Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    Re:0
    
      All *Sounds* good, BUT, if you want TRUE Love  and TRUE healing,
    whether it be spiritual or physical... JESUS CHRIST IS THE WAY!!
    
    For God so loved the world (That means YOU!), that he gave his only
    begotton son  that whosoever believeth in HIM (Jesus Christ) shall
    not perish, but they shall have EVERLASTING LIFE! Eternity with
    God OUR creator. Isn't that GREAT!!??!
    
    Lorenzo
    

    
    Yes, Lorenzo, the way, but not the means....
    
    Guy

    Re:.3
    
     Anyone can Error  by NOT KNOWING the scriptures. I can assure you,
    that I won't be playing tennis; I can also assure you  that, the
    only time I personally will be at the right hand of the father,
    is in judgement  when he separate his sheeps from the goats (And
    I'm not speaking of animals!).  If you will. I highly recommend
    you to search the scriptures for yourself, and not just take someone's
    word.  Study the bible for yourself.
    
    Lorenzo
    

     re: .-1
        
     The Bible, nice piece of literature, as is the Koran, the Bagdivad 
     Gita, the Upanishads, the Illiad and the Odessey... and a miriad of 
     other mythological writings.  

     Terry 

     whos_not_knocking_the_bible_or_anyone_rather_just_wants_to_point_out
     that_there_are_lots_and_lots_of_ways_to_growth - pick_one_and_you've
     limited_your_possibilities

    
    Or stick to one and do it right...
    
    Guy

    
    
    RE: the last several....
    
    Lorenzo can walk the path he so chooses, and none of us can say
    that it is the wrong path for him.  I would ask, however, Lorenzo
    that you could qualify your note to read in a way that presents
    your path as a choice that others can make if they so desire.
    Your statement is presented as absolutely the only way, which many
    in this conference don't accept.
    
    Carole

RE.-1   

Carole thank you for saying that and I agree with you.  

BUT, I wonder if Lorengo got the hint.....;^)

    Re: .1 and .4?  (Lorenzo)

         I deleted my other two notes because it obviously caused
    a couple of people some problems.  Somehow, Lorenzo, the effect
    I allow you to have on me never seems to be a pleasant one.  I
    will not be bull-dozed by what I consider an attempt (however
    disguised) at domination, so I will respond.        
         I realize you are well-intentioned, however else you may
    be.  But what you wrote reminds me of a conversation I had several
    years ago with a "born-again" Christian (who, as a result of the
    conversation, later gave me a "gift" [read, manipulation] of
    a Bible.)  That conversation included my asking her what heaven
    meant to her.  She responded (painfully ignorantly) about how
    heaven would be being with friends and playing tennis "everyday"
    for eternity.  Can anyone imagine anything more boring than
    hanging out on a tennis court for eternity?  And all those people
    who expect to hang out at the "right hand of the *Father*" for
    eternity...what do you do about the 4,798,897,692 other similar
    Christians who are standing between you and the *Father*?  Sort
    of presents a bit of a logistical problem, doesn't it?  
      
        For your information, I spent nearly three decades of life
    as a Catholic, and a mostly "good" one.  I not only studied Catechism
    through twelfth grade, but was an altar boy and was later 
    president of a branch of the Young Christian Movement (a national
    group in the late '60s.)  Clearly, Catholics don't usually spend 
    much time reading the Bible, since the sheep in them usually follows
    the shepherd of the "Holy See" (i.e., Catholics follow Rome and the
    Pope.)  But Catholics *do* have some awareness of the Bible, thank
    you very much!  Moreover, the Bible was assigned to me in my 
    Freshman English class at the University of Maryland.  So I
    got an extra dose.  Lorenzo, I've seen and heard enough of the 
    Bible to last me all the lifetimes I've had.  I consider the
    Bible, and especially its interpreters, socially irresponsible,
    for the most part.  And the followers of the interpreters (the
    goats?) I see as sheep (no different than the sheep I outined above.)

         For the most part, Lorenzo, the participants of this conference
    have already investigated what you are holding onto, and have not
    been satisfied with what it has to offer.  Obviously you are free
    to cling to that past, but you shouldn't be surprised if we don't
    welcome your old, limited (in my mind) ideas with open arms (speaking
    entirely for myself.)
         So, ah, no thanks, Lorenzo, I reject your mission.
     

    Frederick
    

    
    Well, *I* haven't given up on the Bible.  I haven't checked it out
    and decided that it doesn't work.  But I've got some other things
    to do first....
    
    Guy

    RE:10
    
      And, what exactly did you investigate? What am I into?
    
    Lorenzo
    

    Re: .1 (Lorenzo Jefferson)
    
    In my humble opinion Lorenzo, your tact is lacking quite a bit. I'm not
    sure what your intention is, but it seems to me that it is quite
    discriminating, against women in particular.
    
