Conference hydra::dejavu

    Re .0
    
    Before the inevitable storm breaks, such as this kind of topic always
    conjures up, here are a couple of points about noting procedure:
    
    1: Please sign your name, especially if your username doesn't match
       your real name.  No one likes corresponding with an anonymous
       writer.
    
    2: Please used mixed-case letters, not all upper-case, which is hard 
       to read and gives the impression of shouting.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    RE 0
    		Did it ever occur to you, that the people who wrote of
    Jesus, at least a century later, may have misrepresented, or at
    best, misunderstood, not only what he said, but what he did, and
    the reasons for those actions?
    Why is your "personality cult" better than someone elses?
    
    					Jim

    
    re: .0
    
    Having worked in large organizations for many (too many) years,
    I find it is impossible for me to believe that anything that
    was an oral tradition for more than a day was not corrupted by
    the people transmitting the information.  One of the few things
    that is constant in the universe is that communication between
    humans breaks down rapidly and that with each recounting the story
    changes (slightly or greatly) depending upon the teller.
    If the stories of Jesus did survive without corruption, it would
    indeed be a miracle,  however one that we could not know the
    truth of until after moving out of the earth plain (since we
    lack the perspective and ojbectivity to perceive it here in the
    middle of things.)
    
    If you want to believe what you believe, that's fine.  But know
    one thing - 
    
    	In true knowing there is tolerance and acceptance of others.
    
    alison
    

                     <<< Note 1284.0 by ELMAGO::VIATEAM9 >>>
>   .....HERE IS A MAN CLAIMING
>    TO BE GOD AND PERFORMING MIRICLES TO BACK IT UP. ....
>    IF TRUE WHERE DOES THAT PUT ALL THE OTHER RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD?
    
    Apparently you're not familiar with the story of the Prophet Mohammed
    (S.A.).  The Qur'an was revealed to him way, WAY out of order, and
    written down (and remembered) by the people around him.  When finally
    complete and verified by the entire community, it was found to have
    absolutely coherent internal references.  Interestingly the Qur'an 
    that we have today is absolutely identical to what was revealed - 
    taking a lesson from other religions, it has been a religious crime in
    Islam to alter or misquote the contents of the Qur'an in any way.  So
    this religion has the most accurate, historically verifiable holy
    document of any.  
    
    karl

    re-.6
    >So this religion has the most accurate, historically verifiable
    >holy document of any.
    
    Well, not quite.  The entire body of scripture comprising the Holy
    Writings of the Baha'i Faith were written by the hand of Baha'u'llah
    (the Founder) Himself.
    
    Ron

    It is impossible to say what is accurate . The most we can say is the
    oldest. If the text given tothe Prophet differs from the oldest, then 
    it is a different document. Islam has traditionaly ompossed thru
    military methods interpretations it endorses.  This is how it was
    spread at first. The source of the revelations may better be served at
    times in the manner of accuracy by using the oldest known texts.
    
    -Andrew

Dear anonymous person,

Welcome to DEJAVU.  What is your name?

Thank you for sharing your views about Jesus and the nature of
God and miracles and so forth.

In my theological discussions with Christians, the "Lord, Liar,
Lunatic" theory -- or, as you would say, the crazy-liar-truth
theory -- almost always comes up.  I have difficulty
understanding why I must always choose one of these three
cut-and-dry options, with the meanings you personally attach to
each.  By what means do you take the authority to define and/or
limit my options, as well as your own?

I too believe Jesus was telling the truth, but the truth that I
see in Jesus's teachings, life, example, and sacrifice, is most
likely different than yours.   This does not mean I, and many
others who share my spiritual perspective, are, as you say, "out
in left field."  (Neither does it mean you are "out in left
field.")  We too read and study and contemplate the Bible,
among other things, and we too have done "honest research to find
out what is accurate and what is not."  The Bible is there for
everyone to read and interpret for himself.

So when you say, "Your choice is to believe Jesus or something
else ..." are you again taking power that does not belong to you? 
As a human being, no better or worse than the rest of us, are you
presuming to know what is best for me by defining my spiritual
choices?

Well, my friend, MY choice is indeed just that -- mine. MY choice
is not to "believe Jesus OR something else."  Rather, MY choice
is to believe Jesus *AND* something else.  Truth and the spirit
of God extend, and can be found, beyond the front and back covers
of the Bible.  I choose to incorporate the teachings of Jesus into
the fold of many other spiritual truths I have encountered during
my walk with God.  And you know what?   I find them compatible!

Sure, Jesus was a great man -- a great messenger from God -- but
no one among us is endowed with the authority to define or limit
the ways in which others learn and grow from (and relate to) Jesus.

What would Jesus think of the way you addressed your brothers
and sisters in the base note?

If you care to respond, I would be happy to continue this
discussion with you.

Paul  

    Karl,
    
    What I remember out of the disty mists of high school being taught�
    about the Koran:  Mohammed dictated the Koran.  Then -- for reasons
    unknown -- it was rearranged (NOT by Mohammed) in the order of
    increasing length of statements!  Thus the shortest statements were
    first, and the longest ones last.
    
    No wonder they seem coherent in some other order!
    
    							Ann B.
    
    � This is not to say that what I was taught was necessarily the truth.

    Re 0.
    
    You state that you would not commit your life to a lie. Well, few
    people, if any, do. What they do is commit their lives to their own
    "truths". Everyone has their own. As much as we have individual minds, 
    I *believe* God has given each one of us the ability to have our truth
    so that we may live our life according to that truth. There are,
    admittedly, certain common threads to our truths, where our truth would
    infringe on that of another, and that should not happen.
    
    What you have stated in your basenote is YOUR truth, and we commend you
    for holding it, but do not accept it for our own. 
    You also state that you have devoted a lot of time studying the Bible
    and find it to be historically accurate. While it is true that certain
    Biblical references have been proven to be correct over time, most
    scholars would be surprised that a lay(wo)man as you seem to be has
    knowledge that the most dedicated of them has never been able to hold
    as certainties.
    
    This notesfile is for people who want to seek or share, your very
    silence since your initial entry reminds me of the child's game of
    ringing doorbells and then running.
    
    Marilyn

    Re .10
    
    One does not need to be a scholar to understand God or His word.
    Knowledge comes from God to us through the Holy Spirit, not from
    our own understanding or mind.
    
    As far as following our own truth, it would be dull in comparision
    with the truth of God, God's truth is pure and perfect while ours
    is more self-centerd. Sometimes we make our truth what we want it 
    to be rather than what God wants. 
    
    God has given us a mind to choose what we want to do, but God would 
    like us to follow His truth not our own for He knows that by following 
    our own truth it moves us away from Him. 
    
    What I'm trying to say is if we are not following God's way/truth then 
    we should be rechecking our selfs and praying that God will show us
    where we are going wrong or how to get to know Him and His only son
    Jesus better and to have a right relationship with them.
    
    Peace,
    Bill

    Bill .11,
    
    > Knowledge comes from God to us through the Holy Spirit, not from our
    > own understanding or mind.
    
    God's knowledge will never be realized without first interacting with 
    our minds Bill, and it is through our minds that we come to know and
    understand God.  Mind is the common ground we share with God and with
    all creation.  Whatever we understand, there is an element of God's 
    truth within it, (imo).
    
    The process of life (again imo) is to continually expand our
    understanding of the truth.  Inherently it is God's truth.  Some people
    have rejected the notion of God or Jesus, which happens often times
    when people become emotionally wounded by religious dogma or life
    experiences that (temporarily) "cut them down".  In these cases the
    choice to turn away from God is an effort to handle their "pain", in 
    the best way they know how - at that time.
    
    But if there is a God, which I believe there is, He/She will be
    revealed to all of us.  God in Her infinite Love allows each of us 
    to move along our paths at our own pace, expanding on the truth at our
    own rate.
    
    Trust in God Bill that the truth will continue to be revealed.  That
    peace and love, (I dare say the dream of every person on this planet),
    will oneday be a reality.  We are getting closer all the time.
    
    Thanks for your thoughts.  May you walk in peace and in the Light of
    the Great Spirit.
    
    Karen.*                                                              

.11    Hi Bill,                       

    "One does not need to be a scholar to understand God or His
     word."

Agreed.

    "Knowledge comes from God to us through the Holy Spirit,"

Agreed again.

    "... not from our own understanding or mind."

Well, this gets a little sticky.  I think our conscious,
earthbound, analytical mind usually gets in the way of the
childlike "inner knowing" that comes from the spirit of God, the
holy spirit, into our hearts via trust and faith.  Our "minds" do
indeed play a part -- that part of our minds which is connected
with our spirit component (subconscious/superconscious) and hence,
connected with the Spirit of God.
    
    "As far as following our own truth, it would be dull in comparision
    with the truth of God, God's truth is pure and perfect while ours
    is more self-centerd. Sometimes we make our truth what we want it 
    to be rather than what God wants."

Bill, I think you misunderstood what Marilyn was saying in .10.
As I read her, she is saying that we all encounter God and the
Holy Spirit and the Truth in our own ways.  And honestly, how else
could we experience God?   And what does "our own truth" really
mean?   Well, you yourself are following "your own" truth in the
sense that you, pesonally, have made YOUR OWN personal decision,
in your search for God and Truth, according to YOUR OWN heart,
along YOUR OWN spiritual path, in that: 

1.  The Bible, and only the Bible, is the infallible source of
    Truth and the word of God.

2.  The person Jesus must be accepted as personal savior.

3.  The Holy Spirit dwells only within those who believe the word
    of God, as written in the Bible, interpret it in a
    specific way, and accept Jesus as personal lord/savior.

Others, like myself, have not made the same personal choices you
have.  I see the Bible as a source of Truth, but not the ONLY
source of Truth.  And I certainly do not see it as infallible.  I
have great respect for the teachings/life of Jesus, but my faith
in God does not rest squarely on worship of the person Jesus. 
And I believe access to the Holy Spirit is gained in many, many
more ways than you believe;  my spiritual path has shown me the Holy
Spirit essentially dwells within all humans.  One need only open
his/her heart to it.

Now, have I made these choices out of convenience or comfort or
self-centered motives?  No, not at all.  Are my experiences with
God and the Divine, just as sincere as yours?  Yes.

In the final analysis, what is the real difference between "God's
truth," which you say you know, and one's "own truth"?   Nothing. 
You and I BOTH know "God's Truth" as we personally understand it. 
You have come to experience God exclusively via the Bible.  I
have come to know God in somewhat different ways.
    
    "God has given us a mind to choose what we want to do, but God would 
    like us to follow His truth not our own for He knows that by following 
    our own truth it moves us away from Him."

Again, what you call "His truth" is something you personally have
chosen; so, in a way, it is YOUR OWN truth.  Others, like myself, also
believe we are sincerely following "His truth."  Do you
understand what I am saying?

    "... we should be rechecking our selfs and praying that God will show us
    where we are going wrong or how to get to know Him..."

Agreed.  I ask for God's guidance regularly.

