Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    RE: .0
    
               Very good question!  I too have been wondering if all the
    things attributed to it were true.  IE..not believing in Christ ect,
    ect...
    
    Dave

    Well I'm going to forward a copy of the base note to Don so he
    can tackle it..
    
    He is a very Christ centered man, but is also 'new age'.
    
    Bonnie

    Re:  .2
    
           "... a very Christ centered man, but is also 'new age'."
    
    Perhaps someone can explain in this topic why this concept invariably 
    seems to blow so many circuits in the minds of so many Christians.  
    
    Paul
     

re Note 38.3 by JOKUR::CIOTO:

>     Re:  .2
>     
>            "... a very Christ centered man, but is also 'new age'."
>     
>     Perhaps someone can explain in this topic why this concept invariably 
>     seems to blow so many circuits in the minds of so many Christians.  
  
        Perhaps because the term "new age" is so ill defined, or
        covers such a wide range of beliefs and practices.

        (Perhaps it is like the term "Christian", which likewise
        covers an enormous range.  Why does the term "Christian" blow
        so many circuits in the minds of some Arabs and some Jews? 
        Is it perhaps that they are only familiar, by accident or
        prejudice, with uncharitable attitudes and actions that
        have historically been associated with professed Christians?)

        Bob

    I think you'll find the term "New Age" to represent a hope; a hope
    of a new age of enlightenment.  In reality, the New Age is so braodly
    encompassing, it defies catagorization as to what it does and does
    not include.
    
    It is basically a loose network of individuals who have similar
    or overlapping interests that are not usually considered "mainstream".
    
    You could call Nancy Reagan a New Ager for her interest in astrology,
    though many New Agers do not adhere to the predictions of astrology as
    closely as Nancy reportedly did.
    
    Some are called New Agers (erroneously, IMO) for merely exploring
    human potential and/or psychology.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

I'm not sure of the definition of "New Age" either but I listened to
a "priest" (on TV) once who said they channel God to do certain things.  The 
talk broke down for me personally because it left a bad taste (No I'm not 
knocking all New Agers, just this individual) when he got into healing 
via a crystal and channeling (ie. telling) God to do this.  Nothing 
happened.

Until I hear some sort of doctrinal statement by these folks, I guess I'll
always have this view of New Agers.  [Who am I to tell God what to do?  I'm
the one who's imperfect.]  I know that's not fair, but at least I can
walk into most churches and read protestant, catholic, etc. statement.  
btw-Are there New Age churches (ie. buildings)?  A look in the phone
book yielded zip.


			   John

    John .6,
    
    Imo, it is not "new age" to tell God what to do.
    
    It is purely arrogant, audacious and extremely foolish.
    And I have a vile reaction when I hear of such things.
                                                      
    Karen

    I'm not sure that any theological tendency has a monopoly on telling
    God what to do.  After all, I don't think anyone would call Pat
    Robertson "new age", but on more than one occasion he has told God to
    steer the course of a hurricane away from his home state of Virginia. 
    Not only that, but he claims to have been successful in this endeavor
    (much to the grief of the residents of Charleston, SC, I'm sure.)

    -- Mike

    John - 
    
    This particular incident is not necessarily what everything that "New
    Age" churches are all about any more than one denomination of
    Christianity is representative of all Christian denominations.  I go to a 
    church that has been described as "New Age" and what I get most of the 
    time is "Is it one of those cult things?"  Of course, it's not a cult,
    it's a belief system.  If you want further details see my introduction
    or ask.  I'd be glad to talk about what I know of Science of Mind. 
    Please listen with an open mind, though, because this particular church
    doesn't have a lot of dogma associated with it.
    
    Nanci 

    Looking in the Colorado Springs Yellow Pages under "Churches",
    I find no listing of "Churches-New Age".
    
    I do find "Churches-Metaphysical".  Do you consider this the
    same thing as New Age?  I'm sure some would.  I wouldn't.
    
    Go ahead, ask me why.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Okay, Richard.  Why?  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    Why Richard???
    