    I refer you to the following passage in 'The Spiral Dance' by Starhawk,
    which describes some of the meaning of what I am saying:
    
    "Male images of divinity characterize both western and eastern
    Religions. Regardless of how abstract the underlying concept of God may
    be, the symbols, avatars, preachers, prophets, gurus, and Buddhas are
    overwhelmingly male. Women are not encouraged to explore their own
    strengths and realizations; they are taught to submit to male
    authority, to identify masculine perceptions as their spiritual ideals,
    to deny their bodies and sexuality, to fit their insights into a male
    mold.
    
         Mary Daly, author of 'Beyond God The Father', points out that the
    model of the universe in which a male God rules the cosmos from outside
    serves to legitimize male control of social institutions. ''The symbol
    of the Father God, spawned in the human imagination and sustained as
    plausible by patriarchy, has in turn rendered service to this type of
    society by making its mechanisms for the oppression of women appear
    right and fitting.'' The unconscious model continues to shape the
    perceptions even of those who have consciously rejected religious
    teachings. The details of one dogma are rejected, but the underlying
    structure of belief is imbibed at so deep a level it is rarely
    questioned. Instead, a new dogma, a parallel structure, replaces the
    old. For example, many people have rejected the ''revealed truth'' of
    Christianity without ever questioning the underlying concept that truth
    is a set of beliefs revealed through the agency of a ''Great Man'',
    possessed of powers or intelligence beyond the ordinary human scope.
    Christ, as the ''Great Man,'' may be replaced by Buddha, Freud, Marx,
    Jung, Werner Erhard, or the Maharaj Ji in their theology, but truth is
    always seen as coming from someone else, as only knowable secondhand.
    As feminist scholar Carol Christ points out, ''Symbol systems cannot
    simply be rejected, they must be replaced. Where there is no
    replacement, the mind will revert to familiar structures at times of
    crisis, bafflement, or defeat.''
    
    In closing, be careful of what you say, it may come back to haunt you,
    and by all means, keep an open mind!
    
    Regards,
    
    Sergei
                                    

    
    
    Hey, better to just leave it alone.
    
    Larry

    Re:14
    
      I think it would be better to take .15's advice.
    
    I don't have to be careful for nothing; but in all things through
    prayer & supplication, making my request known unto God.
    
    
    Lorenzo
    

    Just a note of caution to those who are tempted to jump in here.
    I've had to return 2 notes already due to violation of the conference
    guidelines because of inappropriate language.                          
                                                                           
    If you disagree, do so in a courteous, respectful way. Bashing, by one 
    side or the other is not going to be tolerated. 
                                                                           
        - Bill Keefe (moderator)                                            

    RE. .8,.9,& .10
    
    Lighten up here a little bit you guys! Don't let this guy get you
    SO worked up.
    
    Lorenzo is a person extolling the virtues of the road,path he is
    taking that is working for him. ALL he is doing is advertising
    the road that is sucessfull for him. At least thats the way his
    replies read to me. I was an altar boy as well Frederick, yet I
    don't take Lorenzo's replies as "an attempt at domination" or
    "bulldozing" me down a road I don't care to take. Personally, I'd
    much rather attend a Laz workshop than go to church on Sunday
    but until such time as I can afford to travel, or Lazaris shows
    up in Phoenix all I can do is read the books, notes in this conference
    and tapes when I can find them.
    
    Why does someone praising the fact that the road he's on works for
    him gets you guys so riled up??
    
    There are alternatives to letting him "get your goat".
    

    Lorenzo - I believe in God and Jesus Christ.  I also believe equally in 
    other spiritual leaders, teachers, and healers, some of which were 
    mentioned in other notes, by way of personal study and experience.  One 
    common observation I have made is that the Holy Spirit expresses Itself 
    through ALL of these different paths.  Any attempts by you or I or anyone 
    else to bound it strictly within one teacher or one religion result in 
    spiritual self-impoverishment and in the "ultimate" act of 
    self-deception.
    
    Good luck on your tennis game.  But heck, I guess you don't need it. 
    You've got the rest of eternity to perfect your back-hand. 
     
    Karen
     

    One day Mother Hen came back from her morning
    walk. It was a beautiful day and she was
    looking forward to seeing all her little
    chickies who she loved, each and every one.
    But, when she reached the nest, she found some
    of them squeaking and clucking angrily at each other.
    Quietly she sat down and said to them, "...

    The trouble is I can't figure out what she did say.
    I thought this conference had cracked this problem
    *a long time ago*.

    I feel sad. 
    
John.    