Paul

    Re  .0
    
    Hello out there!   Would you like to rejoin this topic, which you initiated
    and comment on the replies and engage in a respectable sharing of our
    ideas?   It would be nice to hear from you ...
    
    Thanks,
    Paul
    

    You have to eat and drink the body or you are not part of it.
    Acceptance on a personal level is OK but if you believe it you
    have to swallow it. 

    Re. .10 (Bill)
    
    Bill, you did not fully understand my meaning. I will not restate it, 
    since it was done so eloquently and correctly by Paul in .13, but let
    me state this, I have trouble with people who are adamant in telling me
    they "know" what God thinks or what "His Truth" is. I do not consider
    myself any better than anyone, however, I also do not feel myself to be
    inferior to any other person. Having said this, I can NEVER bring
    myself to declare that I "know" what God thinks or His/Her intentions
    are since I am, at present, such an inferior being to Him/Her. That is
    why I have trouble with people who claim to have such superior
    knowledge of this. 
    
    I do not dispute that existence of those who claim to have Divine
    Inspiration, but I truly have never found a way to separate the truly
    inspired from the charlatans. All I have to understand God and His/Her
    meaning for ME is my admittedly flawed intellect and heart. And I
    reserve the right to disagree with those that would presume to tell me
    how I should interpret God's design for my spiritual development.
    
    Religion perhaps the most intensely personal thing in this world. It is
    this fact, I think, why more wars have been fought in the name of God
    than for any other reason.
    
    Peace,
    
    Marilyn
    
    
    Re. 13  (Paul)
    
    Thanks, you caught my meaning exactly. Evidently our "truths" are
    closely aligned.  :-)
    
    

    Re   .15
    
    Greetings.
    
        "You have to eat and drink the body or you are not part of it.
         Acceptance on a personal level is OK but if you believe it you
         have to swallow it."
    
    I have a few questions:
    
    - How does one "swallow" it?  That is, specifically what is involved
      in eating and drinking the blood?
    
    - What do you mean by being "part of it"?
    
    - What does "acceptance on a personal level" mean?  What does
      acceptance on a nonpersonal level mean?  What are the differences?
    
    - Why is your personal choice to accept the Bible as the exclusive 
      infallible source of God's Truth any less "personal" and less 
      "your own" choice than my spiritual choices are "personal" and
      "my own" truth?   
    
    - How is your personal interpretation of the scriptures any less 
      "personal" and less "your own" than "my own"?
    
    - How is your personal understanding of God and God's Truth -- the way
      you "know" God -- not "your own" understanding/knowing as opposed to
      others, like myself, who have "our own" understanding/knowing of 
      God and God's Truth?
    
    - Why must what is good for you, your specific relationship with God, 
      also be good for me?
    
    Thank you for answering these.
    
    Regards,
    Paul
    

    Re  .16  Marilyn,
    
    You're welcome.  I'm glad SOMEONE understands me!   8)   8)
    
    Paul
    

    
    Re.9
    
    Hi Ann B.,
    
    How did you manage to get a footnote character in your PS.?
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. Re.15 - come again?

    
    Disclaimer:  I do not intend to ridicule anyone's beliefs.
    		 I do not intend to speak sacrilegiously.
    		 These are just some thoughts that bounced into
    		 my mind that I want to share.
    
    SUPPOSE, just suppose, that Jesus was a member of an 'alien' race,
    (i.e. - non-earther.)  Then suppose that when he introduced the
    rite of eating the body and drinking the blood - that he was
    offering for partaking a couple of viruses,  viruses that would
    intermingle with the human body in such a way as to cause mutation
    over the long term.  Such mutation would help the humans grow
    into high life forms capable of accessing and using a lot more
    of their brains and all that other good stuff.  The end result
    being that humans would have mutated into something capable of
    communicating with the 'alien' race.  And that over the centuries
    the viruses have been lost and only the rite remains.
    
    Just a thought.  ;-)
     

    
    Hello Marilyn,
    
    Yes, we all are inferior to God, but none of us are inferior to any
    human, lest of all me. We are all God's creation. 
    But I believe that there is only one way, one path, one truth as the 
    Holy Spirit has guided me.
    
    As Christ said in John 9:9 and in John 15:1
    
                  "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me,
                   he will be saved, and will go in and
                   out and fined pasture.
    
                   John 15:1
    
                   "I am the true vine, and My Father
                    is the vinedresser. 
    
    It is true that we all come to God in different ways, but not all paths
    lead to God.  Again this is what I believe, you may believe otherwise
    and that is your right. I may not agree with you, but I do respect your
    right to choose the way you wish to go.
    
    May the light of God shine on you and everyone.
    
    Peace,
    Bill
    

    Cindy,
    
    To get characters out of the Extended Character Set (either DEC
    Multinational or ISO Latin-1, depending on your terminal set up),
    you have to use compose sequences.
    
    If you're lucky, you have a "Compose Character" key.  After you hit
    it, the next two characters can be used by the firmware to make
    one extended character.  If you're not lucky, you have an Alt key
    or an Alt function, and you either hit Alt then space then the
    two characters, or you hold down Alt and hit space at the same
    time, and *then* the two characters.
    
    Anyhow, for � you hit 1 and ^ (one and up-arrow) in either order.
    � � � are similar.  Mostly, combine the two most obvious characters.
    (The " is used for umlaut.)  The UNobvious combinations are
    !P and !S and !! and ?? .
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S. ON the subject, I can't help but remember Richard Feinman's
    warnings about subjective revelations and how there is no guarantee
    that they match objective reality.

    re .21
    
    Let me (I hope gently) jump in to join and share some of my beliefs.
    
    Every moment holds a perfect lesson for me, giving
    me infinite choice to advance myself towards what my truth of God
    is. If I believe that not all paths lead to God, then if I take one
    of the paths that I think won't, I will have the experience of not
    advancing towards oneness. If I believe that all paths lead there, 
    no matter what I do, I know I'm going there. If I believe some paths
    are quicker, they will be quicker, if I believe...             \
    Paul S.     (Please be gentle, I'm a new kid in the notes...(8->   )
                                                                   /    )

    Paul,
    
    	 Very perceptive.  Just keep in mind that the path can only bring
    us close to our goal.  We must actually step off our path to arrive. 
    In other words the path and the goal are not one and the same.  Saying
    this another way, the goal is not at the end of our path, but somewhere
    alongside.  If we don't know when to step off the path and onto our goal 
    (of enlightenment, unity with God, etc), we end up going right on past it.
    This may appear somewhat cryptic, but this seems to be the way it works
    for me.
    
    Keep at it,
    
    Ernie
     

Welcome Paul!!

I agree very much with your beliefs.  Look forward to reading more from you.

Love to you,

Ro

    Re. 21 (Bill)
    
    Thanks for your understanding. We will agree to disagree. I will not
    belabor the point. I will only say this. I disagree with those that say
    that the only way is through Jesus. I know that Bible says He says
    this, but we have seen that anyone's words are subject to
    misinterpretation and misunderstanding even in a relatively short
    period of time. However, the point I'm trying to make is, assuming we
    are talking about an all-powerful, all-merciful God, why only those who
    have had the luck to hear about Jesus be subject to salvation? I'm not
    talking about today when almost everyone on this Earth *may* have the
    opportunity, but those through the ages that did not follow His
    teachings simply because they had never heard of them?
    
    
    Re .24 (Paul)
    
    Right on, couldn't agree with you more.....
    
    
    Peace,
    
    
    Marilyn

    Re. 25
    
    Thank you, Ernie. What an awesome idea! I've never thought of that
    before (I think)! I'll have to try that one on for size.
    
    Re. 26,27 Thank you most sincerely for a warm welcome...
    
    One Love,  Paul S.  /o
                            }  >
                        \o
                                                            

    Re. 27
    
    It's true that in ages past that some people have or did not hear the
    gospal, but if they were truly seeking God in there heart, body and
    soul thet would see and find God. God knows whats in mans heart.
    
    Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown
    it to them.
    For since the creation of the world His invisiable attributes are
    clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
    His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
    
                                        Romans 1:19-20
    
    If they are truly seeking they will find.
    
    May the Lord guide and shine on you Marilyn.
    
    Peace,
    Bill

    
    
    I think of it this way:
    
         If the only path to God is thru Jesus,then,there must be many
    paths to reach Jesus. We all dont need to use the same path,we may use
    different paths,but,arrive at the same destination.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

Re .27, .29, .30

In a similar vein, let me cite two widely-read Christian writers, one modern, 
one medieval.

C. S. Lewis wrote a good capsule summary of the Christian position entitled 
"Mere Christianity," based on a series of radio talks he gave in the '30s or 
'40s.  He had the book checked for orthodoxy by Anglican, Catholic, 
Presbyterian, and Methodist ministers.  In it, he remarked that we do not know 
that only Christians are saved by Christ.

In the 14th century, Dante Aligheri wrote a great poem of a guided tour of 
hell, purgatory, and heaven, now called "The Divine Comedy."  Like Lewis, he 
was not a professional theologian, but like Lewis he was trying to be 
orthodox.  He places the pagan Roman emperor Trajan and the Moslem hero 
Saladin in his heaven, giving St. Thomas Aquinas as his authority, who 
maintained that all people will have the gospel revealed to them, either in 
life through God's providence or, failing that, at the moment of death, so 
that they may then exercise faith in it and be saved by it.

Earl Wajenberg

    Re .29, .30, .31  (you know who you are  :-))
    
    I agree with all of you, what I stated in .27 is that I do not agree
    that JESUS is the only Way. GOD is. Before I am totally misunderstood
    let me state that I believe in the Divinity of Christ. What I am trying
    to say is that many people through the ages have not, whether by not
    having heard of Him or because their life-experience in that life did
    not allow for a belief in Him. I also do not believe that Jesus was the
    only manifestation of God on Earth. As to the belief that Jesus saves
    everyone, not only those who believe in Him, I totally agree. It would
    be beneath Him to do otherwise. However, I believe, and I'm sorry if
    I'm repeating myself, that God has spoken to his beings, and I am not
    limiting myself here to humans (how's that for opening a can of worms)
    in many ways, so that they could learn of and from Him whatever their
    life-experience is.
    
    Peace,
    
    
    Marilyn

    Hi Earl,
    
    It is true the now time, the time we live in most have or will have the
    gospel reavealed to them by God or preached to them by someone who God
    has sent out to spread the gospal.
    But that just hearing the gospal will not save anyone if they do not
    act on it or accept it. 
    
    It's to late after death.
    
    God has given us a free will, God does not want slaves. He wants us to
    to make the choice weather to be with Him or not, the choice is ours to
    make.
    
    Peace,
    Bill  
    

    Hello and warm welcome welcome to Paul S. from Paul C.  Nice to see 
    another "Paul" hanging around these parts besides myself!  Be aware
    that some may confuse us "Pauls" with the saint.  8^)  Aw, shucks.
         
    
    Bill ...
    
