Conference hydra::dejavu

Bill,

While I take no offense at your asking this question here, I wonder how
I would be recieved if I placed a similar note in a religion notesfile.


>   Hello everyone,
    
>   I have a question to ask those in this notes file. Why do you choose
>   to follow and/or do the the following;
    
>                              Praying   
>                              Penance     
>                              Priests  
>                              Fundamentalism
>                              Baptism      
>                              Votive candles
>                              Bible Study
>                              Bingo 
>                              etc..
    
>   As a pagan I do not follow or practice these as they are against my
>   beliefs. I do not wish and am not condeming anyone who practices these
>   things, but am woundering why someone would choose to do these rather
>   than follow one's own heart.
     

Everyone interprets 'God's will' differently. Indeed, everyone interprets
'God' differently. I personally believe there is no answer to your
question. Its like asking 'why do you wear your hair like that' or 'why
do you listen to that music and not this music'. People do the things
that are most comfortable for them, whether the reward is in this life or
the next life. Everyone follows their heart, or at least they should ;')

Jay

      I am sure that each person has their own individual reasons.

    I can speak only for myself, I was brought up Catholic and

    until I reached the latter years of high school I used the

    Bible ( new Testament ) as a guide to right and wrong and what

    God wanted. In what was a very painful process I started 

    questioning my faith. I could not accept the idea of eternal

    punishment for sinners. Surely I was not move forgiving than

    God. Why didn't God help the sick and suffering, These and

    other questions plagued me. Deep inside I started to feel

    that many teachings were not true. Leaving the faith left

    a large void in my life and I started searching for the truth.

    I still strongly wanted to know the context of my (our) existence.

    When you search for something you find that you try many

    things and go many places.I hope this helps answer your question.

       I used to say many different prayers, now I have only one. 

   May what is good come to pass.

                       George Ducharme
                    

    

re: .0

    In my case, for the same reasons you follow Christianity.  To get closer
    to God/Goddess/All-That_Is and to learn how to Love unconditionally.

    Terry

    Re .0 (Bill):
    
    Brother, there are lots of folk who use this Conference.  You asked
    why folk "follow and/or do" a number of practices:
    
                               >Channeling
                               >Soothsaying
                               >Meadiums
                               >Spiritualst
                               >Card reading
                               >Crystals
                               >Witchcraft
                               >etc..
                                
    Some of the items in your list are addressed in the Bible; others
    aren't.  There are specific strictures against witchcraft, dealing
    with spirits, and various forms of prognostication.  In a JudeoChristian 
    perspective, the reasons for this fall into two overlapping categories
    -- 1) the magic-related ones that require dealing with spirits;
    and 2) the futuretelling ones that encroach on one's free will.
    Perhaps the densest concentration of these can be found in Deut
    18:9-12, which I will supply below with discussion:
    
    "When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth
    thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those
    nations.  There shall not be found among you any one that maketh
    his son or daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination,
    or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.  Or a charmer,
    or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
    For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord:
    and because of these abominations, the Lord thy God doth drive them
    out before thee." 
    
    The point being made is that in the lands the Israelites are about
    to conquer, the culture has certain practices that the Israelites
    were told not to take up.  A point on the categories:
    
    "Maketh his son or daughter to pass through the fire," seems to
    be a reference to the practice of sacrificing children to a god
    by throwing them alive into flames (see Moloch).  "Divination" nowadays
    means "futuretelling in general"; in those days, it seems to have
    included "consulting the oracles of Pagan gods to learn of the future."
    An "observer of times" was a judicial astrologer.  "An enchanter"
    was what we'd call a hexer.  A "charmer" was one who made amulets
    and the like for clients.  A "consulter with familiar spirits" was
    one who trafficked with spirits that would form a relationship with
    him or her.  A "wizard" seems to have meant what we would now call
    a "high magician," or possibly a "black magician."  A "necromancer,"
    though nowadays treated as synonymous with "magician," actually
    meant (and technically means) "a consulter with spirits of the dead
    in order to learn of the future."  All of these were practiced in
    the Middle East in those days (and some still are), and the Israelites
    were being warned to keep their religious and moral practices intact.
    
    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," is one of the points of
    particular interest in such discussions.  What it means is that
    since witches reject Jesus as savior, they aren't supposed to take
    part in religious ceremonies (e.g., the Eucharist), since Jesus
    is the Way to Life Eternal; too often the phrase has been taken
    to mean "Execute witches."  This misunderstanding led to the deaths
    of many innocents, mostly in Europe, but also in the North American
    continent, during the various witch trials.
    
    >...... [I] am woundering why someone would choose to do these rather
    >than follow God's will.
     
    Well, to a nonJudeoChristian, who may not believe in the truth of the
    Bible (or parts thereof), it isn't clear that these practices _are_
    against the will of whatever they pray to.
    
    Finally, there are items (you mentioned crystals) that aren't touched
    upon one way or the other in Scriptures.  And others seem approved,
    such as interpretation of dreams (e.g., Gen 40:5-13, Matt 1:20-25),
    certain forms of astrology (e.g., Matt 2:1-10), and illusory magic
    (Exo 4:2-8).  
    
    The purpose of this Conference is to discuss paranormal things;
    not everybody agrees on religious matters; here we simply "agree
    to disagree" and continue discussions.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Hi Bill (re: .0),

    well first I'll tell you why I 'read cards'.
    I'm using (or rather trying to learn to use)
    Tarot cards as part of a learning path. I'm
    trying to help the non-logical, subconcious
    part of me to express itself. The work I do
    is *very* logical (I hope :-)) and I feel I
    need something as an antidote. I mean,
    Tarot *logically* CANT work can it!

    Secondly, I hear you say God's will but it's
    Bill who says this. Unfortunately, that's not
    a very great authority in my eyes. The bible
    (is that your authority?) was written by human
    beings - not by God (except in the sense that
    all beings *are* God in a certain way). So,
    unless God reveals to me God's will then it
    will remain another human being telling me
    what they think God's will is. And that I
    always take with 'a big pinch of salt'.

    And lastly, please don't be offended Bill, it's nice to have
    you in the conference. :-)
    
John D.

    re: .0 There are many ways of expressing one's personal beliefs.
           The methods that you mentioned are only a few of the practices
    	   that are in current use, anr there are probably lots of others
    	   that have been lost through the ages.
    
    re: .4 The correct quote should be "Thou shall not suffer a poisoner to
    live", from the original Greek and Aramaic versions of the bible.
    
    	  This deliberate mis-quote was introduced into the bible at the	
    	time of the fifth ecumenical council, when the bible was re-written
    	to be more 'politicaly correct'; that is to correspond with the
    	greedy wishes of the ruling governments and the then,slightly, less 
    	than all powerfull church. This mis-quote was directed at the Herbal 
    	Healers that were a part of any village at that time. Many people had a
    	fair knowledge of herbs and their medicinal uses, the then new
    	'scientificaly' trained 'doctors', who were becoming a political
    	force on their own, were not getting any money from the villages
    	that had herbal practitioners. Convincing the Ecumenical Council	
    	that these people were 'Witches' and flaunting 'gods laws' was only
    	a matter of sufficiently large "donations" foer the good of the
    	church. (sorry, damn these soapboxes get big, don't they)
    
    	The bible is an interesting glimpse into the past, unfortunatly it
    	has been perverted over the ages into something less than 'good'
    	and is to often misused to the detriment of the world in general.
    
    	(sorry again, the climd down gets a little tougher each time)
    
    		Go with peace
    
    		Bob Beecher
    

RE: .6 (Bob Beecher)
    
    > The correct quote should be "Thou shall not suffer a poisoner to
    > live", from the original Greek and Aramaic versions of the bible.
    
    The specific quote is, I believe, Hebrew, but it could be Aramaic.  In
    any case the word in question does *not* mean "poisoner" but means
    "an evil worker of magic, generally female".  Although clearly influenced
    by their beliefs in their choice of which English word ("witch" is purely
    an English word, remember) to use in the translation, there is no
    reason to suppose deliberate distortion.
    
    Keep in mind that it is close to a cultural universal to consider that
    there is a class of people who have "had intercourse" (sometimes
    sexual, sometimes only "social") with a spirit world neutral or
    inimical to the human world.  They therefore gain power and knowledge,
    which can be useful to the community, but they are also in danger of
    having their mind/soul bent and are therefore to be distrusted.  (If
    you don't believe that this is almost a universal, check out how
    Shaman's are treated by members of villages other than their own -- and
    by their own village when something goes wrong.  Also, for contrast,
    check out the image of the "mad scientist" in popular literature, film
    etc. in our culture).
    
    The passage in question refered to the Hebreic version of this belief,
    the translation refered to the British version.  Note, however, that
    a warning to avoid those who are "twisted" does not necessarily imply
    that all magic workers *are* twisted.
    
    					Topher

RE: .4 (Steve K.)
    
    "Maketh his son or daughter to pass through the fire," --
    
    It's not clear who was sacrificed to Moloch, if anyone -- though it
    is clear that the Hebrews found it useful to tell stories about the
    abominations practiced by their enemies.  Of course, there seems to
    have been some tradition of sacrificing ones children in Judaism, at
    least under exceptional circumstances, perhaps only as part of the
    pre-Temple "high-places" form of the religion.  This might therefore
    be seen as an admonition, not to avoid "foreign practices", but to
    avoid the "old practices" (which gave no power to priestly castes).
    Most of what we know about "high-places" Judaism is indirect --
    prohibitions against various practices, and from biblical stories about
    characters who were clearly practitioners of it, either because they
    were pre-Temple or because they came wandering into the city with the
    word of God after praying in the high-places.
    
    Another interpretation would be that this is in reference to puberty
    rites.  Many cultures have puberty rites involving fire -- including
    proving courage by leaping through flames or by ritual branding.  It
    would certainly be understandable for Jews to be forbidden to put
    there children through such foreign rites.
    
    						Topher

    Re .8 (Topher):
    
    >"Maketh his son or daughter to pass through the fire," --
    >
    >It's not clear who was sacrificed to Moloch, if anyone -- though it
    >is clear that the Hebrews found it useful to tell stories about the
    >abominations practiced by their enemies. ...
    
    Whatever else, it'd fall into the category of non-Israelite practice;
    note it immediately follows " ... thou shalt not do after the abominations
    of those nations."  That sets the context.
    
    I find it instructive that when those who inveigh against things
    paranormal wish to justify their perspective Biblically, they'll
    start at Deut 18:10 and chop the quote halfway through Deut 18:12
    (before it points out that because the people of the lands worship
    other gods or perform these practices God will let the Israelites
    prevail).  Likewise, using Lev 20, when used for similar arguments
    generally restricts the citation to Lev 20:6; in the context of
    Lev:5-7, the meaning is _less_ an enveighment against practitioners
    of esoteric arts than it is a stricture of keeping one's religious
    practices intact.  [However, "wizards" is implicationally used in
    the "black magic" sense and "such as have familiar spirits" is as
    I discussed previously.]
    
    >Another interpretation would be that this is in reference to puberty
    >rites.  Many cultures have puberty rites involving fire -- including
    >proving courage by leaping through flames or by ritual branding.  It
    >would certainly be understandable for Jews to be forbidden to put
    >there children through such foreign rites.
     
