might a neutral, temporary ground be found (eg, EMAIL, a 'special' notesfile,
etc) that could be used to carry the discussion?  That way, neither 'main'
conference gets a rathole and the discussion can take place among the
interested peoples.  And since the computer does most of the work, an
extra notebook entry would not hurt anyone.  This is only a suggestion since
the two active components in sucha  discussion can be / have been very
volatile when mixed.

-Joe

    
    Possibility - how about confining it to a topic entitled "The New
    Age and Christianity", watching it go from there, and if it gets
    too heated then we all agree to walking away (agreeing to disagree,
    recognizing stalemates, etc.)?  
    
    I suggest this only because I did start a "Christianity and the
    New Age" topic over there in CHRISTIAN and it was eventually
    writelocked, which was indeed unfortunate.  I would like to see
    how we can all get along/coexist in the world as opposed to throwing
    stones at each other.  Peace does begin with me/us.
    
    One vote for 'yes'.  Either that or start/move it to RELIGION. 
              
    Cindy

    I feel safer in Dejavu than any other notesfile (Religion is pretty
    safe too though).  Here I won't get censored, excommunicated,
    ostracised or burnt at the stake_:-}  However, I'll bow to the wishes
    of the majority as that is how we tend to do things here.  Either
    forum (seperate note or different notesfile) is fine with me.
    Mary

    
    How does this sound to you ...?
    
     We can have a comparitive look and christianity and the new age,
    BUT let's lay some ground rules first. I'm open to whatever limitations
    the general concensus can agree upon concerning noting etiquette.
    As for subject matter ... 
    
     Some topics that I find to be OK would be : 
    
      Can christianity and the new age really co-exist peacably ?
    
      Is there anything in biblical prophecy that pertains to the NAM ?
    
      How does the new age effect christianity and visa-versa ?
                              
      Is YCYOR for real ? ( admittedly, skeptical here )
     
    Some that I would like to discuss but may be taboo in this conference :
    
      New age practices and biblical law
    
      Is the new age a conspiracy ( a la Constance Cumbey's viewpoint ) ?
    
    Things that I would have trouble with :
    
      Channeling and channeled messages. 
    
      God-bashing of any kind.
                                                
    
    Gee, with all these subjects maybe we do need a seperate conference
    :-).
    
    Gil

    I don't object to discussion of religion in the abstract.
    
    However, the feeling I have about the proposed discussion is that the
    "correctness" of "new age" beliefs or practices is going to be
    judged in light of scripture.
    
    I've seen suggestions in other notefiles that the self-proclaimed
    "saved" take it upon themselves to save us poor misguided pagans.
    
    I think that the commonality of the new age and religion lies in
    the acceptance of the spiritual realm.  I'm not sure that it extends
    much beyond that.  It certainly seems that many in the other notefiles
    are a lot less tolerant of others' beliefs than we.
    
    I really don't want to see discussions about topics like "Crystal
    Work is Idolotry." 
    
    Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions, but that seems to be what happens
    when somebody wants to quote scripture.
    
    
    	peace/bruce
    

Note 650.37            
    
>     Some topics that I find to be OK would be : 
>      Can christianity and the new age really co-exist peacably ?
>      Is there anything in biblical prophecy that pertains to the NAM ?
>      How does the new age effect christianity and visa-versa ?
>      Is YCYOR for real ? ( admittedly, skeptical here )

Agreed     

>    Some that I would like to discuss but may be taboo in this conference :
>      New age practices and biblical law
>      Is the new age a conspiracy ( a la Constance Cumbey's viewpoint ) ?

Nothing is really taboo in Dejavu Gil but I do not consider the bible to be
"law" and I find the Constance Cumbey mentality to be paranoid and self-serving
so we may have a problem finding common ground here.  The biggest problem I 
have with the Constance Cumbey way of thinking is that Fundamentalist Christians
tend to be 'followers' (or so it appears).  They tend to relate to leaders and
set 'rules'.  New Agers, on the other hand, tend to be individualists and do
not seem to need the same kind or amount of structure.  The CF appears to 
try project his own form of structured living onto the context of the NA and
it is so totally antithesis to what the NAM is all about that it just doesn't
work.  Perhaps if we recognize that up front it will help us in our quest for
mutual understanding.


>    Things that I would have trouble with :
>      Channeling and channeled messages. 
>      God-bashing of any kind.
                                                
I tend to take channeling and channeled messages with a grain of salt but
I also tend to think of the bible as being channeled material so I'm
not sure where that puts us.  

"God-bashing of any kind" seems to be a very broad statement and subject to 
interpretation.  Certainly one could claim that any statement that is in 
disagreement with one's own doctrine or dogma may be defined as "God-bashing".  
Perhaps we had better narrow the definition of this one a bit before starting,
however, we could agree up front that we will convey to each other mutual 
respect and strive for mutual understanding.  
Mary

    Gil,
    
    I, for one, would welcome the chance to discuss at length the
    Fundamentalist views on the various facets of the 'New Age' ( horrid
    phrase but nay mind ). 
    