    You say that people who have never heard of Jesus and the gospels,
    or who have limited access/knowledge of Jesus, can find God, can
    encounter God, and can be saved?  I wholeheartedly believe this also, 
    as you know, but am surprised (and happy) to hear you say it.  Simply 
    because, up till now, you have been maintaining that accepting Jesus as 
    personal savior is the ONLY way to God for EVERYBODY.  How, then, do 
    the millions of people who have never heard of Jesus connect with God 
    and salvation?
    
    I, like Marilyn, believe there are many ways in which God reaches out
    to ALL humanity, regardless of culture, even in cultures that do not
    know what "Jesus" is.  Therefore, I also believe that closing the gap 
    of separation can be realized by persons in such cultures.  
    
    Do you agree with this?  If so, can you explain specifically, how
    people can connect with God and realize salvation in cultures that have
    never heard of Jesus?   Or if they can't, what specifically happens to
    them at death?
    
    Thanks,
    Paul C.
     

    
    
    I can relate to the idea of ALL creatures knowing of God. I have been
    in contact witj my father indirectly since his death. I was working
    through my contact one nite and out of the blue he said my dog was with
    my father. Well,that floored me!
    
    I believe JESUS is of great importance in the spirit world and is our
    link to the father. So,if we dont know him while on Earth,we will,in
    the spirit world,which leads me to believe we may be saved after we
    leave this world into the next.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    Re. -1 (Mike)
    
    When I said beings other than humans, I was not only referring to those
    other species on the Earth, but those of other worlds as well. If God
    is truly omnipotent the He also cares about them, but that belongs to
    another notesfile..............
    
    
    Marilyn

Re .33

   "But that just hearing the gospal will not save anyone if they do not
    act on it or accept it. / It's to late after death."

Neither I nor Lewis nor Dante nor St. Thomas said that just hearing the gospel 
saved.  And St. Thomas, like you, believed that after death was too late.  His 
last chance was as "last" as you can get, at the very moment of death.

Re .32 & .34 &c

For the sake of clarity, people should realize there are at least four ideas 
being discussed here that, I think, are in danger of being confused:

  1: That Christ saves people who had never heard of him.

  2: That Christ saves people who have heard of him but do not believe in him.

  3: That Christ saves everybody (a doctrine called "Universalism").

  4: That there are ways of being saved other than by Christ.

Someone might believe 1 or 1&2 without believing 3 or 4, or they might believe 
1-3 without believing 4.

My impression is that only the most extreme liberals within Christianity 
believe 4.  Few Christians believe 3.  I suspect rather a lot believe 1 & 2, 
but I have no proof for this and no way of estimating the numbers.

Earl Wajenberg

    
    Saves people from what?

    Re .38
    
    "Saves people from what?"
    
    Separation from God.  If I understand the Buddhists correctly,
    Christianity is at the opposite pole from Theravada Buddhism.
    Theravada Buddhism claims that everyone must work their own way through
    to union with the divine, and that none can do it for another.
    Christianity, on the other hand, says that none can reach God through
    their own efforts, that this is only done through the saving work of
    Christ.  This does not mean that Christianity encourages spiritual
    passivity, but rather that in Christianity the spiritual work is to
    learn to accept the blessing, to become vessels of grace.
    
    Earl Wajenberg                                     

    
    Re.30something
    
    Bill W.,
    
    >It's too late after death.
    
    What death?
    
    
    Re.36 (Marilyn)
    
    >If God is truly omnipotent the He [ahem! (;^)] also cares about them,
    >belongs to another notesfile........
    
    Oh, I think this is the perfect place for it.  
    
    Cindy

    
    Re. .40 (Cindy)
    
    I was wary of entering that last bit in. As I said, that opens up a
    whole "nother" can of worms. However, since that's what I believe, I
    just had to.
    
    I know Mary Stanley is there somewhere to help me out if I get into
    too much trouble though. :-)
    
    Marilyn

    Re. .37 (Earl)
    
    In explaining your four different ideas, you excluded, (intentionally
    or otherwise) one last combination, that is, that you believe all of
    the above. We need to define, however, what is meant by saving. If
    Christ came to Earth to free us from sin, then He came to save ALL of
    us, not the select few who happened to have heard of him. 
    
    I would like to ask those who believe that the only way to God is
    through Jesus, and that the Bible is the True Word of God, how they
    explain the Jews. According to the Old Testament, if not actually in
    the New, The Jews are God's Chosen People. I don't believe God "took it
    back" simply because most Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.
    Does that mean, then, that though they are the Chosen, they are not to
    be saved, because they did not accept Christ? I would really like to
    hear someone's view on this.
    
    Marilyn

    .37  Bill,
    
    Out of those 4 choices you listed, which one(s) do you believe?
    And why?
    
    Depending on your definition of "save," I believe all four choices are
    true.
    
    Thanks 
    Paul

    Oops .... I goofed in my last reply.  .37 was written by Earl, but
    I still did want to ask those questions of Bill.  
    
    Sorry, it's been a long day!  8)
    
    Paul
    

RE: .39 (Earl Wajenberg)

    > Christianity, on the other hand, says that none can reach God through
    > their own efforts, that this is only done through the saving work of
    > Christ.

    It would be more accurate to say that in Christianity, in general,
    none can read God through their own efforts *alone*.  In some sects
    (classic Calvinism) it is only through Christ's effort that salvation
    is obtained and human effort is irrelevant -- what effort appears
    to be required will only be made at Christ's instigation.  But more
    generally, human effort *is* required.  This is implied by your last
    sentence, but as you expressed it there is more of a difference in
    this aspect between Christianity and Buddhism (most forms, I would say)
    than I think is justified.

    The basic difference here, is that Christianity believes that original
    sin has opened such a gulf between humanity and God that humans do
    not have the power, by themselves, to cross it.  Christ is God's effort
    to reach out to humanity -- narrowing the gap so that what remains can
    be crossed with merely human resources.

					    Topher

    Doesn't "save" have somethings to do with S&L's??  Does Sununu
    know about this? &^}
    
    Richard

    Paul said in Romans 1:19-20
    
             Because what may be known of God is manifest in them,
             for God has shown it to them.
             For since the creation of the world His invisiable
             attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the
             things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead,
             so that they are without excuse.
    
    What I was trying to say in the other note was that if those who lived
    before Christ or before the gospal was given, it they were truly
    seeking God, God would reveal Himself to them. God can read there hearts
    and know if they were realy seeking Him or not.
    There may be some areas in the world were the gospal has not been, so
    if they are realy seeking God they will fine Him.
    
    As far as North America, all have heard the gospal, but as I said
    earlyer if one rejects the gospal (Christ) they reject salvation.
    
    As fare as Israel, they would be saved on the faith of the coming
    Christ (Jesus). 
    
    Not everyone will be saved, some prefer not to believe in God or Christ
    or to follow them or accept them, sad but true.
    
    God love us so much He sent his only begotton son (Christ) to save us
    from our sins. But it's our choice to accept or not to accept Jesus.
    
    May the Lord Jesus shine on all.
    
    Peace,
    Bill      ( Christian, but not perfect, just forgiven.)
    
    Have a good day all.
    

    Mornin Cindy, long time no hear, hope you are well.
    
    Once we die, body, it's to late to make the choice. It will have to me
    made when we are a live.

    
    Marilyn,
    
       To expand on what I said,I,also believe God has other worlds and
    species on those worlds.
    
       I believe,that,if Christ is our link to God,that,he represents all
    of us who have lived,past,present,and,future.
    
       I also believe that each one of us has control of our own
    destiny,and,that,our path to Jesus is our choice.Whether we reach our
    goal depends on our choices here,and,beyond.
    
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

Re .42

The exclusion was not intensional, but if you believe 3 (Universalism, Christ 
saves everyone), it logically includes 1 and 2, and at least makes 4 look 
somewhat redundant.

Christian opinions of the Jews are, like most Christian opinions, various.  
2000 years is a lot of time to come up with alternatives.  God promised 
Abraham that "in you all the families of the Earth will be blessed." 
(Gen.12:3)  Many Christians, including myself, believe that the principle way 
God blessed all the Earth through Abraham was by having His Son born as one of
Abraham's children.

On a more generalized level, it is through His revelations the Jews that God
has told humanity most about His nature and will.  It is, so to speak, the 
reciprocal of mystical experience.  Instead of the mystic setting forth on a 
spiritual search for the divine and reporting (as well as words can say) on 
what he finds, you have the divine coming of its own initiative and telling 
someone (a prophet) what It thinks.

C. S. Lewis remarked that "Jews are our [Christians'] spiritual seniors."  In 
his letter to the Romans, chapters 9 through 11, St. Paul goes on at some 
length on this theme, and reminds the new gentile Christians (for at first all 
Christians were Jews) that they are Christians at all only by being, so to 
speak, adoptive Jews, wild branches grafted into the cultivated stock of the 
tree of Judah (Romans 11:17-21).

There is, therefore, not the least excuse for the antisemitism that blots the 
history of Christendom.  Christianity is rich in the principle of irony, and 
one of the great ironies is that the vast bulk of Judaism should refuse the 
Messiah, so that the vast bulk of Christianity is gentile.

I believe that the Jews are still the Chosen People, despite what I see as a 
rupture in their relations with God.  (There were many such ruptures recorded 
in the Old Testament, though of course none that lasted 2000 years.)  Their 
persisting Chosen status is shown in their sheer survival.

Re .43

I'm not sure if the question is still addressed to me as well as to Mr. 
Wooldrich, but here is my answer anyway: 1 & 2.  Many Christians seem to have 
an itch to be able to identify who is saved and who is not -- probably so they 
can feel sure they themselves are -- but this is God's judgement to make, not 
theirs, and He has many more facts at His disposal than they do, not to 
mention a greater acuity of intelligence, justice, and mercy.

Earl Wajenberg

    re .39
    
    Why do humans believe that we are "separated" from God?
    
    Mary

Re .45

Agreed.  I only meant that human effort is not sufficient; did not mean it was 
unnecessary.  In fact, I'd probably qualify as a Semi-Pelagian (a 4th- or 5th- 
century heresy that put more emphasis on human will than was acceptable at the 
time).

Earl Wajenberg

    
    It seems all of the world's religions are based on a single premise... that
    humanity is "separated from God".
    
    I don't believe that humanity is now or ever was "separated from God". 
    All of nature is a manifestation of God's presence... as are we.
    
    God is here now.
    
    Mary

    .47  Bill,
    
    I am still having trouble understanding what you mean ... sorry
    bout that.  ;)
    
    I understand that you believe how those who have never heard of Jesus
    or the gospels can "find God," although I am not exactly sure what you
    mean by "find God" ...  but ... what I really would like to know is:
    
    Do you also believe they CAN BE SAVED?    What do you think 
    happens to them when they die?
    
    Also, do you believe Jews can be saved via their own religious beliefs?
    And what specificallly happens to Jews when they die?
    
    Thank you,
    Paul
      

    Re .49 (Mike)
    
    I understand and respect your opinion.
    