    Particularly when the usual male-puberty rite of circumcision was
    moved up by the Jews to a week after the birth of a male child.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .7 
    	
    	I stand corrected, or sit at my terminal corrected. It is always
    pleasent to hear the various opinions and responses here. And please,
    pardon my soapbox.
    
    			Bob Beecher
    

    
    Bill,
    
      My reasons for doing what I do,whatever that may be:
    
      1.Knowledge
    
      2.Understanding
    
      3.wisdom
    
      4.curiousity
    
      5.spiritual growth
    
      6.helping others who are with me on this path.
    
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    .0   Bill,
    
    Thank you for your question!  I sense and appreciate your sincerity and
    good will.
    
    For me, "God" is a term used in the eye of the beholder.  Your question 
    is based on your concept and understanding of God.  You live your life
    according to your understanding of the "will of God," and naturally,
    you want to know why others do not see the glorious truth that you see,
    and do not choose the glorious truth that you know.  
    
    First, let me say I am happy for you -- for the peace of God that you
    have found in your life via Christianity.  Although I'm sorry if my 
    words in CHRISTIAN 833 inadvertenly offended you, I am trying hard to
    respect/honor the dignity of your spirituality.
    
    To answer your question, then ... Our understanding of "God" and "God's
    will" differs.  One is not necessarily better than the other.  Our
    relationships with the divine manifest in many forms.  The spirit of
    God can and does flow through us in different ways -- and, for me, this
    is a natural characteristic of the nature of God.
    
    I want what you want:  To remember and find my way home, to shatter the 
    illusion of separation, to get close to and connect and become one with 
    the divine forces of all that is (God).  For you, the absolute 
    authority that defines "God's will" is centered around the words of the 
    bible.   And I honor that.  But the bible is not the centerpiece of my 
    spiritual existence.  As someone who was raised as Christian, I do not 
    recognize the bible as the absolute will/word of God.  It is a useful 
    tool, but it is not absolute.  And it is not the only writing inspired 
    by the divine.  And holy writings, by themselves, are (for me) no 
    substitute for experiencing and living the holy spirit.
    
    At first glance, channeling and meditation (not to mention speaking in 
    tongues, burning incense, and baptism) can seem like a bunch of voo-doo.  
    However, these things can go hand-in-hand with our intensely personal, 
    private, and special spiritual experiences with the divine.  How do you 
    commune with God, and how have you experienced the holy spirit, Bill?  
    Through prayer?  Does God communicate with you?  Do you communicate
    with Him?  The sanctity of each of our personal spiritual experiences 
    is special indeed.  The more I experience, the more "live and let live"
    rings true.
    
    Thanks for your questions and welcome.
    
    Peace brother,
    Paul
    

RE: .12 (Paul)
    
    Remember, "voo-doo", however badly it has been stereotyped and
    misunderstood, is also, for some, a legitimate spiritual path.
    
    					Topher

    re .0
    
    I am a Christian.  I'm here.  I sense no contradiction.
    You apparently do.
    
    Richard

    toche' to you all for some poiniant (sp?) replyies...
    
    I am just miffed by these people :-o who consider themselves the true
    and divine ones and everything else outside of their manufactured 
    beliefs is evil or devil work. (ok I'm the guy who entered 1228 above).
    
    ok ok..."manufacutured" may not be an accurate word here but what is?
    
    What happened to mutual respect for others?  what happened to
    compassion?  love?  acceptance?
    
    I am really bothered by .0's intolerant, blind and ignorant mentality
    (ok I said it - now do you wipe out my reply????)
    
    -hopes of a better humanity (what a joke!)
    
    joe perry.

Bill,

How do you know god's will ?

Svein

    
    Paul  .12
    
    Paul thank you for your welcome.
    
    No need to feel sorry you did not offened me in note 833.
    
    Have I experanced the Holy Spirit? Yes I feel His presance when I'm
    praying, working, where ever I am.
    
    Cummune with God - I talk with God all day, I talk to God as I would
    to my father (which He is) and as a friend (which He is).
    
    God does answer all prayers.
    
    Channeling, mediums, wichcraft is against God will.
    
    2 Kings 21:6          Also he made his sons pass through the fire,
    practice soothsaying, used witchcraft, and consulted spiritist and
    meadiums. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him
    to anger.
    
    Deuteronomy 18:10-12    There shall not be found amoung you anyone
    who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who
    practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens,
    or a sorcerer.
    or one who conjures spells, or a meadium, or a spiritist, or one who
    calls up the dead.
    For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord.
    
    re; .14
    
    Richard, you say you do not sense any contradiction. In regards to
    the above practices, yes I do see a contradiction.
    
    re; 16
    
    Svein, you ask how I know the will of God.
    
    I know God's will by reading/studying His word, praying and guidance from
    the Holy Spirit. God's word (the bible) tells us what and how we should 
    act, as well as what we should and should not do. God's word also shows
    us the way to salvation and helps us to know Him.
    
    I hold the bible as the infallible word of God and is the final
    authority in all matters of faith.
    
    I'm glad people are looking for spiritual things and that they know
    there is more than just material thing in the world. I do disagree on
    paths some are taking though.
    
    It's not my intension to point a finger, I care for others and want
    them to find God, we all come to God in different ways, but find our
    salvation through Jesus Christ.
    
    Peace to all
    Bill

    
    re: .15 (Joe P.)
    
    But Joe, you're forgetting that to a person who does not believe in,
    say, crystals, that *crystals* may seem manufactured.
    
    And here we get into the whole idea of judgement and love thy neighbor
    and some real subjective stuff.  We simply have to let go of whatever
    our neighbor may be doing.
    
    re: .17 (Bill)
    
    How do you go about speaking with God?  Do you channel him?  I don't
    imagine that you think of communicating with God in this way, but 
    you must realize how it appears to others - and from this you must
    realize that you cannot say what is right for another based on out-
    ward appearances.
    
    I hear you saying something akin to what Jesus said right up to 
    the crucifixion.  He said that he was the Son of God.  And since
    that was blasphemy, he was crucified.  What I hear you saying is
    not dissimilar.  Like you, Jesus refused to compromise his mode of
    expression (his individuality) and was therefore misunderstood.
    
    This is just my opinion, Bill, and I don't intend to offend.
    
    Welcome to DEJAVU.
    
    guy

    .13 Topher
    
    Right -- and I realized my less-than-thoughtful use of the word "voodoo" 
    a few minutes after I sent my reply!  I know that practices I/we do not
    understand *can* be a legitimate spiritual path for others (just as my
    spiritual path is legitimate regardless of Bill's difficulty in
    understanding it).  My intent was to show that certain spiritual
    manifestations that we do not understand, can on the surface cause
    feelings of irrational fear and disgust.  And irrational fear of the 
    unknown can cause judgement and condemnation.
    
    So... I stand corrected.
    
    Paul
    

re.17
Unless you happen to be Jewish .....
-j

    Re .17 (Bill):
    
    Anent the quotes (2 Kings 21:6 and Deut 18:10-12), the first of
    them is derivitive of the second.  I covered the second in response
    .4 of this note.
    
    >............... God's word (the bible) tells us what and how we should 
    >act, as well as what we should and should not do....
     
    I cannot dispute that.  But it's important to understand the symbolism
    as well as the words.  For instance, Lev 19:26 says, "Ye shall not
    eat any thing with the blood; neither shall ye use enchantment,
    nor observe times." ["Enchantment" = "hex anyone"; "observe times"
    = "cast personal horoscopes."]  This seems pretty clear, and suggests
    very strongly that negative magical acts or subverting the concept
    of free will [note to my friends who are astrologers: the "impel
    versus compel" discussion we can hold elsewhere, if desired; I'm
    addressing this in a cultural-practices standpoint] are things
    displeasing to the Lord.
    
    However, Lev 20:27 states, "Ye shall not round the corners of your
    heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."  That states
    rather plainly that neither haircuts nor beard trims (not to mention
    shaves) are allowed.  Does this _really_ mean that all men who visit
    barbers are raising the anger of God by so doing?
    
    Here's a quickie test:
    
    Is the following an act that would anger God?
    
                        RITE TO PREVENT DISEASE IN A HOUSE
    
    A practitioner can prevent the return of a plague in a house by
    procuring two birds, cedar wood, scarlet herb, and hyssop.  The
    practitioner should take these, along with an clay or china vessel,
    to a stream.  There, the practitioner should kill one of the birds
    holding it inside the vessel while the vessel is held over the running
    water.  The blood of the slain bird should be kept in the vessel;
    and the wood, herbs, and the living bird should be dipped in that
    blood.  These should then be dipped in the running water.  The house
    should be sprinkled with the blood of the dead bird, and with some
    of the running water.  The practitioner should perform the sprinkling
    seven times; and the bird that is still living, and the wood, and
    the herbs, should be brought into the house.  Then, the practitioner
    should take the living bird to open fields removed from where the
    house is and release it.
             
    Answer on the other side of a formfeed.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    While this sounds like a Medieval witchcraft rite, it's a slight
    paraphrase of Lev 49-53, with "practitioner" taking the place of
    "priest."  The point is that for many practices, whether, in the
    JudeoChristian context, it's proper or not is a matter of intent
    and circumstance.
    
    SK

    Okay, it seems to me that Mr. Wooldridge was being a little inflamatory
    or a little uninformed when he asked why some noters in this file do
    things that are against the will of God.  (The multitudinous answer
    being that they do not believe the will of God to be what Mr.
    Wooldridge does.)  
    
    Here's a second, different question: Several people, for example I
    believe Mr Cioto, have held up a pantheistic philosophy as their
    belief and proclaimed it no better or worse than the monotheistic
    philosophy of Christianity.  
    
    But pantheism and Judeo-Christian monotheism contradict one another.
    They appear to be incompatible; at most, only one of them can be true.
    How can they be of equal value unless they are both false?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Welcome to Dejavu Bill...rubbing shoulders with witches, pagans,
    mediums, channelers, astrologers, ex-hippies and above all
    middle aged lucrative yuppie peacemakers your own horizons can
    be broadened on your spiritual path. 
    
    So if we keep the negative spirals down to a minimum, and keep
    the evangelizing and oneupmanship to a low level of obnoxious
    radiation...we won't wearout our positive vibe meters, and
    everything should just be jolly!
    
    We try harder cause we care!
    
    Regards,
    
    -Arthur "Just Twisting with Jesus and Waltzing with Buddha"
    
    

    
    re: (Earl W.)
    
    Do you really want an answer?  :-)
    
    Who says they are equal?  And even if they are, why must they both
    be false?  In my view, the nature of God is not either black OR white,
    or good OR evil - it is all things..........
    
    guy

    Re .23 (Earl):
    
    >Here's a second, different question: Several people, for example I
    >believe Mr Cioto, have held up a pantheistic philosophy as their
    >belief and proclaimed it no better or worse than the monotheistic
    >philosophy of Christianity.  
    >
    >But pantheism and Judeo-Christian monotheism contradict one another.
    >They appear to be incompatible; at most, only one of them can be true.
    >How can they be of equal value unless they are both false?
     