    But I do feel that DEJAVU is not the place - RELIGION might be better.
    The reason I'm saying this is that any heated discussion ( and
    realistically that seems likely ) could change the character of this
    conference. 

    There are many who silently participate here because they have
    experienced many of the things we talk about, and who feel that this is
    a conference where their views and realities will not be attacked. Most
    of the few notes I have entered myself I would never have placed
    anywhere else. 
    
    I do feel that, as an example, the suggestion that we are godless people
    ( and far worse that I've had directed at me simply because of my own
    experiences let alone my beliefs ) etc etc would, if stated strongly,
    deeply offend many of the participants of this conference. The greatest
    attribute of DEJAVU is it's calm and warmth. 
    
    Also, the subjects relevant are incredibly diverse and could easily fuel
    their own conference. 

    Although DEJAVU is open to any viewpoint I don't think it is the place
    for openly expressed hostility to the beliefs of many of the
    participants. 

    Maybe we could vote ( offline to one of the moderators perhaps ) on 
    this ? 
    
    May *your* God be with you  (8-)
    
    Looking forward to talking with you, Dave.

    re .38         
    
    Bruce,
    
     You may not be jumping to conclusions. I, and some other christian
    noters, feel that the bible is *the* standard by which to live and
    that one of the purposes of the bible is to act as a means of
    discerning right from wrong. So it's only natural that when we examine
    something we do so " in the light of scripture ". Still, that doesn't
    give us any reason to be obnoxious.
    
     I feel that the new age and biblical christianity are incompatable.
    But I also see the new age growing in its influence. I feel that
    the intelligent thing to do is to obtain at least some idea of what
    the new age is about and how it will effect my environment and, yes,
    my religion. I will compare what I learn here with my chosen standard:
    the bible. This doesn't mean that I will start pushing the bible
    or its standards here. ( not doing it really does go against my
    nature, however I promise to try to be good)
                   
      re .39
                          
    Mary,
    
    Concerning channeling, I find that this goes against some personal
    convictions I have, and so do not feel comfortable discussing it.
    
    As to God-bashing, to be more specific I mean the Judeo-Christian
    God. The notes I have read in another  conference that were
    really anti-Jehovah (anti-YHWH) were too intense and hit too close
    to home. I really *love* my God and get defensive when someone is
    flaming Him. I have been known to act rashly and foolishly when
    I encounter such sentiments, and have found it best for all concerned
    to avoid them.                        
    
     I hope that helps us know where we stand.
    
    Gil
    
    
    

    Re .40
    
    Dave,
    
    The religion conference does seem to be our best option. I'll start
    a new topic or two over there when I get a chance.
    
     I'm looking forward to talking with you also.
    
    Gil

    
    Gil,
    
    I've started a topic over there in RELIGION on New Age Philosophy 
    which joins together the commandments and what I believe the NA to be.
    
    Any comments you have on the material would be most welcome.  That
    may give us all a starting point - common ground, if you will,
    
    See you there.
    
    Cindy

    re .42
    

    Re.-1
    
    Well, er, um, something like that.  (;^)
    
    My favorite is 'Painter-slide' - the kind that you scribble on the
    overheads in desperation at the very last minute when the system 
    dies at a critical point.
                                        
    Good 'ol Murph!
    
    By the way, this axe murderer approached me today with lots of cash....
    
    Cindy

    Cindy,
    I didn't see your note in REX::RELIGION.  Are there two different
    Religion Conferences?  
    Mary

    Hi,
    
     I finally had time to start a topic in the Religion conference.
    It's titled "Comparing Biblical Christianity and the New Age". The
    first reply shares why I feel the two are quite seperate and
    incompatable. 
    
      RE -1 Mary,
    
       While I was there I looked at the directory. Cindy's philosophy
    topic is # 132. I'll look at it later today if I have the time.
    
    Gil
    
    p.s.
    
      I'll be at class all next week so please go easy on me in my absense
    :-) ( Big smiley face).

    
    Oh, don't fret Gil, you're a nice sort!
    
    Have fun in class.  If it is in Bedford, you have my sympathies.
    
    Cindy

    He will get caught in Bedford traffic, never to be seen or heard
    from again.... (alas, poor Gil)_

    Re .49 (Mary):
    
    That one belongs under the "predictions" note, doesn't it? :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    As broadly-defined as possible, I'd expect the New Age to contain:
    ========================================================================
    1) connected-ness
    2) voluntary-ness (not 'voluntarism' which has been coopted politically)
    3) tentative-ness
    4) informality...
                                                               
    Notice the intentional vague-ness. Why?
    ===================================================================
    Lack of force invites no reaction to it; I'm presuming integration
    as a characteristic: dark-sided-ness will be de-emphasised, finally!
    
    Because Humankind have evolved? Possibly. Because Humankind perceive
    the grandiose risk of permanent internal psychological conflict
    has proven less productive than integration of composites, not
    resolution of opposites.  In short: R & L brain synchronicity.
    
    I rather doubt anyone can fault this religiously or otherwise.
    

    
    re -.1
    
    Any clue as to how this will be achieved ?
    
    Gil