    
    
    Hi John,
    
    I find that this kind of exchange happens in cycles.  For one
    reason or another something said sets something else off.  If
    it can be worked through, then the cycle begins to shift and
    change.  We actually have made quite a bit of progress here
    in this conference - the cycle is loosing its velocity and
    emerges once in a while, with more time being added between
    each one.  Eventually it will fade away.
    
    I wanted to let you know that I felt your sadness...and also
    that all is well.
    
    Carole

Many people seem baffled, as well as surprised and hurt, by the heat in some 
of the preceding notes.  I can do nothing about the surprise and hurt, and I 
am no sociologist, but, as a possible remedy for the bafflelment, here is my
amateur analysis of the situation: 

I think Mr. Jefferson got such heated responses because, by using the words 
"but" and "true" in .1, he accidentally violated a custom of the conference, 
which could be summed up in the oxymoron "Thou shalt not forbid."  More 
particularly, it is against the custom of the conference to say that anyone's 
beliefs are wrong.

This is put forward most explicitly in 1.2, where the moderators say that 
remarks of the form "That statement is wrong" are unacceptable, and that 
remarks of the form "That activity is not proper/morally wrong" are 
unacceptable without the addition of "in my opinion."

True, Mr. Jefferson did not use those forms, but his use of the words "but"
and "true" strongly hint at those sentiments.  And the guideline against 
disagreement is felt emotionally, as well as observed formally.

Since he was clearly referring to Christianity, a belief well known to be at
odds with many of the beliefs in this conference -- and more so in its more 
conservative forms-- that just added weight to the implicit case against him.
I have noticed a similar heat against skeptics unless they keep up a very high
standard of discretion. 

In theory, statements such as "I think it is evil to try to foretell the 
future" are acceptable in this conference, but I think it likely they would 
provoke a certain about of the same heat.

Recurrences of these situations will decline as people catch on to the 
unstated extensions of the guidelines in 1.2 and either observe them or stop 
noting here.

Earl Wajenberg

    I can't resist.
    
    Reference Note 672.73, entered 31-Oct by AICAD0::DOLLIVER:
    
    	"On 30 October Mercury enters Scorpio for a stay until 17 November. 
    	With Mercury in Scorpio our communications can become imbued
    	with deep emotion.  Our mental position may be unwavering and
    	stubborn, and may be presented forcefully and relentlessly.
    	During this time we may become fascinated with thoughts of life
    	after death or other occult topics, and profound insights may
    	be revealed."
    
    and from the preceding paragraph:
    
    	"The way to maximize your growth during this new moon cycle is
    	to avoid clinging to your emotional baggae and allow Pluto
    	energies to destroy all unnecessary emotional attachments..."

A few comments:

Re: .10 (Frederick)

>    Obviously you are free
>    to cling to that past, but you shouldn't be surprised if we don't
>    welcome your old, 

Whose past is it?  His? Ours?  Do we really know any clear boundaries
for this?  I understand your frustration (I felt it too), but I don't
think this was a very nice thing to say.  The perception of "clinging 
to the past" (as well as sounding quite "negative") may be just a 
different view of one's present.  Are we really able to distinguish
these differences?  I think that viewing spiritual "progress" in a 
linear way can be trapping.

�Re: .20  (John)

>    I thought this conference had cracked this problem
>    *a long time ago*.

I would hope that this conference could offer everyone the opportunity
to explore and experiment, at any time.

Re: .21  (Carole)
    
>    We actually have made quite a bit of progress here
>    in this conference - the cycle is loosing its velocity and
>    emerges once in a while, with more time being added between
>    each one.  Eventually it will fade away.
    
Hmmm...well, we probably won't be here anymore before these cycles
would stop in the conference.

Re: (General)

I hope people in this conference are not coming to agreements about
everything because then I would think we had tunneled ourselves
into a neat little hole of our own making.

It's very easy for us to push our own ideas, as some might perceive
that Lorenzo does...but perhaps we do it in much more subtle ways 
(by some vantage points).

I think it's valuable to offer people other perspectives.  But if
you don't find value in going over something that you feel you have 
gone over enough...you can always hit NEXT UNSEEN and let the 
people who want to go over it, go over it.

Jerri

    
    I don't necessarily agree with what Lorenzo has to say, especially with
    regard to what he has mentioned about women in the church hierarchy, 
    but I'm glad that here he has the freedom to say it (as long as it doesn't 
    violate company policy, of course).  
    
    As Carl Sagan said at a talk I attended recently, "What good is having
    free speech if nobody talks?"
    
    And besides, 'tis better to know exactly who and what one is dealing
    with and what better way to see the clearest picture than in an open 
    environment?
    
    Cindy 

    
                      Remember to
                      
                             L  O  O  K 
    
                                    for the DIVINE in everyone
    
                          as
    
                      We ARE ALL  " O N E " !
    
    
    In Light and Love,
    Zeffel