    Well, the difference between philosophy and religious belief is
    a factor, I suppose.  Some, in fact, tried to encompass both min
    a hierarchy (e.g., Fludd's _Utrusque Cosmi Historia_, or, fictionally,
    Lewis' Perelandra trilogy).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re .22 (me):
    
    >While this sounds like a Medieval witchcraft rite, it's a slight
    >paraphrase of Lev 49-53....
     
    That should have read "Lev 14:49-53."
    
    What's a couple of numbers between friends?  :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Reply: .23
    
    If logic circuits are set on Black/White or Good/Evil mode there
    is no answer to your question as far as I am concerned.
    
    Making an adjustment to the logic circuits to encompass a wider
    field towards more non-reactive, non-judmental modes of perception
    towards data, might aid in resolving a solution to the current
    setting of your logic dial.
    
    Try the Rainbow Setting on the Logic Dial...it's much more colorful!
    
    Hope this helps....
    
    "As Always....In My Own Way!"
    -Arthur
    
    

SET OPINION=ON

SET SYMBOLIC_BICKERING=OFF

All words are nothing but symbols, no matter what the context, no matter 
what book they comprise.  The Word of God, to use Christian terminology, 
cannot not be expressed in more words; it is expressed, progressively, 
in our life expression.

None of the writings of any of humanity's religions symbolize everything 
that is the wholeness that makes up Life.  Yet *all* of them symbolize 
portions.  The great religious traditions of the world arose in different 
cultures and different circumstances, but all with the goal of bringing 
man closer to God.  They all have value.  No one of them is better than 
the others, and no one of them is right for everyone.  Nor is the 
expression of divinity dependent on beliefs or a specific recognized 
religious structure.  

Our company is a whole which is greater than the some of its parts.  It 
would be absurd to think that one department in the company is more 
important than another, simply because the details of its tasks are 
different. It isn't even "bad" that the tasks of one department may seem
opposed to the tasks of another.  *All* departments have *one* primary 
goal, and that is to support well-being of the whole.  It would also be 
inappropriate for us to judge the tools others use to fulfill their 
tasks unless we have the same task.  This would be comparable to a 
software developer telling a metal stamper that he/she should be using a 
particular compiler... what sense does it make?

This is also the nature of God.  We are all different, and it really is 
okay that some of us have different "jobs."  In the long run we will 
learn that we will never realize the complete puzzle until we acknowledge 
and respect each of the parts.  And we are deluding ourselves if we 
think that our "job" or "department" is the only one for the "salvation" 
of the company.

What is important is that we live our lives according to our highest 
aspirations.

Jeff

    RE: .29
    
    Thanks Jeff, that was excellent and eloquently put!  
    
    Susan
    

    .23
    
        "They appear to be incompatible.  Only one of them can be true.
         How can they be of equal value unless they are both false."
    
    Hmmm.  We see sure do see things differently!  
    
    I want to make several points about this:  
    
    IMO, you seem to be confusing the concept of "spiritual paths" with the
    concept of the constant Truth -- All That Is or "God," which is a state
    that transcends words, symbols, theories, philosophies, and our conscious 
    man-made models, such as pantheism and monotheism.   There need not be 
    one and only one path for ALL in order to bridge the gap of separation
    between our selves and divinity.  The rituals and symbology and writings 
    and all the paraphernalia each of us uses -- or doesn't use -- in the 
    process of knowing/feeling what I believe is a purely indescribable state 
    of divine Oneness, are collectively just that:  a PROCESS.  One process 
    cannot negate another or be deemed "better" or "worse" than another.  
    They simply are.  Hence when you refer to a pantheistic model of truth,
    as opposed to a monotheistic model of truth, these models, for me,
    become part of a process, or, if you will, part of our individualized
    paths/tasks.
    
    For me, our spiritual paths cannot be broken down into a simple
    all-or-nothing, black-or-white equations, or should I say programmable
    Boolean operations (truth tables).  I don't view reality that way.  
    
    When I say one is "no better or worse" than another other, it does not
    mean one is equal to another.  Our concepts of God and spiritual paths
    are not, as you say, "equal in value," when you compare mine with
    yours.  They are necessarily different.  However, they *are* "equal" 
    in the sense that yours is as valuable to you as mine is to me.  I think 
    the difference is important.  From here, then, it becomes easier to
    understand why one is no better than the other -- while they are unequal,
    yours would not be better for me and mine would not be better for you.
    (I hope this does not cause more confusion, since I am struggling here
    to put all this into words!)
    
    When many who subscribe to New Age philosophy -- whatever that REALLY
    means; I don't consider myself part of any group or category -- says
    "You have your concept of God, and I have mine,"  it is not intended to
    imply, harshly, that one of us is WRONG.  It simply means that, based
    on the stuff I just mentiond, neither one of us HAS to be wrong.  So...
    if you leap beyond your existing model of logic, perhaps you will come
    up with TT output, instead of TF or FT or FF.  Just a suggestion! 8-)
    
    Peace,
    Paul
    

    .29
    
    Sorry...I forgot to congratulate you, Jeff, on a very effective and
    articulate entry.  Nice job!   I agree with the bulk of what you said.
    
    Paul
    

    re .17
    
    I personally am not bound by Levitical law.  I try to observe
    the "greatest commandment", and live in accordance with Micah 6:8,
    and also the passages concerning "true fasting" (which any
    Bibliolatrist can tell you is in book of Isaiah).
    
    Richard

    .17  Bill,
    
    Thanks.  Can you understand how those of us who do not share your view
    of the bible have difficulty dealing with your statement that you KNOW
    God's will -- not only as something good for you but ALSO as something
    good for us too???  I think this is instrumental to understanding some
    of the replies.  
    
    In the eyes of others, your understanding of "God" and "God's will" is
    just that -- yours.  Bill Wooldridge's.  You are a human being, like
    the rest of us.  And your innate ability to know God, know God's 
    intentions, communicate with God, pray to God, and discern truth from 
    evil deceptions, is in the final analysis no better or worse than anyone 
    else's.  Your statements about God's will give others in this conference 
    the impression that you, Bill Wooldridge, have the power to speak for God.
    Can you understand how this doesn't sit well with many of those who have 
    replied?
    
    In .0 you asked everybody why we are involved with many of the things
    you listed.  Are you truly interested in finding out?  Are you willing
    to say, "Please share more about your spiritual lives"?  Are you open
    to knowing more about us, or is your primary objective to state how 
    wrong our spiritual beliefs/practices are?  
    
    Regards,
    Paul
    

    
    Paul,
    
    It was not my objective to point a finger at anyone, but to help me
    under stand where others are coming from, as well as to get others
    to review what they believe. As I believe the bible is the word of
    God it tells me what and/or how to act, and to help to know God and 
    Jesus better. I can't always say that I know God's will, but somethings 
    in the bible are quite clear. As for speaking for God, I can not do, but 
    I can repeat His word from the bible. It is not up to me to juge anyone, 
    but God does want us to help others. Sometimes we may think something
    we are doing is right, but it could be wrong.
    
    If I have come across wrong I apologize.
    
    Peace,
    Bill

RE -1 (Bill)

>    It was not my objective to point a finger at anyone, but to help me
>    under stand where others are coming from, (...)

Out of curiosity, Bill: did it help?

I didn't answer yet. For me, I accept all those activities that you mention
as means, not all of them fit for me, to grow. Imagine it this way: God, in
His infinity, reveals himself through many facets to us. All of these facets
have limits, and thus do wrong at the fullness of God.

Each of us is attracted to some of the facets, and feels quite uncomfortable
with others. No more, no less. By *really* making use of the facets that we
are attracted to, we are all able to get a glimpse of the fullness of God.
As you are trying to do with the Bible. And it's great to see what comfort
it gives you...

Arie

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         ...so long as it is a path with heart.
    
    
    Bill,
    
    I am learning about some of the items on your list because this is the
    path that my life has offered me.
    
    Why do you wear the clothes you have on today?
    
    Regarding you most recent reply, I for one am very wary of people who
    offer "help" when I am not experiencing a problem.  It's been my
    experience that people who proffer unsolicited help are frequently in 
    far greater need of help than I am.  I do not believe that you have any 
    greater knowedge of God's will, especially as it pertains to my life, 
    than anyone else has (especially me).  I do not believe that the Bible 
    was meant to be taken literally. If that is what you choose to believe, 
    that is your choice.

    
    I think all the "items" you mentioned have to be considered as steps to
    better understand ourselves and to help us reach THE LIGHT...
    
    Go with Peace, Love and Light
    
    Albert
    

    Re .37 (Mary):
    
    >Regarding you most recent reply, I for one am very wary of people who
    >offer "help" when I am not experiencing a problem.  It's been my
    >experience that people who proffer unsolicited help are frequently in 
    >far greater need of help than I am. 
     
    In .35 Bill said:
    
    >................................... It is not up to me to juge anyone, 
    >but God does want us to help others. Sometimes we may think something
    >we are doing is right, but it could be wrong.
    
    IMHO, that's hardly the statement of a stiff-necked fanatic.
    
    >............................... I do not believe that you have any 
    >greater knowedge of God's will, especially as it pertains to my life, 
    >than anyone else has (especially me). 
     
    Again, in that response, Bill says:
    
    >........... I can't always say that I know God's will, but somethings 
    >in the bible are quite clear. As for speaking for God, I can not do, but 
    >I can repeat His word from the bible. 
           
    Which, while some members of this Conference might take umbrage
    at, is both sincere and humble.
    
    >..................................... I do not believe that the Bible 
    >was meant to be taken literally. If that is what you choose to believe, 
    >that is your choice.                          
     
    Which is a fair statement.
    
    Now, hearking back to something I said earlier:
    
    Not everybody here shares identical views.  The purpose of this
    Conference is to discuss and explore the paranormal.  When this
    topic was opened, Bill asked:
    
    >As a christian I do not follow or practice these as they are against
    >God will. I do not wish and am not condeming anyone who practices these
    >things, but am woundering why someone would choose to do these rather
    >than follow God's will.
     
    Okay, this was discussed at length, including the question if even
    all those items on the list did indeed oppose "God's will."  Please
    recall, folks, that many of us come from diverse backgrounds.  When
    someone in another note took umbrage to a slighting reference to
    "Voodoo," the reaction was to "share what you know" rather than
    mild hostility.  In a few notes some years ago, I was guilty of
    leaping "defensively" before looking, and I sincerely regret some
    words I made then; however, I've grown up a bit (I think) and now
    ponder more before committing ASCII characters to disk space.  
    
    To Bill:
    
    My brother in Christ, you are welcome here.  There _are_ diverse
    opinions here; and even some of the practices you've heard of have
    more complexity than you may be aware of -- yet.  In a broad valley,
    it's still possible to travel a narrow path while looking at the
    scenery on each side of it.  Not everything paranormal is _inherently_
    contrary to God's will, from what's been said even in Scripture
    (see my discussions in earlier responses).  
    
    To all:
    
    "Agreeing to disagree" also includes realizing when an impasse has
    been reached.  Let's go on with common and discussable areas of
    concern rather than painting ourselves into debaters' corners.
    