    
    Re .50 (Earl)
    
    I'm relieved to read that you do believe that human effort (although
    not sufficient unto itself) is necessary for salvation. IMHO, the
    biggest flaw in classic fundamental Christianity is the belief that we 
    can behave in any way we want during our lifetime, and will still be
    "saved" simply by accepting Jesus as your savior before you die.
    That reasoning is, I believe, just shy of being as absurd as the
    fundamental Muslim belief that those who eliminate infidels will earn a
    special place in heaven. I apologize if I over-simplified the Muslim
    concept, I have not studied Islam intensively, but I believe to be
    correct in what I just stated.
    
    Could you elaborate on the different "ruptures with God" that you have
    observed of the Jews? I suspect most Jews would be rather surprised to
    hear that, insofar as their existence today is due to the sheer
    tenacity of a people that refused to change or recant their beliefs in
    the face of many foes.
    
    Marilyn

                                      
    Re.48
    
    Hi Bill,
    
    I believe I've been in bodily form for probably thousands of incarnations
    already, so your explanation of death as you believe it, does not apply.
    It is not to say that your believe is incorrect - it just means that
    your perception of death does not match mine, which is fine.  When you
    get right down to it, it doesn't really matter anyway.
    
    You may ask (or may not (;^) - what then, is the purpose of each 
    incarnation?  To borrow a quote from Richard Bach's book entitled "One" 
    - I believe that it is to learn to express as much love as possible, 
    thus following in the footsteps of the Masters (of which Jesus was one).  
    
    Over in the CHRISTIAN conference, there are several attacks on the New
    Age - that it is focused on the ego/self as opposed to God/Jesus/etc. 
    I recall the Biblical quote (paraphrased), that "ye shall know them by
    the fruits of their labors" or "ye shall know them by their works". 
    For the longest time I did not understand the almost open hostility
    against that which is the New Age, because for example, "New Age
    Journal" has articles in every issue about caring for the earth, the
    emphasis on service to humanity, and generally all those things which
    fall into the "Love thy neighbor" category.  Nowhere have I ever read
    anything about how to get ahead to get more money to satisfy self/ego
    gratification at the expense of fellow humans and the planet.  
    
    As for the focus on self - the commandment states that one should 
    "love thy neighbor AS thyself".  So is it wrong to love thyself?  I
    believe that the commandment means that one should work toward building
    self-esteem as opposed to indulging in those things which are
    addictions (sex, power, money for the sake of money, possessions,
    etc.).  The people who do not love themselves/have a high level of
    self-esteem, are those who try to find this love through addictions.  A
    self loving person, on the other hand, has no reason to search, and is
    in a far better position to help those who are (in need of help and
    self-esteem).  Remember the parable about Christ going to the
    prostitute and through His love raising her self-respect so that she
    indeed 'went and sinned no more'?  This is what I mean.
    
    I was further guided to try and figure out why there is such
    animosity in the CHRISTIAN conference toward things "New Age", and came
    upon a Satanic Bible by LeVey (no, it wasn't a New Age or a Christian 
    bookstore (;^).  Normally I just ignore stuff like that, but instead
    picked it up and read a few paragraphs.  There it was - the principle
    and reason for being of satanism is to satisfy the ego at all costs.  I
    now understand why the animosity exists - because the emphasis on
    'self' in the book on satanism gets transferred onto anything else that
    emphasizes 'self' and the fruits or works are not seen because of the
    unwillingness to look past the surface terms of what 'self' is and the
    difference between self-esteem and self-gratification - two very
    different things.
    
    I don't expect to change your mind on these things - I just hope that
    perhaps you will be challenged to look deeper beyond the rhetoric and
    come to a greater understanding.  
    
    May God bless,
    
    Cindy

    
    
    You express things so well,Cindy. I can really relate to what you
    said in .56. I am glad to see that some people are coming out of the
    darkness into the light. It sometimes becomes such a weight,seeing the
    darkness surround us in so many places in the world,but,its people like
    you,and,some others in this conference,which can punch holes in it. We
    cant allow it to win.We must keep up the battle.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

RE: .53 (Mary)

    > It seems all of the world's religions are based on a single
    > premise... that humanity is "separated from God".

    Some of them are, anyway (you would have a hard time finding that
    premise, for example, in Confusionsim).  Most of those which do,
    would say that the separation is purely an illusion and that it is
    the power of that illusion which must be overcome to regain the
    awareness of union.

    I take from your comments that you agree with this, at least to some
    degree, or you would not have thought your statement worth making.

					Topher

    Yes Topher, I do agree.  
    
    The problem I have with many of today's organized religions is that
    they appear to have created the illusion, or at least to have
    perpetuated it and (it seems) to have been done for their own benefit
    (to maintain control over their people).  
    
    One needn't go through religion to get to God.  One *is* God already 
    (or a part of what God is) and one can experience existence with God 
    right here and now without any outside interference.
    
    It seems as if many organized religions try to convince us that God
    doesn't really exist here... that He is only REAL in some other kind
    of existence after one dies and that one can only "get there" if one
    follows their rules.  They deny the existence of God Topher.
    
    Mary
                                                                

    Alot of religions and beliefs in this world. 
    Only something which exsists can manifest itself.
    This is to say, I may have believe something, but what I think may
    not always be real. Maybe a delusion. 
    But when something appears to you, a spirit, Angel, God, then you know
    it's real. Like hitting a brick wall, you know for sure it's there.
    If what you believe is true, it will be something you need not prove.
    If you believe something that is not true, then you're mistaken, so
    what?  

    Some people base their whole lives on "mistaken" beliefs.  They make
    decisions based on those beliefs that effect themselves and their
    families.  They really have a sincere desire to know God and that desire
    is blocked by illusions built upon "mistaken beliefs".
    
    So what?  So God IS Truth and The Truth will set you free.  And one of 
    the things that The Truth sets us free from is organized religion.
    
    	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

    Mike,
    
         are you saying that those who are christian are the darkness and
         those who are part of the new age are the light or bring the
         light into the world???
    
    Bill

    When it comes to God giving us a free will choice, in the context of
    we are saved or damned, you either accept Jesus as your personal savior
    or go to hell...to me...this isn't really a free will choice...and it
    has always irritated the heaven out of me. 
    
    Here you have God, Lord of the Universe bargaining with you over a 
    supposedly life and death issue. At least in the context of accepting
    or rejecting the proposal it is. And...you supposedly have this
    choice...between what?
    
    Here is God saying, (as what I read between the
    lines to mean is) you stupid little ignorant sack of toxic protoplasm,
    here is my offer, go your own way or die. Now that's really not a free
    will choice for the intelligent life affirming individual is it? But 
    that's God's offer according to the fundamentalist view of the bible.
    To me, that isn't a Free Will choice...
    
    Now if God was to say to me, Arthur you can choose to be a zen buddhist
    or a Baptist, and eat burgers or tofu, sit zazen or watch the
    Sports channel if you want...I'd say, God, heh, that's pretty nice of
    you...I can get behind that, and believe what your saying...about free will
    choices. But Nooo...God says, "Arthur, (as the flames of hell are roasting
    my toes),,,you can either look forward to bathing in hot lava for the rest
    of your days, or live in the pearly gates with me and play the harp!"
    
    And God pressures allittle more by saying...
    
    "But first you must accept my son Jesus as God...and you Arthur you
    worthless sinbag, you better get straight or else!" 
    
    Well...think about
    it...does the Lord of the Universe have to use FEAR to get you to accept
    his offer?  I mean what about ethics and standards?  FEAR as a tool of
    religion.  Accept or DIE?  my my my...
    
    Personally I don't think any respectable living loving God would resort to 
    such treachery if in the first place his offer was a free one. So as
    far as free will choices, accept or die...that's not free will, that's
    power tripping thru coercion by the use of fear IMHO.
    
    -Arthur
    
    
    

    
    There is much darkness and sorrow associated with Christianity....much
    pain and hypocrisy generated throughout it's history.
    
    And those who look towards the New Age do look to the light... to the dawn
    of a new day in the life of humanity.... to the coming of Truth.

re .59  - last line

"...the existence of God Topher"

Gee Topher, I always thought you are one heck of a guy, but I never realized
just how important you are!

Re .51
    
   "Why do humans believe that we are `separated' from God?"

Given the sharp contrast between pain and sin in human life and the perfection 
of God, a separation is the natural assumption.  For the monotheistic 
traditions, this assumption is backed up by the denunciations of the prophets 
and, of course, the story of the Fall.

About the only alternatives to this are to disbelieve in God or, as I
gather you do, disbelieve that the evil is real.
    
Re .64
    
The New Age movement has the strategic advantage of not having much
history yet in which to work up a record of pain and hypocrisy.
    
Earl Wajenberg

    
    Re.62
    
    Bill,
    
    I'm not speaking for Mike - just adding my view of the question you
    asked.
    
    I see darkness in both 'camps', and I see light in both as well.  I
    have many friends in both sides who emanate light from within which
    shines through in their works.  The darkness I see in each side is the
    enforced separatism - in order to be in one group, you have to be 
    against the other.   So much energy in this anti- approach is wasted
    when it could be used to work together for the greatest good, is very
    sad indeed.
    
    Carl Sagan stated that the cost of eradicating smallpox from the face
    of the Earth was one hour of the global military budget.  If we can
    focus in on what I believe the real purpose of religion is - to work
    together to give hope to the millions on Earth who have no hope - it 
    really doesn't matter if you believe the literal interpretation of the 
    Bible or if I believe that I've incarnated thousands of times. 
    
    If we can get over these stumbling blocks to go on and contribute to
    the health of the planet and to healing the Earth and it's inhabitants 
    of the effects of domination, we could perform miracles of the magnitude 
    which up till now have only dreamed of.
    
    It's nice of you to come here to preach the gospel and to find out
    about the motives here, for I know you are of good heart and are seeking 
    to serve the greatest good.  Please recognize, that while a good
    portion of participants in this conference do not share your beliefs, 
    they do share your willingness to serve the greatest good and that there 
    needn't be the separation that now exists.  The choice to keep up the
    separatism or to find common ground and work toward that lies with each
    of us.
    
    I pray we all choose wisely.
    
    May God bless,             
    
    Cindy

    
    
    RE: last few on light and darkness
    
    *IMHO* - there is light and darkness to be found *everywhere*.  It
    did and does exist in Christianity and it does exist in the New
    Age movement.  Let's open our eyes and see things as they really
    are.  We live in a world of polarity.  One of our tasks as we evolve 
    is to integrate that polarity - to own our darkness as well as our light.
    Once we do that we will be totally awake.  And once we are totally
    awake, we will realize that we were never really separated from God.
    What may shift is our idea/belief of what/who God is.  And that
    is a totally personal journey for each of us.
    
    Carole
    

    
    
    RE: .67  Cindy
    
    We wrote our replies (.67, .68) at the same time!  Sounds like we
    are of the same opinion.  I liked what you had to say and how you
    said it!
    
    Carole

    
Got to get my two cents worth in here.
    
I won't take the Bible quite so literally.  Jesus' saying that "I am the way, 
the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me," in John 
14:6, means to me that his teachings are the way.  