    Paul
    

New Age is both highly pluralistic and *non-institutional*.  There may be
New Age bookstores, etc., that but there is no corporate body or authority
who can speak for, or on behalf of, all New Agers.

New Age falls under a sociological category of "virtuoso religiousity";
ie, not for everybody.

Furthermore, there is no proselytizing in the New Age Movement.  Nobody
is out to get anybody to join.

An *excellent* resource is a book called "The Aquarian Conspiracy".

Peace,
Richard

    
    re: .9 (Nanci)
    
    How can you have a structure without dogma?
    
    guy

    Guy - 
    
    I didn't say there wasn't _any_ dogma, just very little.  You've been
    to my church.  What kinds of dogma did you observe?
    
    Nanci

    Instead of squashing New Agers, the church would be wiser to
    examine what is it about New Age that attracts people, and
    then to address those areas where the church is falling short
    of meeting whatever it is the New Age fulfills.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    re: (Nanci)
    
    The concept of "race mind", the concept of "higher Self", etc. (forgive
    me if I'm massacreee-ing any terms :-).  I guess since I didn't under-
    stand what the guy was trying to say, and everyone else was laughing at 
    his jokes or nodding in agreement - I didn't get more than a joke or two 
    myself - I assume that there is some common body of associations that to 
    me is the equivalent of dogma.  
    
    I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that or that it's negative 
    in any way, but I still think that any set of ideas should be recognized 
    as being potentially dogmatic.  Any ideas that we become overly attached
    to can potentially be outgrown.  *Realizations* made by the individual
    will less likely be outgrown.
    
    guy

    Guy - 
    
    Well - that's part of it.  
    
    You're right.  Any ideas can be potentially outgrown and aren't
    "realizations" just intensely experienced ideas?  Therefore "realizations" 
    can be outgrown too.  
    
    Nanci
    

    .17  True, any set of ideas can be potentially dogmatic, including
    "New Age" sets of ideas, such as the concept of "higher self." 
    However, sets of ideas do not necessarily have to be assigned/sanctioned
    an organizational "position" on such ideas -- something that transforms
    sets of ideas into an established/organized religion.   As far as I can 
    tell, there is no established NA "position" that those who are into NA-type
    of thinking are given to follow.  Religious organizations (churches), 
    however, generate "positions" of doctrine.  Personally, "positions"
    on God's Truth established by groups -- doctrine that a group of humans 
    calls other humans to adhere to -- ain't my spiritual cup of tea, 
    nor God's from what I can discern.
    
    Paul  

    Guy and anyone else who's interested...
    
    See Note 39.16 by Karen Berggren.  This, to me, is the essence of what
    Science of Mind is all about, the striving to become one with the
    Divine Mind of God.
    
    Nanci

>Furthermore, there is no proselytizing in the New Age Movement.  Nobody
>is out to get anybody to join.
>
>An *excellent* resource is a book called "The Aquarian Conspiracy".
    					  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Would you say more about this?  I'm always a bit puzzled at those who
    are certain that the whole NA movement is a conspiracy.  I know how
    hard it is (next to impossible, actually!) to get people who *want* to
    be united to agree to anything (take this conference as an example :-)!)
    and the idea that the NA movement is a dangerous national conspiracy
    -- and one that is *secret* at that -- really boggles my mind!!
    
    Nancy


>    I think you'll find the term "New Age" to represent a hope; a hope
>    of a new age of enlightenment.  In reality, the New Age is so braodly
>    encompassing, it defies catagorization as to what it does and does
>    not include.
>    
>    It is basically a loose network of individuals who have similar
>    or overlapping interests that are not usually considered "mainstream".
    

    John .6,
    
>    Imo, it is not "new age" to tell God what to do.
    
>    It is purely arrogant, audacious and extremely foolish.
>    And I have a vile reaction when I hear of such things.
                                                      
>    Karen

>New Age is both highly pluralistic and *non-institutional*.  There may be
>New Age bookstores, etc., that but there is no corporate body or authority
>who can speak for, or on behalf of, all New Agers.
>
>New Age falls under a sociological category of "virtuoso religiousity";
>ie, not for everybody.
>
>Furthermore, there is no proselytizing in the New Age Movement.  Nobody
>is out to get anybody to join.
>
>An *excellent* resource is a book called "The Aquarian Conspiracy".
>
>Peace,
>Richard
    

As you can see from the foregoing, especially the last by Richard, 
one would be a fool to try to pin down what "New Age" means.  