    In love,
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re: .39 (Steve):
    
    I did not call anyone a stiff-necked (or any other kind, for that
    mater ;-) fanatic.  I was responding to the "but God does want us to help
    others."  And I stand by what I wrote.  I am very wary of people who
    proffer unsolicited help.  However well-meaning it may be. I should add
    that I don't mean obvious situations where help is helpful (such as
    fixing a flat tire).  I'm referring to offers of "help" when I'm walking 
    along minding my own business.
    
    And while Bill did state that he doesn't know all of God's will, he
    still seems to suggest that the Bible is the only source of knowledge
    of God's will.  If that's what he chooses to believe, fine.  I happen
    to believe differently.  If that means that he chooses to believe that
    I am violating God's will when I read about or experience, say,
    channeling, that's fine too.  But I happen to disagree with him.
    
    Mary

    
    Arie,
    
    Yes I have learn't some from what I have heard sofare.
    
    Steve,
    
    Not everything paranormal is countrary to God. Yes I agree with you.
    
    Peace all
    
    Bill

    
    I hope no one minds if I repeat myself a little...
    
    Bill,
    
    Welcome to DEJAVU.  We ALL have a lot to learn from exploring each
    others views.......
    
    Let's hope we can ALL explore these views in a peaceful way......
    
    guy

Beneath or intermingled in this issue of what is or is not God's will, we 
have, I think, another issue about beliefs, a conflict of meta-beliefs, if you 
will.

On the one hand, we have the fairly ordinary idea that religious beliefs can
be true or false.  On the other, we have a species of relativism, the opinion
that one belief may be proper for one person, and another, incompatible belief
may be proper for another person.  The issue of which, if either, is true, is
regarded as irrelevant, undiscoverable, or betraying an inadequately binary
form of logic. 

Yes, I think there IS an impasse here.  The real catch is not different 
opinions about God, but different opinions about beliefs.

Earl Wajenberg

    But is logic binary?  Or are we making it that way?
    
    mary

     I have always thought you could learn a lot about someone  by  looking
     around their living quarters and their library.  If I invited you home
     with me, you'd see some books about a lot  of  subjects  and  lots  of
     memorabilia,  but mostly you'd find music books and instruments.  Does
     that tell you anything about me?

     If there is a God and I look  around  in  this  world  that  this  God
     created,  I  notice  one striking feature - variety.  Gads, variety to
     the nth degree!  What does  that  tell  me  about  God?   Now,  please
     explain to me why this God would only provide one path to knowing Her?

     Alvin

    Re .45 (Alvin):
    
    >......................................................... Now,  please
    >explain to me why this God would only provide one path to knowing Her?
                                                               
    Flip answer:  Because God is not Man.
    
    More in-depth answer: Knowing God may be a multilevel process (e.g.,
    the Qabbahalistic Tree of Life model); various religions have
    different approaches to this.  A tenet of some faiths (this is
    not restricted to Christianity) is that there is a single way to
    approach God in terms of salvation, eternal life, etc.  That humans
    do not agree on what that is is why there are multiple religions.
    There are few religions that say "all paths to God are equal";
    logically, therefore, no matter what religion a person subscribes
    to, that religion will seem a better (or only) path to God (the
    atheist assumes _no_ paths).
    
    While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a theological discussion,
    whether an in-depth airing of presumably enfixed opinions will be
    constructive or otherwise is itself open to opposing views.
    
    Anyway, "agreement to disagree" to me seems the best approach to
    this matter.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

>    .................................................. Why do you choose
>    to follow and/or do the the following...
    
>    ................................................... they are against
>    God will. 
>    ......................... why someone would choose to do these rather
>    than follow God's will.


     RE:  .46 (Steve):

     I believe I was answering Bill's question.  I put  a  lot  of  thought
     into my answer and did not intend it to be hostile.

     Alvin

    This business of my God is greater than your God is created through the
    followers of great incarnations - Moses, Guru Nanak, Mohamod, Jesus,
    Buddha....
    
    Its all distorted by human beings, by greed, power grabbing
    organizations.
    
    God is One, affirm the great religions teacher and the monolithic
    aspect of this unity is symbolized by the lingam of Shiva or the black
    Kaaba stone of Mecca.  However, seen under a microscope, a stone is
    bounded with the activity of trillions of atoms.  And in saying "God is
    Energy", we must remind ourselves that energy is convertible and may be
    used in manifold ways. Unity does not exclude plurality; a single human
    body contains hundreds of billions of cells, organized into the
    numerous organs to carry out many and diverse functions. The human
    being who dwells therein is even more complex; for instance, a male
    establishes many types of relationship, being a brother, father , son,
    husband, friend, citizen, soldier, king, manager, president, student,
    teacher, janitor... and so forth all at once.  In the same way, the idea 
    of the oneness of God does not imply that He only has one aspect or 
    attribute, or that He only exercises one function.  Shri Mataji Nirmala
    Devi, the founder of Sahaja Yoga, describes "Him who is omnipresent and
    omniscient, who controls all things, who is at once smaller than an
    atom and more vast thatn the Cosmos, He is infinitely more complex than
    Man in his manifestation while remaining perfectly integrated."  And
    "when the One started to manifest His multiple aspects, the Creation
    was set in motion."
    
    So, really we can not own Jesus Christ, or God Father, Allah in one
    organization.  We have to see clearly that all religions are the same
    one and that God is not contain in a small Bible, not beginning and not
    the end also.

    Re: .40, Mary...
    
>    proffer unsolicited help.  However well-meaning it may be. I should add
>    that I don't mean obvious situations where help is helpful (such as
>    fixing a flat tire).  I'm referring to offers of "help" when I'm walking 
>    along minding my own business.

    I think the problem here is that Bill (standing in 
    for a lot of other Christians) thinks that you do
    indeed have a 'flat tire'. And that if you would
    just believe in the way he does then everything would
    be hunky-dory.

    Those of us with a belief system which has a tenet 'other
    people are free to believe in what they want' have a
    major problem when they meet a group that doesn't
    believe that. (For example, I find it almost impossible
    to avoid long discussions with Jehova's Witnesses).

    Doesn't this eventually reduce itself to:
    "Bill believes there is only one way to God" as opposed
    to "there are many ways to god"? And ultimately that
    can only be resolved here by saying "in this conference
    both points of view are welcome".
    
John.

    .35  Bill,
    
    Thanks, and no need to apologize.  I would be curious to find out your
    specific impressions of the replies you have received.  You said you
    wanted to understand where others are coming from and to learn things 
    from the replies.  Specifically, what do you understand now about where 
    others are coming from?  What have you learned?
    
    Peace,
    Paul
     

    
    	To Bill in .35, as the religious beliefs of my fellow human beings
    	is a subject of great interest to me, I have on occasion gone
    	among them, to their services, places of worship, homes, etc
    	to discover their beliefs in detail and see how they implement them
    	in their lives. I studied with the Boston Church of Christ for
    	six months. The LDS Church (Mormons) for six. The NSA (Buddhists)
    	for about 3,(I get much feedback from them since several family
    	members are NSA Buddhists). I read about others, awaiting the 
    	time when life presents me with the opportunity to study more.
    	
    
    	In your beliefs, is it a sin to learn by exploration? Would you
    	be restricted from studying with a group of channellers or Wiccans,
    	or some such? You seem to have an interest in what others believe.
    	Would you not go to the "horse's mouth", as it were, to learn
    	about such beliefs? If not, why not. 
    
    	Because if all of your learning comes from
    	one church  or from one person, you will be getting that persons
    	view which may or may not be accurate. 
    
    Neal/B
                                               

    
    
>    	In your beliefs, is it a sin to learn by exploration? Would you
>    	be restricted from studying with a group of channellers or Wiccans,
    	or some such? 
    
    (By this I don't mean practicing channelling or witchcraft yourself,
    but simply going among them and learning about them as a study
    exercise.)
    Neal/B

    
    re: .0 (Bill)
    
    >Why do you choose to follow and/or do the the following;
    
    I 'do' crystals and other things because they help me heal.
    And right now, my healing is one of my top priorities.  I cannot
    help heal others (as a full time profession) until I have healed
    a bunch of stuff in myself.  Crystals help me heal.  Other more
    personal beliefs help me heal.  For that matter, my husband Michael
    helps me heal.  
    
    I don't (-> FOR ME <-) put the power of the universe in a god shaped
    box anymore.  For me, that limits the power (and I don't mean
    capitalistic, war monger type power ;-] .)  When I was a Christian
    I was directly healed by a priest who laid on hands.  I felt the power.
    It was fantastic.  That I no longer choose to bound that power in
    a traditional Christian form, in no way minimizes my experiences
    as a Christian and it in no way minimizes the strength of the power.
    I have merely shaken off the husk of traditional religion, 
    because it is too old and dried and lifeless and limited for me.  (*FOR
    ME*)  My path requires that I reach beyond, back to the earth mother,
    and who knows where else right now.  My 'purpose' (why I exist) is
    to heal.  Right now, myself, and others as our paths cross.
    
    That's why.
    
    in peace,
    
    alison
    

    
    re; .51
    
    Hi Neal/B
    
    I would not go to any channellers or Wiccans services for God has said
    this is wrong (the practice, of channalling and wichcraft).
    
    As far as talking to others there is no problem. God does want us
    to talk to others, to help others know that He loves them and wants
    them to be His children. Jesus tells us that we are to be the light
    and salt in the world.
    
    God has made us to worship Him and to have fellowship with Him.
    
    For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
    whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
    
                                          John 3:16
    All that I ask everyone is to keep seeking.
    
    As Jesus said in Matthew 7:7
    
    Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and
    it will be opened to you.
    
    In Him,
    Bill

    
    	
    
>    I would not go to any channellers or Wiccans services for God has said
>    this is wrong (the practice, of channalling and wichcraft).
 
    I did not say to practice it, but to go among them. Do you wish to
    learn why they do what they do, what it means to them in their lives?
    Or do you simply wish to evangelize them. Are you sincere in wanting
    to know what the spiritual lives of others are like? Or do you just
    seek to satify the ego by trying to get them to see things your way.
    
>    God has made us to worship Him and to have fellowship with Him.
 
    And many here are doing just that, and many there are who read the same
    scriptures you read and understand them in a different context.
    
>    Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and
>   it will be opened to you.   
  
    
    	And this is exactly what's going on in here. Has God really
    appointed you to be the judge of how we ask, what we seek, the 
    manner of our knocking?
    
    Neal/B_who_loves_Jesus_also!

    hey you guys lets get off the bashing here.....please.
    if you wish to assume that Bill is not as "far along" or "developed"
    spiritually as are the rest of us (I'm not attacking here) in Dejavu,
    then please realize what you are implying and let it go at that. You 
    have stated your case and he his. I think Bill is doing nothing more
    than practicing his religion to its fullest extent, so why must you
    try to make him realize our/your way is good,better,or best? I don't
    read his replies as attempts to pull us onto the right path, the only
    path, just a man stating what his true beliefs are.
    
    let's move on.....thank you for your support...as they say
    
    Ray k.
    