John 14:7-
	"If ye have known me, ye should have known my father also: and 
henceforth have known him and saw him."


And as a demonstration that God is in us and we are in God:

John 14:1,17,20
	"Believe me that I AM in my Father, and the Father in me: or elst 
believe me for the very work's sake."
 
(17)	Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it 
seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, 
and shall be in you."

(20)	"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I 
in you."

And to support the idea that it is the trust in Jesus and his message that is 
of prime importance:  John 15:7

	"If you abide in me and my words abide in you, you shall ask what you 
will and it shall be done unto you."

I perceive the word "know" to mean "understand," to understand his teachings. 
The message that underlies his teachings are no different than those that 
underly the teachings of Buddha or other great masters.  So, from this 
perspective, to know Jesus is to know by example his teachings "(for the very 
works sake"), and his teachings are also the way of other masters.  So in 
effect Jesus was correct in his saying he is the way to our higher self and 
that the "Kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20-21.)

Notice that in John 14:20, Jesus used the present tense when referring to 
something in the future. I believe that this is more than a manner of speaking 
for that era.  I believe (actually more than a belief) that Jesus was trying 
to say that we don't have to die a physical death to know God or to enter into 
Heaven.  It is only necessary to look inside and know that God is already a 
    part of ourselves.  But in order to fully recognize this, one must know
    the message that Jesus was trying to convey to us.  Jesus teaching is the 
    way, but so, also, is the message of Buddha, Tao, don Juan (Carlos 
    Casteneda), et al., Since they all describe "the way" from different 
    perspectives. 
    
    I like the idea that we can have heaven right now in this moment.  From
    the first moment Jesus began to teach, he said: "Repent: for the
    kingdom of heaven is at hand."   Being "at hand", to me says it is right
    now-immediately within reach.  And for myself, to the extent that I am
    able to "repent" Jesus' statement is accurate.

Ernie
                                                                        

Re .55

   "Could you elaborate on the different `ruptures with God' that you have
    observed of the Jews? I suspect most Jews would be rather surprised to
    hear that...."

What I was referring to would be a commonplace to a religiously educated Jew, 
not a surprise.  I meant the list of defections recorded in the Old Testament, 
starting with the golden calf produced at the beginning of the Exodus and 
including the religious crimes denounced at length in the books of Isaiah, 
Jeremiah, and Lamentation, among other places.  I suppose the last such
incident recorded in the Old Testament would be those sins which, according to
Jeremiah, led to the Babylonian Exile, around 600 BC.

Since Christianity was never restricted to a national population, its ruptures
have a more scattered pattern, more or less within the lines of denominations
and monastic orders.  The Christian equivalents of the admonishing prophets
are the saints, revivers, and reformers who are always working to bring the
Church back to its Lord. 

Earl Wajenberg

    Re .59 and others (Mary)
    
    You bring up a good point regarding organized religion. I believe in
    today's world, there is less emphasis on true Christianity than on
    "Churchianity". That is, religions have injected their own agenda so
    much into the original meaning of Christ's words (whatever they may
    have been) that we are no longer sure what to believe. 
    
    I do not agree on one point though, while my personal beliefs are
    sufficient (while learning all the time) to sustain me in my spiritual
    path to becoming totally one with God, I think some people need
    organized religions. They are not necessarily a bad thing. There are
    different levels of development, and organized religions fill a need
    for those whose development is not at the stage where they can shed
    their "training wheels". There so are many people in this conference that
    have long shed these "wheels" that we often forget that you can only
    run after you have learned to walk (sorry for all these metaphors).
    
    Also, you stated that some people base their whole lives on mistaken
    beliefs. Can you elaborate on this? I believe that everyone's beliefs 
    are very personal, so while they may be wrong for you they may be the
    beliefs I "need". Are you perhaps referring to those who adhere to
    beliefs that are contrary to those we hold as basic? (i.e. you shall
    not murder, steal, etc.)
    
    Re .60 (?)
    
    I am always surprised when someone doubts their own "gut feelings" or
    beliefs and instead relies on Angel, spirits, and the like to truly
    believe something. Are things any more true if they are revealed to you
    by a non-physical being rather than by your rationalization and
    feeling? One of the most suspect ways of learning is by these entities,
    I don't by any means believe that spirits have appeared to as many
    people as believe they have. Drugs, mental aberrations and just stress
    can produce hallucinations, can you believe in these more than in your
    own mind?
    
    
    Marilyn 

    Cindy .67,
    
    Amen!
    
    
    Arthur,
    
    Good points on coercion, fear and free will.  The God I know does not
    motivate one through fear or guilt.  In fact, these are the types of
    emotions that create and strengthen the illusion of seperate-ness.
    
    Kb.*

    
    
	Cindy and Carole,
    
        You are right.  I stand corrected.
    
    
    Note 1284.66  
    ATSE::WAJENBERG 
    
>Given the sharp contrast between pain and sin in human life and the perfection 
>of God, a separation is the natural assumption.  
    
    But there is no contrast.  If one accepts God as perfect than one accepts 
    that pain exists for a reason (thats why God created it).  Pain protects 
    the human from additional harm... both physically and emotionally.  It 
    tells us when to withdraw.  It is part of the perfection and therefore 
    perfect.

>About the only alternatives to this are to disbelieve in God or, as I
>gather you do, disbelieve that the evil is real.
    
    I don't understand how you reached these conclusions at all.  
    You claim that God is perfect and reality is imperfect therefore
    God is not reflected in reality.  But perhaps your perception
    of what is perfect is flawed.  Since God created all that exists
    and since God is perfect, then that which exists is a manifestation
    of God and perfect in itself.  Perhaps what you define as "perfect" is
    really not perfect at all.  Perhaps your view of perfection is flawed
    or perhaps God is not perfect and doesn't choose to be.  Shouldn't we accept
    God as God IS and not try to force God to fit into our own imperfect 
    model of what God should be?
    
    Evil is a word used to describe certain perceptions of mankind.  As far 
    as I can tell the only true evil that exists was created by mankind
    itself.
    
	Mary

    
    Note 1284.72 
    DELREY::MILLS_MA    
    
    >I do not agree on one point though, while my personal beliefs are
    >sufficient (while learning all the time) to sustain me in my spiritual
    >path to becoming totally one with God, I think some people need
    >organized religions. 
    
    Why?
    
    >There are different levels of development, and organized religions fill a 
    >need for those whose development is not at the stage where they can shed
    >their "training wheels". 
    
    Do they fill a need or do they create a need?
    
    >Also, you stated that some people base their whole lives on mistaken
    >beliefs. Can you elaborate on this? I believe that everyone's beliefs 
    >are very personal, so while they may be wrong for you they may be the
    >beliefs I "need". Are you perhaps referring to those who adhere to
    >beliefs that are contrary to those we hold as basic? (i.e. you shall
    >not murder, steal, etc.)
    
    Listen... please don't get offended by what I am about to say.. I mean
    no offense.  Truth is free to all mankind, not just an enlightened
    group or an advanced class of people.  Why would anyone "need" to believe 
    anythingm other than the Truth?  And why would anyone want to determine
    who among us isn't worthy or ready or intelligent enough for Truth?
    
    Mary

    
    ref .62
    
    No,Bill,that is not what I am saying. The darkness is to me,the evil
    workings of man,and,the ignorance of those who refuse to change and
    grow towards a greater knowledge of the universe here,and,beyond. The
    light is that which shines from the heart of God,and,is within each of
    us. Darkness can shut out the light if we let it,or,we can develop the
    qualities of God,and,bring forth greater light,greater joy,greater
    love.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    Re.75 
    
    Mary S.,
    
    I believe some people need organized religions just because it's nice
    to find people of similar beliefs and know that you are accepted for
    them without having to defend or explain or justify.  DEJAVU is such a 
    place.  (;^)  So is CHRISTIAN.
    
    In my experiences with Unitarian Universalism, I'm happy to have the
    place to go and meditate on Sunday mornings with my friends and to 
    enjoy the fellowship of the people there - sing in the choir, participate 
    in fundraising to help many causes such as the worldwide Unitarian 
    Service organization, and so on.
    
    Though I suspect you might have been implying something else with your
    comment on organized religions, I wanted to add in my point of view
    since it is such a large part of my life and has done me a great deal of
    good, particularly in my time of need.
    
    Cindy

    
    Yes Cindy... it is nice, but that doesn't make it a "need", that makes
    it a conscious choice.  A need is something that is necessary, a
    consciousness choice is an informed act of will based on many things
    including desire for acceptance by those of similar inclination.
    
    I'm all for making conscious choices... whatever they turn out to be.
    But conscious choice means that one is doing what one wants to do, not
    what one has to do... its the difference between need and desire.
    
    Mary

    Re .75 and .78 (Mary)
    
    Why do I believe that organized religions are necessary? Because the
    ones  who belong to them obviously do. I am merely reflecting an
    observation of their behavior and repeating what they say. I believe
    they fill the needs that Cindy stated as well as the one where we
    validate ourselves by the fact that those around us believe the same
    things, so they must be right. Before you respond to this, remember I
    do not consider myself one who needs organized religion. I am only
    stating what I believe to be true for those who do. Perhaps someone who
    is a member and regularly practices one can add to my response.
    If they create a need now, as some admittedly do, it is because they
    have come very far from their original intent which was, as Cindy put
    it so very well in an earlier note, to give hope to the hopeless in
    this world. Remember Christ's audience in the beginnings of
    Christianity.
    
    As for the word "beliefs", substitute My Truth.
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Marilyn

    Belief doesn't necessarily equal Truth... as inconvenient as that may
    be.  Hope is desire supported by expectation.  One is never truly
    without hope.
    
    You say you believe organized religions are necessary because others
    believe so.  Thats ok.  People are entitled to choose what they want
    to believe.  But that doesn't mean organized religions are necessary.
    
    Mary  

    
    Mary S.,
    
    >A need is something that is necessary...
    
    When I was needy - in need of moral and spiritual support for the sake
    of my own health and wellbeing from my fellow UUers and indeed from
    many conference members here - I deemed it necessary and was glad that
    the church/organized religion and the conferences were here.
    
    I did not desire acceptance by those of similar inclination.  Support,
    yes - acceptance, no.
    
    Cindy

Re .74

What a plentitude of perhapses.  Perhaps my perception of what is perfect IS 
flawed.  (It is certainly incomplete.)  But perhaps your denial of the 
contrast between human and divine is a mistake.

   "As far as I can tell the only true evil that exists was created by mankind
    itself."
    
Odd, that sounds a whole lot like an admission of the contrast between God and 
humanity that I drew in .66.

I agree that what God creates is perfect (that is a standard monotheist 
doctrine), but perfect creatures may not stay that way if they are made so 
that part of their perfection is that the perfection itself is voluntary.