For me, "New Age" refers to a new dispensation, as revolutionary as 
the blessed events of two thousand years ago.  The astrological terms
for the age of which Jesus was the avatar, the Piscean age, and the
"New Age", the Acquarian age, help illucidate the distinction many
folks make.  It was in my opinion for no accident of spelling that the
early Christians used the fish symbol.  They were consciously or
unconsciously referring to Pisces, the fish sign of the zodiac.  
Symbolically, this is the fish in the sea (the sign of Jonah, which 
Jesus referred to).  For me, this represents the flowering of the 
individual, as contrasted with the water symbol, Aquarius, which is 
an evolution of consciousness from the fish in the sea to the sea 
itself.  This evolution is foreshadowed in the gospel wherein Jesus 
asks the disciples to find and follow a man bearing a pitcher of water
(the classic picture of Aquarius).  To see how much astrological
symbolism infuses the New Testament, one can remember that the
preceding age, [check me if I'm wrong -- I'm really not into
astrology] is the age of Aries, the ram, which Jesus symbolized on the
cross as the sacrificial lamb. 

Thought-patterns that typify this new age are 

(1) Group dynamics and the realization that rugged individualism just
doesn't cut it any more. (Maybe it never did, but even the myth is
today in shambles.)  The invention of many non-competitive games 
contrasts favorably with folks in the competitive arena literally
drugging and pummeling their bodies to death.  This kind of intensity 
in competition never happened before.  Why?  A New Ager might answer, 
"Because the spiritual energy has gone out of competition."

(2) A tendency toward ever more synthesis, as in the struggle for the
unified field theory in physics, and the quest for ecumenism in the
church, and the United Nations, in geopolitical terms, which Jesus 
summed up in the beloved phrase, "The Father and I are One;"

(3) Exploration of the powers of the mind as in the experiments of JB
Rhine and many others since then, all of which Jesus demonstrated so 
fully.  For example, I depend on an ability occasionally to read minds 
and "transmit" messages;

(4) Rending of the veil between the "living" and the "dead", wherein
many people are consciously aware of the "cloud of witnesses"
mentioned in Hebrews; 

(5) A consciousness of the Race Mind, or the Collective Unconscious 
first described in the 20th century by Karl Jung, and a related 
awareness of the possibility of reincarnation, referred to in Jesus's
description of John as Elijah reincarnated, and (much more 
elliptically) in the discussion of the man born blind;

(6) An awareness of the way thought-patterns influence thought, as in 
the book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".  Paul was aware 
of this secret, as he suggested, "Let this mind be in you which was 
also in Christ Jesus..."

(7) A willingness to explore spiritual energies suppressed by the 
early Christians.  Energies such as those available at special places
like those mentioned in the Bible, and those available from non-human
beings, such as the trees mentioned in the Old Testament;

(8) A rejection of patterns that imply exclusion, such as racism, 
sexism, doctrinaire beliefs of many stripes, just as Jesus came down so 
hard on the Pharasees.

To me these things seem generally "good", but there can be a dark side to
all of this.   Here are some of the pitfalls, categorized in roughly 
the same order:

(1) Group dynamics -- loss of sense of self.

(2) Synthesis -- If all is one, what is anything?

(3) Powers of the Mind -- temptation to use for selfish ends, and also 
the temptation to fool oneself and others.

(4) Communication with the Dead -- Ignorant opening of oneself to 
possession; delusions, etc.

(5) Reincarnation -- Temptation to �live in real or imagined past 
lives, while avoiding the here and now

(7) Other forms of religion -- Loss of roots

(8) Reject all selection or exclusion and you end up accepting 
anything�, some of which just isn't very nice or healthy.