    
    RE: .56
    
    Hi Ray....I don't feel that there has been bashing here or that
    anyone is saying Bill is not as far along or developed spiritually
    as anyone else.  What the last few notes are asking is (IMO)
    
    	Bill...do you just want to know why people choose the
        paths that they do?
    
    	or
    
        Bill...do you want to know what the paths are about?
    
    These seem to me to be reasonable questions.  I went back and read
    .0 and to me it fits the first scenario, and Bill's latest response
    points to that also.
    
    So, IMO - if a person (Bill in this instance) wants to know why people 
    do what they do, than the people being asked have the right to know
    why the person is asking.  I get the impression (and I might be
    wrong) that Bill wants to know why people do things that he feels
    are against God's will.  I don't see a whole lot of purpose to that
    kind of question because Bill's mind seems to be made up that these
    things are wrong and people shouldn't be doing them.  Bill is not
    interested is knowing what the beliefs and practices are about
    (correct me if I am wrong here Bill), which to me is regrettable
    in that there are a lot of misunderstandings out there.  Oh well....
    onward we go.
    
    Regards,
    Carole
    

    I second .56.  It seems to me that Bill has been making perfectly mild,
    diplomatic answers and getting snapped at in return.  I get the
    impression that other noters have exactly the reverse impression of the
    exchange.  Sure highlights the limitations of noting as a
    communications medium, doesn't it?  Why don't we let it go at that and
    MOVE ON?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Hello everybody...
    
    Like Neal and Carole, I too am at a loss to understand why Bill is
    asking/saying some things, in particular, regarding "why we do the
    things we do" and "where we are coming from" and so forth.
    
    Please permit me to phrase all this in another way that might be
    helpful ... 
    
    Bill:  On the one hand, in .0 and elsewhere, you said you wanted to 
    know why some of us live our spiritual lives in certain ways, why we 
    have certain belief systems, and so on.  You also said you wanted to 
    learn something in the process.  
    
    On the other hand, you said you had no need to get to know us -- that
    is, no need to find out about and study our beliefs and spiritual
    lives/practices and no need to learn (from the horse's mouth) why we
    do/believe the things we do.
    
    Would you be willing to have lunch/dinner with one or more of us to
    find out what makes your brothers and sisters tick???  If you truly
    want to "know why" then let's share this stuff over dinner and get to
    know each other.  If not, that's OK, except could you explain why 
    you first say you want to know, and then say you do not intend to
    find out?  I am honestly confused. 
    
    Regarding your encouraging us to "seek" the truth...  How can you do this,
    unless you know what we have (or have not) already found?
    
    Peace,
    Paul                                
    

    
    Paul, 
    
    I don't mind meeting people and believe that we all should talk and be
    friends, but that does not mean that we will agree with one another.
    I am more than willing to meet others, but I can not agree to particapate
    in channalling or witchcraft or anthing that does not go/agree with
    scripture. Lunch/dinner would be fine but as I'm in Canada it would be
    difficult at best. As I believe the bible was inspired by God through
    the Holy Spirirt I will go by what it says and what the Holy Spirirt
    guides me to do.
    
    I think we all can at lest agree that we agree to disagree.
    
    Have a good-day all
    
    Peace,
    Bill

    
    Did anyone ever consider, that Bill has been led here by his God
    so that he can receive the seeds that will eventually lead to
    further growth and enlightenment?
    
    alison
    

  Actually, it occurred to me that maybe Bill was led here so that I
  could have an opportunity to see my own faults in my initial negative
  (conditioned, reflexive) reactions to his note. I've learned from this
  exchange that it's not what I (or Bill) believe that's important, but
  whether I react to what I perceive as negative stimuli with compassion
  and reason, rather than the lower forms of response which come almost
  automatically and uncontrollably. Thanks go to Earl and Bill for
  helping me to see this aspect of my behavior.

    
    As was said before, the conflict seems to be between those who feel
    that there is ONE way and those who feel that there are multiple and
    equal ways to spiritual growth....
    
    If we are to be a community of any kind here in DEJAVU we must accept
    our differences.  Truly expansive belief systems won't consider this
    a major stumbling block.
    
    guy

     I find this discussion pretty interesting, but, as I said  in  .47,  I
     spent some time phrasing the question I asked in .45 and I haven't got
     an answer.

     Alvin

    How does a single cosmology arise from two disparate points of view
    as in the views submitted for our approval, such as in note 1229
    regarding single or multiple paths to spiritual growth.
    
    Or can a single cosmology arise from this conflict?
    
    I believe it can.
    
    -Arthur
    

    yes but there still will be people who are bounded by the walls of
    their religion or some other set of beliefs who will continue to
    inquire in this forum. How can you expect/demand them to perform at
    your level of developement when those ahead of you have not expected/
    demanded that of you?
    
    If people inquire about your path, respond based on your experiences
    only NOT on why you think they're asking .Don't read between the lines.
    Many times they're testing your beliefs, and your reactions to this
    taunting tells them all they need to know. They succeed if they get 
    you down to their level.
    
    Children set their parents up this way every day, mostly for the same
    reasons. They live in a highly structured, regimented, rule laden world
    in terms of being responsible and making their own decisions (Creating
    their Own Reality) much like someone *boxed* in a one-way only path to
    God religion.
    
    As a parent you learn to control a situation with your child before
    they bring you down to their level where the head-banging begins.
    Instead of *allowing* a child to bring you to the point where you're
    so angry with them that you haul off and whale on them (and then have
    to live with the guilt of "losing your cool" you learn to set them 
    in "timeout" which gives you time to cool off and does NOT allow them
    the ATTENTION they are seeking.....even if its NEGATIVE.
    
    Sooooooooo.....set Bill in timeout till you cool off o.k.?
    
    In Light and Love
    I AM
    ALSO
    

    Re .45 (& .47 & .64):
    
    From my reading, it appears that looking at nature will teach people
    the lessons they have already decided to learn.  At least, it can teach
    disparate and even conflicting lessons.  One person sees the ecology as
    a subtle harmony of cooperation; another sees it as "red in tooth and
    claw."  One sees the inanimate world as hostile to life, another sees
    it as bursting forth with life at every opportunity.
    
    If you are captivated by the enormous variety of the world and see it
    as suggesting the variety of proper approaches to God, another
    might be captivated by the elegance, constancy, and rigor of natural law, 
    and see it as suggesting the unity, constancy, and rigor of the proper
    approach to God.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    We are following God's will.

     Great answer, Earl.  Thanx.

     I'm put in mind of the new Batman insignia  that  came  out  with  the
     movie  last  year.   The first time they saw it, some people saw a bat
     image enclosed in an oval.  Others, on open mouth with rounded  teeth.
     After  being told about this, most people can choose see it either way
     because, of course, it was an optical illusion whether or not one  was
     intended.

     And optical illusion would seem to be a fine analogy  to  answer  this
     quandary.

     I'm happy.  I hope Bill is too.

     Alvin

    Re.0             
     
    Hello Bill,
    
    Nice to see you here.  I've been really busy with night school,
    vacation (;^) and work, to have any spare time to peek into 
    CHRISTIAN in the last month or so.
    
    The words of a Beatles song came to mind while I was reading .0 and
    wading through the 68 replies.  It is:
    
    	"All you need is Love (da di da te da)
         All you need is Love (da da ti de de da)
         All you need is Love, Love,
    	 Love is all you need."
    
    Though my music generation was one of the '70's, I recall that this
    song was written after the Beatles had embarked on their own spiritual
    searches for Truth, the Way and the Light.  They did a fine job of
    getting to the heart of the matter, despite what you would call doing
    things 'against God's will'.  
    
    As for the things you listed (which will be addressed below), I always
    apply the two most important commandments to it, and if it goes against
    it, then I know it is 'not of God'.  
    
    Now for your original request:
    
    >I have a question to ask those in this notes file. Why do you choose
    >to follow and/or do the the following;
    
    >Channeling
    
    	I've had several friends channel, and I've been in the audience of
    	Lazaris (a channeled entity) 3 times now.  To me though, it isn't
    	the messenger, but the message.  Lazaris talks of God who is loving
    	and has never in any way denied Christ.  I perceive Lazaris to be
    	no different from my nextdoor neighbor in terms of a messenger, 
    	except he is not in bodily form.  We should continually test the
    	clarity and consistancy of the message, and I do this as a matter
    	of course (whether it be Lazaris, the President of the US, or my
    	nextdoor neighbor).  Blind belief is indeed a dangerous thing.
    
    >Soothsaying
    
    	Not sure about this one.
                               
    >Meadiums
    
    	I've never been to a medium, however many of my good friends
    	are mediums or have been to them, and I haven't noticed anything
    	terribly bad happen to them as a result. 
    
    >Spiritualst
    
    	Not sure about this one.
    
    >Card reading
     
    	Assuming this is Tarot, I've never had a reading done, but
    	wouldn't be adverse to this.  I've been at gatherings where
    	this was taking place though, and all was well.
    
    >Crystals
    
    	I have several crystals at the moment, and I can feel subtle
    	vibrations from them.  Some people cannot, however I'm one who
    	is sensative to this.  I can also hear sonic alarms in banks
    	when other people cannot, so I don't see anything particularly
    	unusual or bad about feeling crystal vibrations.  Some people
    	use them for healing.  Other people use aspirin.  Last week I
    	sprained my ankle and employed several methods of healing.  Among
    	them were:
    
    		- immersing the ankle in an ice bath for several hours
    		- injesting aspirin for the pain
                - placing an amethyst stone on one side, a rose quartz
    	          stone on the other side, and a single terminator quartz
    		  crystal pointed at the ankle in alignment with the stones
    		- asking God why it happened (and receiving an answer in
    		  the form of a few events 'coincidentally timed' shortly
    		  thereafter)
    		- asking friends for their good thoughts and prayers
    	          for a rapid healing
                - now wrapping it in an ace bandage and keeping it propped up
        	- when back in the US, having it x-rayed to make sure there
    		  were no fractures or breaks
    		- etc. (anything else left out)
    
    	In the end, I believe that all these things can coexist quite
        nicely.  Did I answer your question?  (;^)
    	
     >Witchcraft
    
    	I'm not involved with witchcraft directly, however have several
    	friends who are.  I'm concerned, though, that your definition of
    	this and my/my friends definitions of this are not the same, so
    	this might warrant further exchanges if you would like to know more
    	about this.
                   
      >etc..
    
    	Keep them coming.  I'll answer as best I can.
    
    May God/Goddess/All-That-Is bless,
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. As a suggestion for future requests or entries into this
        conference, prefacing your comment:
    
    	  >as they are against God's will.
    
        with
    
    	  *I believe* they are against God's will.
    
        might be more effective and make the other participants here
    	(especially those who have been sufficiently burned by 
    	a twisted version of Christianity while growing up) a lot less
    	defensive and more willing to talk with you.

    
    
    Hi Cindy, long time no hear. I hope you are well.
    
    As the song goes; We all need love,  Amen, and more we need Jesus in 
    our lives.
    