Perhaps I should explain a bit more about the "separation" that salvation 
rescues us from.  It is a social estrangement.  Christian theologians have 
long recognized that God is not just a person, but we are persons, so the 
highest concepts of relationship that we can form are interpersonal ones.  In 
those terms, salvation is ending the estrangement between one and God.  It
certainly is a matter of "accepting God as God IS," since He cannot be
otherwise, but we can. That mankind creates evil for itself is evidence that
the estrangement is there. When the estrangement ends, when the ancient
quarrel is ended, when the love eternally offered by God is finally and fully
received and returned, that is salvation. 

Earl Wajenberg

    Re. .80 (Mary)
    
    >Belief doesn't necessarily equal Truth....
    
    Ah, but in this context it does to ME. What I have been trying to say,
    is that no one truly knows God's Truth. All we can hope to achieve is
    what we THINK is His/Her Truth. Thus, my belief is Truth to ME. You can
    choose to disagree with me on this, but why should I believe that
    someone else's truth is better than my own. I have explained myself
    better on this elswhere in this note. 
    You stated that Truth is for everyone, I agree, that is why no one
    else's Truth is better than my own.
    
    And I also disagree on the necessity of organized religion. We need not
    get into a semantics issue on the meaning of need. To me it is
    sufficient that someone *believes* something to be necessary for them for
    it to be so. Need is also a very personal thing; in your terms, I think
    people also choose their needs. Putting things in very simplistic
    terms, everything is a matter of choice. It only changes depeding on
    who is doing the talking.

    The truth is like a rainbow.
    If someone describes it to me and does not do a good job,
    I may take a dim view of it.
    Not until I see it on my own am I able to see clearly what it is all
    about.
    And yet, that is still only *my* perception of it.
    But if I was able to see a rainbow thru the eyes its creator,
    might I not see it in all of its beauty?
    
    I think Christianity, in general, has gotten a bad rap,
    brought on by both Christians and nonChristians.
    
    However, I do believe it *is* the truth,
    it's just that it isn't all that clear yet.
    More light needs to be shed on it
    (and this can be done in many refreshing ways).
    It's like we are looking at it thru stained glass or something.
    
    (Mark
    

    
    (ah, another step in the ever ongoing campaign to stamp out Dualism)
    
    If we could realize that there is not a dualistic separation between
    humans and God/Goddess/ATI/ULF and in fact realize that we each
    are part of (extensions of) the ultimate life force, then we could
    skip all the hassles brought forth by the dualistic separation.
    
    If we could realize that good and evil are both valid parts of
    being an entity (in our case humans) we would not longer have
    to empower evil disproportionately by fearing it and could shed
    a bunch of the baggage that goes along with that.  I fact, we
    could move closer to becoming whole human being - rounded - 
    balanced - not a bunch or warring parts (internal and external.)
    
    If we embraced the ultimate life force and stopped empowering evil -
    stopped fixating on evil, then we'd probably not need
    the artifact of organized religion to lean on because we'd all
    be a part of the same whole.  I personally suspect that were
    that to happen humanity would become a telepathic organism,
    but that's beyond my point here.
    
    Unfortunately, western thought is rooted in dualism - so it's
    an uphill battle. 
    
    One thing I have not been able to understand is why people who
    believe in an omnipotent god are so afraid of being tainted by
    evil.  (I know - this is winging in out of left field and doesn't
    belong here.)  If your god is all powerful, and you are in 
    a relationship with that god, why can you draw on the perfect
    power and transcend the evil instead of running away and fearing
    it all the time?
    
    alison
    
    p.s. -  Mary S. I agree with what you have been saying.
    

re: *Way* back in .66 (Earl)

   > The New Age movement has the strategic advantage of not having much
   > history yet in which to work up a record of pain and hypocrisy.
    
   Actually, most of the beliefs and ideas/ideals of the "new age" movement
   as it is called these days predate Christianity by a few thousand years.
   Also the number of people throughout history that can be considered as
   practicing Christians are a wee number compared to those who cannot be
   classified as such.  I think that this "movement" (that has been with us
   for a *real* long time) is not unlike the "movement" that took place
   about 2000 years ago.  It's just that politics got involved, egos battled
   against egos, countries against countries, splits here, wars fought there,
   lives lost, etc, etc and now we have Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics,
   Presbyterians, 7th Day Adventists, Anglo-Catholics, Calvinsts, Christian
   Scientists, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Episcopalians, Orthodox Christians,
   Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, Mormons, PTL'ers, Puritians, Baptists, Jehovah
   Witnesses, Evangelical Congregationalists, Latter-day Saints, etc, etc,
   etc.  Meanwhile, "new age" thought has remained pretty much the same and
   has chosen (I guess) not to organize, politicize or whatever.  Also, the
   other organized religions that were around a thousand or so years before
   Christianity, such as Bubbhism and Hinduism haven't gone through the
   same evolution (splits) as the Christian ones have.  Why???  I dunno...

   I guess what I am saying is that the "new age" movement *has* had the time
   and opportunity to work up a record of pain and hypocricy but, for whatever
   reason, it hasn't happened ...  

   Terry

   PS.  While I was typing through the list (and I left *a lot* out) of 
   Christian religions the story of the Tower of Babel popped into mind.
   Particularily how construction of the "tower to God" was halted by the 
   confusion of "tongues" ...  Hummmm  }B') 

     <<< Note 1284.85 by PSG::G_REILLY "ask not for whom the bell tolls" >>>
                        -< just call me Donna Quixote >-
    
>    If we could realize that good and evil are both valid parts of
>    being an entity (in our case humans) we would not longer have
>    to empower evil disproportionately by fearing it and could shed
>    a bunch of the baggage that goes along with that.

Yes I agree.  I've been trying to not label "things" good or bad.  If I choose
to label something either way, it's like I've "fallen off the fence" and can't
see the other side.  If I don't fall off, then I can see that it isn't greener
on either side, just opposite.

		Dave

    .84 ((Mark)
    < The truth is like a rainbow.
    < If someone...
    
    I really like that.
    
    Paul

    re .66:
    
    	"About the only alternatives to this [believing that humans are
    	separated from God -- jdc] are to disbelieve in God or, as I gather
    	you do, disbelieve that the evil is real."
    
    I feel that there are more alternatives. For starters, one could
    believe that God is not omnipotent, or that God is not omniscient, or
    that God is not omnibenevolent, or that God's "goodness" transcends our
    notions of it (which might be the same thing as disbelieving that evil
    is real, depending on how you construct the argument). I suppose you
    could say that such beliefs are also disbelieving in God, but that
    seems like a quibble.
    
    	Jon

Re .86

  "Actually, most of the beliefs and ideas/ideals of the "new age" movement
   as it is called these days predate Christianity by a few thousand years."

Yes, I know.  Most of it seems to come from the overlapping parts of Hinduism 
and Buddhism.  I was limiting my use to what I thought was the popular 
meaning, that is, the various books, workshops, etc. published under that
label.  

  "Also, the other organized religions that were around a thousand or so 
   years before Christianity, such as Bubbhism and Hinduism haven't gone 
   through the same evolution (splits) as the Christian ones have.  Why???
   I dunno..."

I think the reason is something like this:  The mystical and spiritual
traditions of the Orient grow out of a polytheistic tradition.  Polytheism is 
not generally concerned with correct doctrine; its main religious anxiety is 
the fear of leaving someone out.  The mystical spiritual traditions of the 
Occident are rooted in monotheistic traditions.  Monotheism starts by 
distinguishing the One True God from all the false gods, lowercase, so a 
concern with truth and correct doctrine is built in at the beginning.  As a 
moderator for the philosophy conference, I can testify that there is nothing 
like a pursuit of abstract truth for causing divisiveness.  The Orient is in 
pursuit of Truth too, but it is not an abstract Truth, but a mystical one 
that, we are repeatedly told, cannot be put into words.  This greatly reduces 
the occasions for argument.

Earl Wajenberg

Although I don't feel any identity with the entity known as "the new age
movement," from an outsider's perspective I look like one of 'em (if it looks
like a duck, walks like a duck, etc.).  When I was 9 I decided that Christianity
was not my version of "truth" and in the intervening years I have seen nothing
to tempt me to change my mind.  That said... 

re .86, Terry's reply to .66:

I see plenty of pain and hypocrasy sprouting from "the new age movement."  (I 
also see a lot of good.)   Regarding your statement, "Buddhism and Hinduism 
haven't gone through the same evolution (splits)" as Christianity:  they haven't
gone through the same splits, they've gone through their own splits ;-).  There 
has been plenty of factionalization (is that a word?) in both Buddhism and 
Hinduism, with the usual amount of rancour between factions.  My point:  
politics, in-fighting, factionalization, pain and hypocracy are not unique to 
Christianity.  These are the natural (albeit icky) by-products of all joint 
human endeavors.  I don't think a religion/movement/whatever can be judged on 
this basis - no group can bear the scrutiny.  Groups are made up of people, of
individuals, some of them more, ahem....enlightened?...than others.  To me, the 
point is to look at the value of the ideas presented by the system, and maybe 
to look at the *best* of the followers/leaders as the fruit by which to judge.
  
Speaking of which...

re .84    Mark, I really liked what you had to say.  Would you take it amiss
if I said I thought you were a good fruit?  (To judge Christianity by, of
course!  ;-)

    
    re .91
    >  ...Would you take it amiss if I said I thought you were a good
    >     fruit?
    
    
    :)
      You know, this might have something to do with the reason why my
      friend Jennifer calls me a *sweet potato*.
      But then again, maybe not.
    :)
    
    
    Mark
    

Re .89

Yes, there may be more alternatives, though I do not offhand recall seeing 
any.

   "I suppose you could say that such beliefs are also disbelieving in God, 
    but that seems like a quibble."

I'm not sure that it would be a quibble.  From a monotheist perspective, 
getting rid of any of the omni's is a major change to the concept of God.
If I take away the long ears, the hopping, and the home in a hole in the 
ground, am I still talking about a rabbit?

Earl Wajenberg

    .93   Earl,
    
    Sure, the absence of "omnis" is pretty much alien to my own concept of
    God -- everpresent in everything, everywhere.  However, I fail to
    understand how you can describe God with nearly as much certainty as you
    describe one of His creations, a rabbit, manifested on the physical
    earth plane.  Do you really know the characteristics of God that well?  
    Length, width, height, color, texture?   What God looks like and the 
    way God moves and the sounds that God makes?   Are you sure that our 
    limited earthbound senses are sharp enough to detect and verify these 
    characteristics?
    
    So ... with all due respect, I would like to take issue with your
    picking the nit on the quibble.  8^)   When we talk about God, I am not 
    convinced that, given our limited human vantagepoints, we can simply
    dismiss someone's concept of God, in the same sure way we can dismiss 
    an elephant while searching of rabbits.  Especially when we use earthbound
    scientific methods to construct the nature and characteristics of God.  
    So there might be some credibility in the Quibble after all.   8)
    
    BTW, I also feel there are other alternatives.  Separation from God
    need not mean the existence of evil, as an independent real opposing
    force.  Just because we have "good guys" doesn't always mean we have 
    to have "bad guys."   Separation may simply mean a lack of
    enlightenment, or enlightened behavior.  I think there is a difference 
    between evil behavior -- doing things via our own free will that are 
    contrary to the Spirit of God -- and inherently evil beings.   You know, 
    the way there is a difference between "high risk" behavior and "high risk"
    people.   IMHO, everyone has at his/her core the light of the holy spirit 
    indwelling.  The trouble is that we have, for so long, been caking over 
    this light with layer upon layer of mud -- to the point where the light 
    is blocked out, to the point where we begin to believe our true essence 
    *is* the dark mud, instead of the light of the holy spirit.  So in that 
    sense, I think there is much to be said for evil getting mistaken for 
    "real," when, in the final analysis, it is not real.
    