DR

    Nancy,
    
    You'd have to read the book.  The "conspiracy" is not as threatening
    as the it sounds in the title.
    
    I've only read parts if it (required for the Sociology of Religion
    course I'm currently taking).  I found that it illeviated fears, rather
    than inducing them.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    >You'd have to read the book.  The "conspiracy" is not as threatening
    >as the it sounds in the title.
    >
    >I've only read parts if it (required for the Sociology of Religion
    >course I'm currently taking).  I found that it illeviated fears, rather
    >than inducing them.
    
    I didn't assume the book claimed that there is a conspiracy -- but I
    have certainly heard some radio programs that were founded on
    "exposing" such a "conspiracy" and, as I indicated earlier, I was
    amazed at the complexity -- and far-reachingness -- of their assumptions!
    (If I remember correctly, they were usually attacking the National Ed.
    Assoc.)
    
    I was wondering if the book rebuts the conspiracy charge.  The
    conspiracy charge seemed so far-fetched to me that it's hard to imagine
    investing the effort to refute it!  However, there may be some noters
    who believe the NA *is* a conspiracy -- comments, anyone?
    
    Nancy
    

    Nancy,
    
    I belive the 'conspiracy' in the title was meant to be debunking
    or 'tongue in cheek'.
    
    By the way, Don with his brother and father organizes two 'new age
    christian' conferences each year. (One next weekend) If any one
    is interested, I'd encourage you to write to him off line.
    
    Bonnie

    My understanding of Fergusen's use of the word "conspiracy" was that is
    was deliberate, because people seem to act in concert as though there
    WAS a conspiracy, even though �there was often very little
    physical-level communication.  
    
    This isn't so unusual as you might think.  How many times have you gone
    along doing something you thought was highly original, only to find it
    written up in Time or Newsweek as a national trend?  �If it hasn't
    happened to you, we sure experience it.  Tends to irritate me a bit,
    since I fancy myself to be so unique!
    
    A most recent example is our national attitudes toward Assad of Syria
    and Hussein of Iraq.  It wasn't so long ago when I had pretty warm
    feelings toward the Hussein and �I was irritated at Assad for his
    terrorist activities.   Somehow all the poison gassing and other things
    seemed like the kinds of stuff one had to do to govern in the middle
    east.  Now I feel like Assad's not so bad and Hussein is a rotten
    #&&^&$^.  Do you feel those feelings?  Why?  I think it's because as a
    nation we have a national attitude, and all of us are subject to it, to
    one degree or another.
    
    The Aquarian Conspiritors are tuned into a common thread.  They act
    like conspirators, but they do not satisfy the legal definition,
    because most of the conspiracy happens on a subliminal level.
    
    DR
    
    DR
    
    
    

    
    If anyone is interested, I have a copy of an article entitled 
    "What Is The New Age", published in New Age Journal (a bonafide
    magazine) about 2-3 years ago.
    
    Contact me offline if you're interested in receiving it, and include
    your preferred mail address (postage is not a problem).
    
    Cindy

Re:  56.105

  >Yes. I consider the following to be inappropriate labeling:

I consider that to be appropriate labeling.

    >>Have I said that?  If so where?

  >In the same quote. Guilt by association.  

  >The school books are bad -- not, as far as I can tell, because they 
  >are inaccurate or misleading,...

You are really reaching here, Nancy.  You are guessing, and guessing
badly, about why I consider some material in school books inappropriate.
It is *exactly* because I believe the material to be inaccurate or
misleading.  I don't care if it's labeled New Age if it's true.  What
I care about is if it is true.

  >And, when the statements about New Age stand without further explanation, 
  >those statements *do* sound "as though" the bad things were "invented" 
  >by New Agers.  

Again, you are reading between the lines.  And you are reading something
there that I did not write.

In my mind, with the exception of this conference, I am usually well
understood when I write something.  This is true in my personal life,
in my business life, and in my noting life.

I came to the conclusion long ago (I don't know if I've ever said
so explicitly here) that people here often don't respond to what I
really said; they respond to what they view a conservative Christian
saying.  And often times their views of what either I or a typical
conservative Christan are thinking and saying are wrong.  I don't know
if this is going to change any in this conference - I'd like it if it
did, but I don't really expect it.