    
    
    Channeling, Meadums, Witchcraft
    
    I understand that you feel that Lazaris is not denieing Jesus and is 
    saying that God is loving, that is good, at the same time this spirit 
    is not saying that God has said we should not communicate with the dead 
    (2 Kings 21:2 and Deuteronomy 18:10-12).
    
    If a spirit can get someone to listen to it, even if it is not saying
    anything bad, it is still putting a riff between that person and God.
    Reason being that it is getting you to disobey God's word (scripture).
    
    I think it is always good to remember that Satan can apear as an angel
    of light.
    
    Witchcraft - I'm not talking about a Herbalist who deals in meadical
    herbs, just in case someone thinks I am.
    
    >> As suggestion for future request or entries into this
    >> conference, prefacing your comment:
    
    >> as they are against God's will.
    
    >> with
    
    >> *I believe* they are against God's will
    
    Thanks for the suggestions Cindy, 
    
    I will now use scripture (God's word), rather than 
    
    as they are against God's will.
    
    Peace,
    Bill

                
    Hi Bill,
    
    I do not believe that the bible is the infallible word of God, nor
    do I believe it is the last word in matters of faith.
    
    Rather, I feel that the bible is being worshiped today instead of
    God, and is used by certain people on Earth as a tool to control
    other people.
    
    There is much truth contained in the bible, no doubt about that.
    But it is only a book made of paper and cannot come close to containing
    Truth as Truth is.
    
    I hope you are not offended, I certainly do not intend any offense.

        I believe that somewhere in the bible itself, it says that the word
    of God is not contained in any object but is written on the heart
    of man. 
    
    Hebrews 8 
    
    	"This is the covenant that I will make
    	       with the house of Israel 
         after those days, says the Lord:
    	 I will put my laws into their minds,
    	 and write them on their hearts"
    
    Mary Stanley

    
    Hi Bill,
    
    I subscribe to the belief in reincarnation, so I don't view Lazaris (or
    any other disemodied entities - evil or good) as being dead.  Though
    Christ is no longer among us in body, He is with us in spirit, and
    people communicate with Him every day. 
    
    Satan does indeed mask as an angel of light, which is why I test all
    things to make sure that they do not go against the two most important
    commandments.  You feel that you should use scripture to a much greater
    degree than I do, and if it serves as a positive guide for your life,
    then that's great.  I would never try to dissuade you or anyone from what
    you believe in your heart is the path for you, especially if your works
    are benefitting humankind in a positive way.  As for your need to
    inform others of their deviations from what you believe to be true, you
    have done your job by saying what you felt necessary.  Please now trust
    God to take it from there, and if you would like to, pray that God
    guides us to ever show more Love in our actions toward the Earth and
    toward one another, for God is Love (I John something-or-other (;^),
    and therefore Jesus is also Love.
    
    May God bless,
    
    Cindy

    Bill,
    
    Could you please use different Bible citations from Deuteronomy
    18:10-12 and 2 Kings 21:2-6?  Neither of those say what you claimed
    in .71 that they said.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    Cindy, I sure do agree that God is full of love and more. How els
    could God have given His only Son.
    
    I believe that it is good to evaluate ourselfs every now and then to
    insure what we are doing is in line with the will of God. 
    Sometimes our heart and desires are not in line with the will of God
    and it is our desires that are speaking and not God.
    
    But as humans we can never be perfect, we do make mistakes and do sin or
    error. We just have to have faith in Christ and do the best to do what
    God wants us to do.
    
    Yes I will pray that God guides us all.
    
    In His light,
    Peace
    Bill
    

    
    Greeting Ann B.
    
    re; .74
    
    The scripture I used was to the point. 
    
    Please read .17
    
    Peace,
    Bill

Hi Cindy,
	Sounds like things have been hectic for you lately. If so, I can relate,
as My schooling, working, and interning is really hectic also.  Can I remind you
to take your own advice about prefacing statements with "I believe?" (;'>  

"Satan does indeed mask as an angel of light."

I understand that this is your belief.  I will throw one to Bill by stating that
I don't believe in Satan.  I believe that the idea of "Satan" is just an excuse 
to deny one's own responsibility for their own actions. 

Bill, You are still confusing your belief that the Bible is the unadulterated
 word of God with the fact that it might or might not be.  Your belief that it
 is a fact, does not make it so. On what grounds do you state that the Bible 
is the verified and true word of God?  Because it says so in the bible itself?
That is circular logic, not proof.  It is ok to believe that the bible is the 
accurate word of God, I guess, as long as the belief doesn't reduce one's
  
functionality in life, or prevent one from spiritual growth.  But in confusing
belief with knowing, one can end up living a very limited and constrictive 
life without really choosing to.
	I myself, utilize Numerology to help me understand things in my life.
  I don't depend upon it, absolutely. like you seem to do with the bible. It 
is not a weight chained to my leg, as the dependency on the belief in 
metaphysical sciences and even the belief in bible can be. When someone confuses
 belief with knowledge, the belief that one knows something(not provable) can 
eventually result in a serious personal crisis when that belief is no longer
effective.

And a more personal comment on my belief  concerning the bible:

As I shed the conforming fundamentalist view of the bible, my life has become
more and more effective, rewarding; perhaps even more spiritual, although that
is not my goal in life, but the result. In fact, I didn't realize how limited 
restrictive and depressing my life was as a classical Christian. Granted, I have
been adhering to my new philosophy for only about 7 years now, but my personal
 satisfaction  has steadily increased and each succeeding low point never
 reaches the previous low. Right now, my lows are about the level of my high
 points and i just keep climbing. Bill, you might be thinking that satan is just
taking me for a ride and will drop me off sooner or later (or something to that
effect.)  But Bill, I became the prodigal son and went out to explore this world 
on my own. I took the time to find out about the natural laws that God set into 
action when S/he created it. By utilizing these laws, i am in effect worshipping 
him/her, directly, not through the currupted mortal translation of some 
manuscripts written on parchment. And the payoff that S/he is providing is
magnificent(my belief). The prodigal son(me) returns with a deeper understanding 
and appreciation for God's work.    
  
With Respect,

Ernie
  

    Re .77
    
    Demanding proof for beliefs strikes me as a dangerous precedent for the
    DEJAVU conference.
    
    Point of information:  You appear to equate "classical Christian" with
    "fundamentalist."  If by "classical" you mean "ordinary" or "typical,"
    then the equation is an error.  Fundamentalists are no more typical of
    Christianity than Chassidim are typical of Judaism.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    ....BUT, if one comes from a "Fundamentalist" Christian background,
    there are "Classical" Christians, but they aren't considered TRUE
    Christians in the scriptural sense of the word. So if you are of
    the Fundalmentalist persuasion, the typical, liberal, contemporary
    form of Christian Churches are at best fodder for the fires of Hell.
    
    "Former 23 year member of an Evangelical Fundalmentalist Bible Believing
    Baptist Church."
    
    -Arthur

    
    
>    Re .77
>    
>    Demanding proof for beliefs strikes me as a dangerous precedent for the
>    DEJAVU conference.
    
    If I understood the  intended context, he was asking for proof
    that *he* should believe, not for Bill to justify what Bill believes
    in.
    
    Another way to put the question might be to say, "Can you prove to
    me that *I* should believe the Bible is the literal word of God?"
    This is a question that no Fundamentalist (or whatever) Christian
    has ever answered to my satisfaction.
    
    Neal/B

    
    Good-morning all,
    
    One must just go on faith at times.
    
    I put all my trust and faith in Christ and God.
    
    Peace,
    Bill

    Bill,
    
    In .71 you included the phrase, "God has said we should not communicate
    with the dead".  Now, the antecedents to that phrase make it unclear
    to me whether you meant "<that phrase>" or "not <that phrase>".
    Either way, the two quotes you gave "(2 Kings 21:2 and Deuteronomy
    18:10-12)", do not speak of "communicat[ing] with the dead" per se.
    The former speaks of `rebuilding the high places' and making `altars to
    Ba'al and Ashtorah'.  Then, down in verse 6, (which you did not cite)
    we come to "And he burned his son as an offering, and practiced
    soothsaying and augury, and dealt with mediums and wizards."  (By
    the way, he (Manasseh) ruled for 55 years, the longest reign to that
    date, so his crimes don't seemed to have called down divine wrath,
    just the wrath of the storyteller.)  The latter quote speaks of
    "anyone who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a
    sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer."
    but this to me seems merely an itemization of the classes of people
    who practices divination.  Divination is not "communicat[ing] with
    the dead".
    
    Now, where is a quote to the point?  I'm sure there is one.
    
    							Ann B.

    Re.77                
    
    Hi Ernie,
    
    I was speaking to Bill in his belief system and the words he is using
    to express his concepts.
    
    I was not speaking to you in yours.  You chose to take what I said *to
    Bill* as an absolute and apply it to you and somehow come out with some 
    kind of conclusion that I was stating that you might/should/do believe 
    in the existance of Satan, which, of course, I was not doing, nor would I 
    ever do.  That would be far too presumptious on my part.
    
    Cindy

Hi Cindy,

I chose what and applied it to whom? (:'> Not consciously, anyway.  I understood 
that you were discussing with Bill. I was just humorously trying to point 
out that you seemed to be doing  just what you had asked Bill not to do a few
replies earlier. I guess I just got hit over the head with my own crude sense
of humor.  It's way out in left field sometimes; so far out one needs  high 
powered binoculars to find it.

"I fell out of bed hurting my head on things that I said." BG's

Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

Thanks,
Ernie

    
    
    
    
    		Funny, how we all long to be near Him (God).
    
    
    
    
    I pray that we don't let ourselves get in the way,
    
    Mark
    

                                                            
    Re.84 - Oh, OK Ernie - all's well.
    
    *<(8^)||
    
    Re.85 - I liked the 'God' part, and agree with what you say.  I just 
            cannot view God as simply masculine though (Him) - it's somehow 
            limiting.  
    
    Cindy

    
    	If you want a real hoot, check out note 833 in ISOG::CHRISTIAN.
    
    	Talk about - well I won't say anything I get in trouble when I 
    	open my big mouth.
    
    	jp :-o

    
    re;  .87
    
    I would prefer to talk to God and Christ than an owl.  8^)
    
    jp,   are you saying that those who may disagree with you in 833
          are ignorant and shall not inherit the earth?
          
          I don't know of any christian who profess to be perfect, lest of
          all me. We all make mistakes. But we have a friend in Christ who
          will help us.
    
          Looking forword to being with the father in heaven,
          
          Bill

    RE: .87 (BILL)
    
          I deliberately stayed out of this...it's mostly boring and
    repetitive to me (there are earlier notes similar to this one, e.g.)
    Just one thing, though, I don't want to resist...
       Tell me, what is it you are going to do with the "father" in
    "heaven?"  Have you ever thought about the logistics (I mean, what
    kind of mental picture do you get when you see yourself standing,
    shoving and pushing against 3 or 4 BILLION others who also want to
    stand at the right hand of the "father?")  Moreover, assuming you 
    might live to be 96 years old, and you die mostly incapacitated,
    would you see yourself standing next to the "father" as 96 and
    incapacited or as, say, 34 and healthy?  What about everybody else?
    Will they also be at a set age or at varying ages?  And why aren't
    they all in the same health or at the same age?  
     