    I usually get very cautious when, in religious debate, someone 
    says ... "Well it has to be either A or B -- there are simply no other
    alternatives."  You know, like the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic theory.  When
    it comes to God, we can almost always come up with viable altneratives.
                                                              
    Cheers,
    Paul       

RE: .90

>I think the reason is something like this:  The mystical and spiritual
>traditions of the Orient grow out of a polytheistic tradition.  Polytheism is 
>not generally concerned with correct doctrine; its main religious anxiety is 
>the fear of leaving someone out.  The mystical spiritual traditions of the 
>Occident are rooted in monotheistic traditions.  Monotheism starts by 
>distinguishing the One True God from all the false gods, lowercase, so a 
>concern with truth and correct doctrine is built in at the beginning.  As a 
>moderator for the philosophy conference, I can testify that there is nothing 
>like a pursuit of abstract truth for causing divisiveness.  The Orient is in 
>pursuit of Truth too, but it is not an abstract Truth, but a mystical one 
>that, we are repeatedly told, cannot be put into words.  This greatly reduces 
>the occasions for argument.

    I don't think this is true. Hinduism and other so called 'oriental'
    philosphies did not change much is because they are based on sound 
    principles which have been realized and proved by the practice of
    Yoga. The 'reason', logic and commentaries in the Eastern systems 
    have been repeatedly used for understanding these principles NOT a
    proof of those principles. This has given rise to so many views and
    traditions found in Eastern philosophies. Every interpretation is used
    to substantiate the ultimate principles NOT contradict them. Its people
    are taught from the very beginning that there is no human being who can
    claim originality of these principles. The beginning of the idea is
    with respect to its comprehensions. But the idea existed before such
    comprehension by the human being. 

    It is a different concept.

- Virendra Verma

Re .94

My little trichotomy, with which everyone seems to take issue, was an off-the- 
cuff list, for convenience while talking about something else.  I have already 
acknowledged in a theoretical way that it may not have been a complete list, 
though I cannot help noting that, right after you say, "I also feel there are 
other alternatives," you go on to say, "Separation from God need not mean the
existence of evil, as an independent real opposing force."  To me this sounds 
like one of the items on my little list.

No, I can claim very little direct familiarity with God.  But it remains true 
that if you alter feature after feature of a term's definition, you eventually 
have given the term a new and separate meaning.  When that point comes is a 
judgement call, of course, which is what makes this a matter of quibbles and 
nits.

Let's start from the other end.  Are the Tao, Brahm, and the Buddha-nature all 
synonymous with God?  Hard to say.  One of the leading features of the first 
three is that they are ineffable, indescribable.  Sometimes, the eastern sages
say that no attributes can be meaningfully assigned to them.  But then, the
western sages have often said the same thing about God.  How many ineffable
ultimates can you have?  And, if there are more than one, how would you tell
them apart?

Re .95

I'm not sure why you bother to disagree with me.  None of the rest of your
note conflicts with anything I said in .90. 

Earl Wajenberg

    Re .94 (Paul)
    
    As always, I agree. You have put it much better than I could
    have.
    
    Re .95 (Virendra)
    
    At the risk of dragging this argument out beyond it's normal course, I
    would like to offer a third, if somewhat prosaic reason for the fact
    that eastern religions have gone through less upheavals than
    Christianity. As I understand them, most eastern religions emphasize
    the need for individual development and enlightenment. Yoga, as you
    brought up, is totally personal; there is no one involved but you.
    Western religions, under the mantle of Christianity demand that the
    followers submit themselves to a set of beliefs that some of them may
    be beyond, in their spiritual development, and conversely, may be
    beyond some people as well. Given this, I see a a future with as many
    factions of Christianity as there are Christians who think. This is not
    necessarily a bad thing. The alternative is people mindlessly following
    the teachings, right ot wrong of someone to whom they have given their
    God/ddess given right to choose for themselves.
    
    There is an excellent example of this in the Religion notesfile # 408
    or 409. I would post it here, but I have not yet learned how to do
    that. Perhaps someone who knows how can do so. It is a very forceful
    reminder to those of us who consider ourselves enlightened that
    although we may subscribe to the "live and let live" philosophy, there
    are those that do not, and we are not yet out of the woods.
    
    Peace,
    
    Marilyn

    .96  Earl,
    
        "Sometimes, the eastern sages say that no attributes can be
         meaningfully assigned to them.  But then, the western sages 
         have often said the same thing about God ..."
    
    Disagree.  I don't think the West is anything like the East, in terms
    of our images of God.
    
    I am no scholar on Western civilization, but I think we in the West
    have pretty much taken the mystery out of God.  Especially in this
    culture, and its Christian traditions, God certainly is not ineffable. 
    Christianity in the West, as far as I can tell, seems to know precisely
    what God looks like.  (We even seem to know what God's personality
    is like.)  You know -- God is a separate being.  God is male.  God
    could pass for someone's wise old old Grandfather, usually with
    white hair and a beard, who is strong, silent, firm, and stoic, yet
    benevolent, kind, and gentle.  Pretty much along the lines of this
    outdated American male role model, which doesn't work, with which
    American boys are forced to grow up.  Sort of like John Wayne 
    with a beard.  Charlton Heston perhaps?
    
    I have a theory about all this, though you may laugh.  Western
    civilization, being male-dominated culture for centuries, has invented
    its ideal patriarchal icon -- the ideal "father" most of us never had. 
    With the dawn of the industrial revolution, fathers and sons have
    pretty much become separated, emotionally and physically distant from
    one another.  And for the last couple of centuries, males in the West, 
    yearning for older male role models (and fathers) have been forced to 
    make over God into the image of the perfect Father ... in more ways than 
    we know.  Out of all the adult males that you know, what percentage of them 
    have happy, satisfying relationships with their fathers?  Most men I know 
    have not.   So ... our Western (especially American) image of God, and 
    to a large extend, I think, Jesus, pretty much stems from the lack of
    male role models (fathers and grandfathers) in a male-dominated
    culture.   Many of you out there may find this outrageous and amusing, 
    and that is OK.  I would suggest, however, that you look at the West's 
    visual images of God.  Look at the icons that Christianity has been 
    worshipping -- the statues, movies, pictures, paintings, apparitions, 
    and so forth.
    
    Anyway, suffice it to say that there ain't much mystery to God, for the 
    most part, in Western Christianity.  And those are my $.02.
    
    Cheers,
    Paul
     

RE: .97 (Marilyn)

I agree with you that Yoga is personal and no one else is involved with it
except the experiencer. But, again this is a matter of choice for those
who insist on proof and realization. Hinduism does not preach that everyone
should be a Yogi. It is meant for the teacher and more technically for
a more 'disciplined' and well 'behaved' teacher who works for the benefit
of the society.

I hate the way people are practicing Yoga in the west for money and their
personal development rather than the society as a whole. I witnessed an
incantation for extracting a tooth in India by a street entertainer. He
was no Yogi, but, got this mantra from some true Yogi (it is hard to find
these kind of devoted people). He was told by his guru not to charge for
this incantation otherwise he will loose this power. And that's what the
guy does after his show to help poor people rather than show off the
miracles of Yoga. No one can be a true Yogi if practiced for personal
gain (such as pride of culture, money, personal fame). The reasons are
obvious: misuse.

    Re .99 (Virendra)
    
    Thanks for your reponse. I find it and interesting and refreshing
    concept that the Yogi should practice for the good of society rather
    than for personal gain. However, should it not also be for their own
    development? Insofar as we cannot hope to help others if we ourselves
    are not free from needing help ourselves. As we have all stated, the
    differences batween East and West are great, I do not so much mind
    people practicing Yoga for their own SPIRITUAL development as I do
    people telling me what I should or shouldn't believe in or do. See my
    previous note which references a topic in the Religion notesfile.
    Having said this, however, on my opinion of Yoga, I am admittedly not a
    very valid person to comment on this, since Yoga is as new to me as to
    most of Westerners. Anything of a religious nature practiced for
    personal financial gain is distasteful to me also.
    
    Peace,
    
    Marilyn
    gain above 

    
    Re.98
    
    Paul,
    
    From my vantage point, I think you're close to how the West views God
    (made in their own image).  One problem is that when a child is abused
    early on by an authoritive parent, especially if that parent uses
    religion as a justification for the abuse, then the child's view of God
    is identical to that of the abusive/authoritative parent which accounts
    for a large number of abused children utterly rejecting orthodox
    Christianity, but still believing in a Higher Power.
    
    Fortunately I had a loving grandather who introduced me to church/God
    early on, and so my first impression of 'God' was representative of who
    my grandather was (kind, gentle, loving).  Though it happened to be a
    Baptist church, my grandfather was very liberal and accepting of all
    religions which is probably why I'm a Unitarian Universalist today.  I
    suspect he would have been one too, had it been the church within
    walking distance of his house.  (;^)
    
    Having had my own contact with the mystical about 3 years ago (an
    experence where you *know* that God exists, but cannot pass on that
    knowing via intellectual means), my view of God is slightly different
    now - probably more androgynous than my view early on.
    
    Cindy

    Re. (Mills)
    
    Marilyn,
    
    Take a look for the magazine called "Yoga Journal".  I've been getting
    it for a while now, and find it to be quite good.
    
    Cindy

Re .98

   "Anyway, suffice it to say that there ain't much mystery to God, for the 
    most part, in Western Christianity."

Whose western Christianity?  I have no doubt you could find plenty of naive 
Christians whose picture of God is just as you have painted.  I have just as 
little doubt that I could find similarly crude imagery among Hindus and 
Buddhists.

I did not make up the western sages who declare God's mystery.  The two that 
come first to mind are the unknown author who used the name "Dionyios the 
Areopagite" and St. John of the Cross.  There are plenty of others.  St. 
Thomas Aquinas, with typically Scholastic precision, discusses why God is 
incomprehensible to His creatures.  God's mystery is stated in the Athanasian 
Creed.  The councils of the church long ago condemned Anthropomorphism,
the idea that God has a human form, and in fact the catechisms routinely
describe Him as "without parts or passions."

I did not have to dig deep to find these references.  They are merely a bit 
beyond the most popular, mass-consumer levels of Christian preaching and 
writing, just as the philosophical pantheism of many DEJAVU notes is beyond 
the daily horoscope and the tabloids' list of "lucky numbers for 1990."