         This points out to me the stupidity of limited human thought in
    trying to conceive in such a place as "heaven" and in trying to fit
    human models to it.  I cannot begin to imagine something called 
    ETERNITY doing something so bland as sitting around with 4 or 5 billion
    others and maybe playing tennis or just chatting or something.  And
    can you imagine anything resembling "God", who has the "power" to 
    create anything/everything, not being bored to "his" own death by
    having all these lowly humans sitting around worshipping him?  Gad,
    if this isn't limiting "God," I don't know what is.
    
    Frederick
    

    Re: .81, Bill

>    One must just go on faith at times.

    That seems to me to be an important thought.
    Most arguments can be reconciled with this
    realisation. The arguments start when one group
    claims an absolute truth, instead of *faith*
    in an interpretaton of reality. I, for instance
    have *faith* in a benign universe (I know, it's
    a bit wishy-washy, but there it is).

    I view this as rather like an axiom. In geometry,
    for example, if you include the axiom 'the shortest
    distance between two points is a straight line' -
    you get the well-known Euclidean geometry. If you
    include the converse you end up with Reimann (sp?)
    geometry.

    So, Bill, your axiom is that the bible expresses the
    word of God. Or perhaps, more simply, you have faith
    that the universe is run like the bible says.

    Now, like .89 (W-Freddy) says, it would be nice to move
    on from this point.

    Incidentally, Fred, I found your point of view to be
    something rather like mine, but it was expressed rather
    agressively wasn't it?

    But then you have a Lazarus axiom, unless I'm mistaken. :-)
    
love to all, John D.    

To further clarify, and bring the content back aroulnd to the idea of the 
note, I want to add the following.

I had entered this reply in the windowing version of VAXnotes and lost the 
last part of it.  Luckily, I had saved the text before entering and had to 
enter again the text that was lost. although I think I said what I wanted 
to say better the first time.   

Fredrick,
	I agree, it is very limiting thought.  


Cindy et al,
	I think that to believe that God is a 'she' or 'he' human seems to
imply that God has a physical body and organs that will delineate his or her 
sex is very limiting. If this is the case, God must be following his or her own 
physical/natural laws that s/he set up; S/he must be be camping out some where
on this physical plane. I think the last rumor I heard was that S/he is 
living in the East Village, where all the other well-to-do creative wealthy 
people live Or is that now out on the West coast? 
	How dare I think that God is a force, perhaps the unified force from
which everything results.  How impersonal, how dehumanizing! Well, I think we
human beings, attempt to reduce God into our own image to give meaning to our
lives.  God seems to be not much more than our own mirror image. It is natural 
for the human to compartmentalize concepts to help make more concrete their 
existence.  To compartmentalize the god-force as either feminine or masculine
is a reductionist attempt to make meaning for ourselves. Further, to separate 
masculine and feminine from attributes such as creativity, or to lump 
creativity in with masculine or feminine traits is an attempt to make this 
god-force into our own image so that we might further substantiate our own 
existence.  It is my understanding that the God-force is, but is not limited
to, the natural (physical and metaphysical) laws that have been set into 
action and are  being discovered each day. To live with(in) these laws, in my 
mind,would be the honoring of the god-force.  To utilize these natural laws 
gives a positive synergistic effect in our lives.This synergistic effect 
might be considered the blessing (positive karma) bestowed upon us for 
following these natural laws set up by the god-force. Utilizing astrology, 
numerology, card reading etc, seems to be an attempt by us mortals to work in 
harmony with these natural laws. To utilize these laws for self-promoting 
purposes would in effect be an attempt to mock the god-force.  

Ernie
 

    
    re:  .91
    
    The idea of God becoming a human, if for only a moment, think of it,
    is the greatest thing that could ever happen to humanity.
    
    I believe we should look at the nature of God, as Christians do,
    by looking at Jesus Christ.
    
    Nothing He said limited anyone.
    
    Unlimitingly,
    
    Mark
    
    

re: .89 (Fred)
     
>         This points out to me the stupidity of limited human thought in
>    trying to conceive in such a place as "heaven" and in trying to fit
>    human models to it.  

Let he who is without a disembodied entity cast the first stone.  
Remember that stupidity is often within the eye of the beholder.      

Alison

    re: .92 (Mark)
    
        You're correct...the greatest thing for HUMANITY was when "God"
    created humans, and as a piece of "God" all humans reflect that "God."
    This is not limited to Jesus.
    
    re: .93 (Alison)
    
        Yes, stupidity is in the eye of the beholder.  Change the view
    of the beholder, however, and the stupidity indeed changes (and a
    particular stupidity can even go away.)  I will continue to contend
    that a view of sitting at the right hand of a father-figure, and
    being the only one there, is a very self-centered and childish view.
    Especially if this is what someone or many people believe is what
    eternity is about.  And when people run around trying to force-feed
    these concepts, I become very irritated.  Perhaps it just shows my
    own weaknesses...and I have some.  Want to point out others?
    
    Frederick
    

    Re .94
    
    I think you may accidentally be doing what we call "attacking a straw
    man" over in the PHILOSOPHY conference.  That is, attacking a position
    no one really holds.
    
    The idea that God the Father is a male organism, or is a humanoid being
    with (among other things) a right hand is the error of Anthropomorphism
    and was officially condemned by the church over a thousand years ago. 
    Over against it, the church, in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox
    branches, has put forth the doctrines of God's omnipresence, His 
    transcendence of all creation (including space and time) and His 
    immanence in all creation.
    
    The church has even put forth the doctrine of God's "impersonality," by
    which it does NOT mean God is an unknowning force that is less than
    personal, but rather that His nature exceeds the boundaries of
    personality, rather the way the nature of a cube exceeds that of a
    square.
    
    It is very likely true that some poorly-instructed, naive, or
    unreflective Christians DO think that God the Father is a luminous
    humanoid, vaguely pictured as sitting on a throne somewhere out beyond
    the orbit of Uranus.  But such a picture, whether they believe it or
    not, is no more central to their religion that a picture of the Wheel
    of Karma as a literal, physical wheel is central to Buddhism.
    
    As to the annoyance factor of people who pester you with these and
    related doctrines -- I'm sorry.  Obviously, well-meaning (and
    occasionally ill-meaning) evangelists do not do you or their own cause
    any good by making it a source of irritation.  But it is a religious
    obligation of Christians to spread their faith, one way or another. 
    It's a pity that the spreading should sometimes be done badly, but I
    don't think the mere spreading around of ideas should be condemned. 
    After all, few of us would have any of our own favorite ideas if
    someone else hadn't gone to the trouble of telling us.
    
    Earl Wajenberg
    
    

    
    Re.95
    
    Earl,
    
    >"attacking a straw man"
    
    Well, it's probably better than attacking a straw wo....
    
    Um...er...sorry.  More or less.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re .81,
    
>    One must just go on faith at times.
>    
>    I put all my trust and faith in Christ and God.
    
    Was this to me? FWIW, I do too! But what I don't do is put all of
    my faith and trust in a *book*, which *may_or_may_not* be :
    
    		1) the literal word of God
    		2) the *inspired* word, containing the *spirit* of
    		universal law but is not the *letter* of the law
    		3) A book containing valuable spiritual truths, which
    		over time has become diluted by misinterpretations,
    		edits, deletions and mistranslations
    
    I believe in rather a God of intelligence and wisdom, who would
    write in our hearts not in a book that could be subject to changes
    by imperfect men over time. 
    
    		

    
  re:.94 (Fred)
    
    > these concepts, I become very irritated.  Perhaps it just shows my
    > own weaknesses...and I have some.  Want to point out others?
    
     Not in a public forum.
    
    alison
    

    re: .95 (Earl)
    
         Thanks...I liked your reply.  I would probably disagree with
    you, however, on sheer numbers of people who we would argue about
    that believe in the anthropomorphic "God."  Based on my own
    past Catholicism, and I was probably never among the totally 
    unthinking, I would say MOST people think of "God" as a vision
    of a very wise, very physically strong, old goat (man ;-) .)
    Church doctrine may well have eliminated it, however most people
    don't deal with doctrine, they deal with priests and churches. 
    One look at the statuary inside churches will give anyone an idea
    of what the "God", angels, disciples and even Jesus look(ed) like.
    Ask anyone and they will probably describe Jesus as a tall man
    with Arian features...does this really describe most Jewish people?
    Michaelangelo, immensely skilled and engeniused, didn't do us any
    favors with the imagery he painted on the ceiling of the Cistine
    Chapel.  So, in my opinion, most Christians do not run around with
    vague, abstract images of Jesus or "God", but, rather, have instead
    filled their minds with "real, concrete" images seen in Catechisms,
    books, paintings, statues, movies, etc.  And then, when pressed
    to describe heaven or hell, will come up with similar Faustian
    images or uninspired, irrational descriptions of what seems to them,
    in very limited human concept, to be situations of pleasure or
    ecstasy.  And I apologize, but since those visions no longer seem
    appropriate to me, I tune out real quickly from those that are hoping
    to get me to see whatever the message is behind those visions.
    I believe that levels beyond the physical involve "things" we cannot
    even envision, else they, too, would be a part of the collective
    unconscious or collective consciousness.  Rather I would see the
    visions used by artists as means or steps to stretch and to see
    beyond.
       
    Ferderick
    (spelled with flaws intact)
    

    re .82 (REGENT::BROOMHEAD)
    
    With regard to the Deut 18:10-12 ...
    
>                                         The latter quote speaks of
>    "anyone who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a
>    sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer."
>    but this to me seems merely an itemization of the classes of people
>    who practices divination.  Divination is not "communicat[ing] with
>    the dead".
>    
>    Now, where is a quote to the point?  I'm sure there is one.
    
    	Divination, in general, doesn't necessarily involve communication
    with the dead, but necromancy does.  According to the Oxford American
    Dictionary, necromancy is "the art of predicting events by allegedly
    communicating with the dead."  The RSV uses the word "necromancer", but
    the NWT translates this as "anyone who inquires of the dead."
    
    	When I get home, I'll have to see what the Hebrew text actually
    says.
    
    	Deuteronomy also condemns "mediums".  In 1Sam 28, king Saul seeks
    out a "medium at Endor" (v.7 RSV) to have her conjure up the departed
    prophet Samuel (v.11).
    
    								-mark.

    Mark,
    
    What I am trying to say is that, it seems to me, there is a
    difference between just communicating with the dead, and
    attempting to gain an advantage by means of information gained
    from the dead.  I.e., there is a difference between dreaming
    of Aunt Flo and asking "How are you, auntie?" and asking "What
    looks good in the seventh at Belmont?"
    
    						Ann B.

    re .101 (REGENT::BROOMHEAD)
    
    Ann,
    
    	I see what you mean; but as far as I know, the Bible doesn't make
    that fine of a distinction between reasons that people might have had
    back then for attempting to conjure up the dead.  For the most part, it
    looks as though people way back then were quite a bit more
    superstitious, and thus fearful, about the powers and dangers of
    talking to the dead, and thus only did so when the risks (or gains)
    seemed to outweigh the dangers.  
    
    	Ancient superstitious practices, which survive today in some
    cultures, indicate that the dead were treated with homage and a fair
    amount of fearful respect, which led supplicants to assuage the wrath
    of the dead with prayers and offerings which made such communication
    more religious than secular.  Jewish Law, in particular, demonstrates
    an almost visceral hostility towards religious rites that were not
    specifically stipulated by Jehovah.  Therefore, it generally wasn't the
    habit of a reverent Jew to even get close to the edge of such
    practices, since, when taken to their ultimate degree, they resulted in
    clear-cut cases of apostacy (which was a capital offense).
    
    	Today, spiritism is treated much more casually, with things like 
    ouija boards presenting modern society with a virtually game-like 
    approach to the matter.  Under the auspicious banner of "The Quest for
    Knowledge", the religious element has been almost entirely factored out 
    of many types of spiritistic pursuits.  Therefore, with a modern-era
    mindset, it's entirely feasible to pose the question, "How are you,
    auntie?"  Back in Bible days, particular in the era in which the Law
    was given to them, such a question -- posed merely out of curiousity --
    would probably have been unheard of.
    
    	The strict view that the 'spirits of the dead' are actually demons
    masquerading as dead humans is also indicative of why the Bible doesn't
    allow for (or even address) idle, or seemingly non-avaricious motives
    for contacting the dead.  The 'evil spirits' are just too dangerous to
    mess around with, even just to satisfy curiousity.
    
    								-mark.

RE .99 (Fred)

>    (...) Based on my own
>    past Catholicism, and I was probably never among the totally 
>    unthinking, I would say MOST people think of "God" as a vision
>    of a very wise, very physically strong, old goat (man ;-) .)

So, basically you are fighting your own past, Frederick?
:-)
Arie

    re: .103 (Arie)
    
         ...aren't all of us?
    
    Frederick
    

    
    We all go through the process at one point or another,...  but we
    don't all remain in it for all of our life time.  We find a resolution
    and move on... as I am sure you are doing as well Frederick.
    
    Mary

    Bible, bible, bible, bible, bible, bible, bible, bible, bible,
    and even more bible!  Sheesh!  And how do you spell God, sir?  Oh
    that's easy ... B-I-B-L-E!  And the beat goes on.
    
    Why do so many of us have a need to define our spirituality by how well
    we study a book?!   The spirit of God is NOT a book.  And a book is
    merely a tool in helping us experience the spirit of God.  So much
    energy is spent DISSECTING chapter and verse after chapter and verse --
    the way an attorney studies (and becomes scholarly and proficient in) 
    the general statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!
    
    Ya don't need a PhD in Bible (or any other book) to live/experience 
    the spirit of God!  IMHO, that ain't what it is all about.
    
    And if you think I had a bad day, you're right! :-(  So there.  8-)
    
    Paul
    

    re. 106
    
    Some people are content to stop with the Map, rather than
    striving for the Destination. :)
    
    Richard

    I think it is very interesting how a book can bring the best and
    the fervent out of some people.  The bible is a rather controvertial
    bit of writing -- people burn records, kill people, shun substances,
    and say the worst/best things to one another because of that book!
    
    The Navajo people have a prayer ceremony that can "wash" away the
    negative effects that these "book" people can have on you.  This
    book can be a "savior" and can be so demonic at once.
    
    Peace/Hozh�j�
    
    Tony
    A Navajo Opinion 

    
    What would happen if all the Bibles were destroyed?  Many will say that
    this is impossible, however I still ask, "*what if*..."  What would you
    (Bible quoters) do then?  Trust your intuition?
    
    I find it sad that so many people base their faith in God on a physical
    object.  There is much truth in the Bible, however God can be found 
    everywhere (Alpha, Omega, etc.).  
    
    Mark Sornson - I disagree with your comment about religion being absent 
    from a good portion of spiritual pursuits.  Of course, this should come 
    as no surprise you. (;^)  On the other hand though, I see Love being 
    absent from a goodly portion of religious pursuits, so perhaps we are 
    not so far off after all.
    
    Cindy

    Geeez....where's Billy????
    
    I haven't seen the little book burner  in here for a few replies!
    
    Ok so I am being rude...but...I must compliment you all for 
    articulating your positions quite nicely.  I won't go into mine because
    I generally agree with all of you...why bore you with my own brand
    of proselytizing (sp?).
    
    Big "G" Blessings kids...
    
    joe p

    re .109 (CGVAX2::PAINTER)/Cindy
    
>    Mark Sornson - I disagree with your comment about religion being absent 
>    from a good portion of spiritual pursuits.  Of course, this should come 
>    as no surprise you. (;^)
    
    	No, I didn't say that religion was absent from "a good portion of 
    spiritual pursuits".  I said it was factored out of "many spiritistic 
    pursuits".  By this I meant forays into -- and dabbling with -- 
    supernatural practices, such as channeling and various ways of contacting 
    the dead.  For a good many people, the draw of these is intellectual 
    curiousity.  I'm not trying to assign percentages or absolute numbers
    to define what I mean by "many".  It's just fairly evident to me, as I
    read this conference, that many people who are interested in
    supernatural phenomena aren't motivated by a religious feeling toward
    the supernatural (as though spirits are gods to whom they owe some
    sort, or degree, of worship).
    
    	In more ancient times, people sought knowledge from the
    supernatural realm primarily because they felt that this was the 'realm
    of the gods.'  Today, many people take this idea much less seriously.
    
>                              On the other hand though, I see Love being 
>    absent from a goodly portion of religious pursuits, so perhaps we are 
>    not so far off after all.
    
    	Yes, this is my observation too.
    
    								-mark.

    
    
    
                                       
    Hi Joe P, the little bible burner is back. I'm not sure about the
    little part.  8^)
    
    re; 109
    
    Cindy,
    
    Well here I go again, using/quoting scripture. 8^)
    
    Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by now means pass
    away.                         Matthew 24:35  NJKV
    
    I agree with you that no one should put their faith in a physical 
    object, let alone any man.
    For myself I put my faith and trust in Jesus. I do not worship the
    bible but use it to bring me closer to God and Jesus. God has given
    us the bible to help us and to guide us, not to worship it (the bible).
    
    
    I believe that God doe's not lye, and that the bible was inspired by God
    it is the hole truth not just part truth.
    
    All scripture is given by inspriation of God, (Just part of this verse)
                                          2 Timothy 3:16
    
    
    Peace,
    Bill

    
    	RE: 1229.112  BILL
    
	>Well here I go again, using/quoting scripture. 8^)
    
        >Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by now means pass
        >away.                         Matthew 24:35  NJKV
    

        Here we come down to how what is written can be interpreted.  I have
	long felt that this verse speaks of all of God's children -
        all life.  We are the words.  We were sounded out of the silence
        of Aleph and we will never pass away - our physical selves will,
        but our spiritual selves will not.
    
   
        >All scripture is given by inspriation of God, (Just part of this verse)
        >                                  2 Timothy 3:16
    
        The choice here is whether to believe that all scripture only exists
        in the Bible, or that scripture exists in many places and is still
        being written today - in our hearts as well as on paper.


	Peace,
	Carole

    Given a Map, I would not rely on It alone.
    
    I would also consider the Compass, Landmarks, and Information from
    others who know the Territory.
    
    What good is a Map, when you don't know which Way is up?
    
    Richard

    I find it hard to reconcile Matthew 24:35 with John 21:25, "But
    there are many other things which Jesus did; were every one of
    them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not
    contain the books that would be written."  *Something* passed
    away before the Earth.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re .106 (Paul):
    
    >Bible, bible, bible, bible, bible, bible, bible, bible, bible,
    >and even more bible!  Sheesh!  And how do you spell God, sir?  Oh
    >that's easy ... B-I-B-L-E!  And the beat goes on.
    >
    >Why do so many of us have a need to define our spirituality by how well
    >we study a book?!   The spirit of God is NOT a book.  And a book is
    >merely a tool in helping us experience the spirit of God. ...
     
    This hits one solid point of difference in the matter.  I'm not
    singling this response out; the thoughts have, in small or large,
    been expressed earlier by others.
    
    In .0, Bill asked:
    
    >............................................... Why do you choose
    >to follow and/or do the the following;             
                     
    ... whereafter he listed a bunch of practices and disciplines. 
    From that, we got into a discussion about various things paranormal
    from various perspectives, and reached a point of impasse about
    certain things, where I had hoped we'd merely "agree to disagree"
    so we could get on exploring areas where mutual interest could result
    in constructive exchange.  I hope we can continue on that path.
    
    Can we all agree on the following?
    
    1) Certain opinions are "merely" articles of faith; let's assume
       that nobody's going to alter seriously anothers fundamental
       belief system.
    
    2) Different belief systems result in different concepts of what
       God is (or isn't), and arguing on the nature of God might result
       in a further impasse.
    
    3) Some paranormal practices/abilities seem to be cross-cultural
       and cross-creed.
    
    On the basis of these points, we might be able to hit some constructive
    areas.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    Re.112
    
    Bill,
    
    Carole wrote my thoughts in .113 about the words being written in our
    hearts.   
    
    While it is good to refer back to Scripture if one believes it is the
    proper time, then that's what they're there for, but it's good not to
    have one's nose so glued to the pages that we miss God speaking to us 
    *now*, especially in other forms ('coincidences', Nature, etc.).
    
    Cindy

     Idle since 9 April; this will not do!  I enjoyed reading this note,
     and have a few comments.   It is amazing to see the many different 
     paths you people have taken, most heading for the same destination.
    
     The #1 winning reply is .48, and it appears you've all blown right
     passed it.   Some wisdom is there; give it another read.
     
     Runner-up is .72; it, too, is worth a second look.
     
     Bill, who is attributed to the quote: "I think it is always good to 
     remember Satan can appear as an angel of light."?  It is going into
     my quote file, and I'd like to know.  (Remember, Bill, silence will
     attribute it to *you*.)
     
     Mr. Kallis, you're ardor impresses me; not only are you literate
     (inside joke), you are a "pisser", and today I realized our paths
     are destined to cross.
     
     Re .100:  YAY!  A person who learned Hebrew!  As with other works
               brought forward out of the past, the Bible, I'm sure,
               has lost something in the translation.
     
     	       (..if not the binding:)

     Re .111:  Re: "the whole truth"--What about the "Lost Books of the
               Bible", removed long ago by the church?  Are they not the 
               Truth, being part of the original; has not the Word of
               God been diminished by human intervention?

     						Don (stirrin' the pot)
                                

    re .118 (ROULET::RUDMAN)
    
>     Re .100:  YAY!  A person who learned Hebrew!  As with other works
>               brought forward out of the past, the Bible, I'm sure,
>               has lost something in the translation.
>     
>     	       (..if not the binding:)
    
    .100 was a reply of mine.  Actually, I haven't "learned Hebrew", but I
    do have a Hebrew interlinear and a handful of reference works that I
    can use to figure out what the Hebrew text really says (if I have
    reason to look beneath a particular English translation).  It's more
    work (in the short term) than actually being literate in the language,
    but it's better than nothing.
    
    								-mark.