You speak about the male-dominated nature of Western society as if the 
societies of India, China, and Japan were NOT male-dominated.  In fact, they 
are even more male-dominated than our own society, at present, and there is no 
era in recorded history in which they were less so.

Earl Wajenberg

    
    Hi Virendra,
    
    Would you please consider beginning a new topic on yoga?  
    
    Cindy

    .101
    
    Thanks Cindy ... I am glad someone doesn't think I am crazy.  Not only
    are we inclined to create God in our own image, I think we are also
    inclined to create God according to our own needs.
    
    .104
    
    Well, that's all nice and scholarly, Earl, but having grown up as Roman
    Catholic -- as you may have -- I have a different view of what our
    predominantly Christian culture has done with God's image.  Human
    carcasses may have been outlawed by certain organized religions, but
    the message that has been sent out to Christian folks, at least in this
    country, is God being precisely the way I described it in .98 ...
    you know, the long-lost father figure.
    
    Perhaps these other cultures are also male-dominated.  However, from
    what I can see, in the industrial West, in America especially, the
    lack of meaningful male role models for boys, and the overall poor
    quality of father-son relationships and male bonding, in my humble
    opinion, has led to a particular image of God, created by Western males, 
    that encompasses everything-I-always-wanted-my-father-to-be-and-more type 
    of mindset.  I listen closely to so many men, Christian men, talk about
    their close relationships with God and Jesus.  And in their words you
    can find a very intense loving and yearning and longing to be close to
    the "Father" and the "Son."   This isn't necessarily bad ... in some
    ways it is rather touching ... but the message, at least to me, comes
    through loud and clear.  Relationships with God, for a lot of Christian 
    men, take on this strong male-mentor and male-bonding aspect to it.  Would
    many of these same men know how to relate to their real fathers, 
    grandfathers, sons, and brothers -- the ones who are not invisible -- 
    with such an intensity?   Probably not.   I know I am setting myself up
    to catch a lot of flack for saying this, but I can only convey my
    impressions of what we, as a culture, have created in the form of 
    God's image.  
    
    As Cindy said, we all view God according to our own images, and for a
    lot of us in this culture, God looks a lot like Ward Cleaver.  ;)
    
    Paul
                                                                       

    Re .103 (Cindy)
    
    Thanks for the pointer, I'll try to find the magazine....
    
    Virendra, I second Cindy's request for a new note on Yoga, although I
    don't know very much about it, it's a topic I really want to explore.
    
    
    Marilyn

Re .106
    
I believe there are two being confused here:

Q1: To what depths of childishness and crudity can mainstream Christianity 
sink and still remain mainstream?

A1: Pretty darn low.

Q2: To what heights of metaphysical sophistication can mainstream Christianity 
rise and still remain mainstream?

A2: Pretty darn high.

Earl Wajenberg

    .108 ... I agree with you on both counts, however the bulk of what you 
    call "mainstream" Christianity has, in my eyes, sunk pretty darn low ...
    Fine Christians (like Cindy) who put God's love at the center of their
    faith, seem to be the exception rather than the rule nowadays.  Those
    in the "mainstream," as far as I can tell, are much too concerned with 
    looking for the speck in their brother's eye and darkness in their 
    brother's soul.
    
    By the way ... re your comments on organized religion as being merely a
    coming together of people of similar faith.  I would disagree, at
    least, as it involves most Christian quarters, since "the church" is
    forever stating its "position" on everything.  And those who go against
    the church's "position" are invariably treated as outcasts. 
    Spirituality is a private affair between ourselves and God, IMHO, and 
    differences in faith, especially in group settings, ought to be 
    respected, not put down.
    
    Paul  

    Re .109
    
    Yes, I had gathered your opinion from the tenor of your earlier
    remarks.  As to what is exceptional and what is the rule, I would not
    care to guess, since I do not know of any good way of verifying the
    answer.  I cannot think of any reliable way of conducting a spiritual
    census.
    
    Nor would it matter much to me.  The number of people who misunderstand
    or misapply an idea has nothing to do with the truth of the idea.
    
    I do not know what comments on organized religion you are referring to.
    The remarks about the dynamics of schism in .90?  If so, you
    misunderstand.  I was only describing the situation from the "history
    of ideas" side.  There are the social and political aspects to schism,
    too, of course.  They may readily be more important, the doctrinal
    difference providing only a pretext.  I certainly know that schism is a
    breeding ground for anger and vitriol.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

                      <<< Note 1284.98 by JOKUR::CIOTO >>>
>   God is male.  God
>    could pass for someone's wise old old Grandfather, usually with
>    white hair and a beard, who is strong, silent, firm, and stoic, yet
>    benevolent, kind, and gentle.  Pretty much along the lines of this
>    outdated American male role model, which doesn't work, with which
>    American boys are forced to grow up.  Sort of like John Wayne 
>    with a beard.  Charlton Heston perhaps?
    
    The counselors and therapists that I have met & worked with have generally 
    said that most people's view of God is MOM with a beard !
    
    karl
    

Re. 104 (Earl)

Can not speak for modern India because it has changed quite a bit during
this second millennium after Moghul empire. In ancient India, the status
of woman was equal to that of man and even higher. There are plenty of
female goddesses such as Kali (destroyer of enemy), Saraswati (the goddess
of Knowledge), Lakshmi (the goddess of wealth) etc. Lilavati was renowned
mathematician in ancient India. In Mahabharata, there is no reference to
pardah system and woman confined only to four walls of the house. In
marriages, woman had full right to choose her husband. Not only that, the
husband had to be equal in quality with his wife by demonstration. (e.g.,
Rama had to marry Sita only after lifting a heavy bow, Drupadi will
mary to a renowned archer, Shakunthala will marry to a person matching
her intellect.) A woman was allowed to have multiple husbands and so was
man. According to Graha-Sutra, a woman could remarry due to economic
conditions or otherwise. Sati, in which a wife burns herself with the husband, 
was not a compulsory tradition but a voluntary one and was regarded an 
expression for love.

In recent times, Lakshmi Bai was a great worrier and British army knows 
about it. The courage of Savitri is still remembered. Mother is still 
worshiped as god in most authentic Hindu families and she is regarded as 
higher than the father.

Above show that woman was an equal partner with man in all spheres of life-
be it intellectual, defense of ones country or social.

Some may say it is all mythology. Even then, it may be said that the 
thinking of those writers was not atleast "male-dominated".

Re. (Yoga references)

Yoga done for personal development (without the intent for harming others)
is alright but will not bear the fruits of perfection. There are 8 stages
of Yoga. The last one is the dis-appearance of individual existence into
the ultimate reality because differentiation is what causes individualistic
principle. The nature of this ultimate reality is Bliss. I am pretty sure
no one, wishing to experience the joy of differentiation and more specifically
materialistic objects, would like to strive for that goal. By nature he/she
cannot because the last stage is only achieved without having desire. As
long as there is desire, there is karma or action which produces more desires
and endless cycle starts going away from ultimate reality.

For a working modern person, first five stages are good enough which together
produce such miracles as good health, sound and energetic mind, beautiful
voice and so on so forth. The intent of Pranayama is not just good health.
Good health is a by product of it. The real intent of Pranayama is to hold
ones breath at will as long as one wishes. Because even breathing activity is
regarded as hinderance to achieving the 8th stage.

- Virendra

    
    re .110
    >...The number of people who misunderstand or misapply an idea has
    >   nothing to do with the truth of the idea.
    
    How true!
    But the real problems start when people mistake for the truth
    the misunderstanding or misapplication, because this misleads
    some people into accepting what is not the truth and
    makes it very easy for other people to reject the truth,
    not by evaluating *it* but rather the mistake.
    
    (Mark
    

Within the world of Notes there are many households.  One conference deals
with matters such as the interpretation of dreams, psychic phenomena,
paranormal experiences, and, oh, by the way, astrology, tarot, paganism
and such.  Another conference deals with Christian issues with unquestioning
deference to Biblical authority.

In the first conference there is no compulsion to evangelize or proselytize
anyone.  In the second there is a general intolerance to anything foreign
to Bible-centered Christianity.  In fact, there is a reluctance to even admit
that there exists any other kind of Christian.

Now occasionally, an avid proponent of the second conference slips into the
first conference and feels obliged to rebuke their wrongness and waywardness
in the name of Jesus.  They inevitably meet with resistance, and sometimes
even harshness.  This occurs particularly in response to zealous proclamations
when issued as inflexible absolutes.

And occasionally, a contributor of the first conference slips into the
second conference and feels obliged to challenge, prod and encourage thinking.
Of course, sometimes this meets with rebuke or with offline mail.  Sometimes
the mail will remind the addressee that the guidelines clearly say this is
a Bible-based conference.  Other times, the mail demands, "You got a Scripture
for that?"  Still other times the mail might say, "God loves you.  So do I.
Take it from someone who loves you like a brother in Christ.  You're a good
person, but you're leading people astray."

What would it take to reconcile these two conferences?  To create a sense
of community?  To develop mutual respect and trust?  To overcome the fear?

Richard

    
    Richard,
    
    Which C-Note did you post in?  I'm only following two of the
    discussions at the moment.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy, 1016.*

    
    The collapse of character often begins on compromise corner.
    
    A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody
    believes he got the biggest piece.
    
    Why should some people be willing to compromise when they're the ones
    who are always right?
    
    A compromise is a deal in which two people get what neither of them
    wanted.
    
    Compromise is always wrong when it means sacrificing a principle.
    
    
    
                                RM

    re: .118 (RM)
    
         I don't expect you to *compromise,* and therefore partially
    agree with me, since it appears you feel you are "right," however,
    your view doesn't allow for a "greater truth."  That is, what you
    don't take into consideration is the fact that there can be a 
    win-win situation wherein though one view may be correct, the other
    view may ALSO be correct.  (If you're into computer programming,
    think in terms of "nesting" or sub-routines, if you will.)  Why
    should someone be willing to compromise?   How about to be done with
    whatever the issue is?  How about for harmony?  How about for love?
    Is that not a greater goal than "being right?"  
         You are correct about principles.  One's character determines
    the frequency they hold in maintaining and applying their principles.
    The only thing anyone should ever sacrifice is their own negative
    ego.  But again, is there a greater principle?  Is there a greater
    truth?  Can one principle be compromised for the sake of another?
    
    
    Frederick
    

    
    One main tenet of Unitarian Universalism is that no principle or belief
    is of greater importance than a human life.
    
    Cindy

    
    re: .118  ("...sacrificing a principle...")
    
    Sounds like you're holding on to your principles too much. :-)
    
    guy

    Forget it.  Moore isn't composing those aphorisms, he's copying
    them out of a book.  He's never credited the book or the editor,
    and as far as I'm concerned, that does NOT constitute fair use,
    so he is plagarizing.
    
    And what I say is unimportant, because he never replies to any
    comments made about his entries.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    Ann,
    
    I concur.  Why bother attempting to have a discussion with someone who
    knows he's right anyway?
    
    It's probably best to leave the person caught up in their own illusion.
    Less energy will be expended all around by simply pushing next unseen.
    
    Cindy