My only suggestion is that instead of reading between the lines for
what you think I may have been saying that you first *ask* me if I
meant such a such before accusing me of it.  For me, I have found that
actually quoting what the person said helps me to address the issue
and not something that was not said.

Thanks for letting me say that.  I'm not trying to put you down, Nancy,
for doing this.  I know we think quite differently.  But I'm really not
saying a lot of the things you may think I am saying and you need to read
what I say very carefully in order to really understand what I am saying.

  >You got me here, Collis!  

You're forgiven.  :-)

  >Which ones are right in your eyes?  

I'm hesitent to call anything 100% right in many realms.  But here are
some things that I agree with (to some extent).

I think it is positive that New Age encourages utilizing your full
potential.  (I disagree with some of the methodology of how they want
to accomplish this.)  I agree with the emphasis on caring for the earth 
which is common among New Agers.  I agree with reaching out to God which
many New Agers do (although their definition of who is God is often
lacking, at least they are searching).  

There are many goals of the New Age which I agree with.  Many times, 
however, I disagree with how to achieve the goals.  For example,
I agree that peace is *very* important.  However, despite my personal
desire for peace, I believe that peace by our own efforts (even with
God helping) is impossible.  Some peace is achievable, certainly, but
not a general world-wide peace.  That type of peace will only occur
when Jesus comes back.  This does *not* mean that I should not strive
for peace.  I should.  And I do.  What it means is that I should more
fervently strive for the better peace which will happen after Jesus
returns.

  >This statement is in strong contrast with the "pushed on children" 
  >statement.

I don't see the world as black and white, Nancy.  At least I don't 
all the time.  :-)  There's good in most everything and bad in most
everything.

Collis

Re: .56.107 Collis

I'm not sure if this is really the right note for this, Collis, since what
you're calling New Age I'd call Humanism.

>  >Just WHO is pushing books on which children in which schools ?  
>
>The New Age Movement itself is very hard to define, as we've all seemed
>to agree.  The question should not be "who" is pushing books, but
>rather what "ideas" are pushing books that are supported (generally)
>by the New Age Movement.  It is the philosophy of the New Age Movement
>(which has captured many people's imaginations) which results in
>these things happening.

C'mon, Collis, give us secular humanists credit where credit is due...  I'm
not at all into New Age, but I support most or all of the things you are
complaining about.

>I think that perhaps we view "religion" differently.  It is *impossible*,
>in my mind, not to have "religious" overtones to many issues.  This is
>because the deletion of religious references *is* a religious statement.

No, I don't agree.  You can believe in the separation of church and state
whether or not you believe in any particular religion.  Refusing to allow
prayer in the schools, for example, doesn't mean that you don't believe in
prayer.

Now if you really want to stretch things you might say that people (in the
U.S.) who believe in the separation of church and state are inspired by the
American Civic Religion.  If this "religion" is defined so that it doesn't
require belief in God or in the supernatural but merely means adherence to
American ideals as articulated in the Constitution, then in that sense
you're right that the deletion of religious references is a religious
statement.  (See the note on Civic Religion.)

>Specifically, those
>materials which encourage (or force) children to think in terms of
>relativistic morality;

I don't recall seeing these materials.  Are they more prevalent in the schools
than materials that promote absolute morality?  Could you give some examples?

> those materials which encourage or force children
>to apply value to life based on quality or life or capabilities

Are you talking about euthanasia?  Again, I'd be interested in seeing examples.

> which
>are becoming more and more widespread in schools are, in my understanding,
>supported in general by those who support New Age philosophies.

...and also by many people, like me, who don't support New Age philosophies.

>  And since
>"New Age" is defined by the beliefs of actions of the "New Agers", I
>look at this as part of the New Age Movement.

Since Communist governments tend to be opposed to pornography, do you look
at opposition to pornography as being part of the Communist Movement?

>  >Either this is a broad-based plot or "creation science" has no scientific 
>  >backing.  I believe the latter. 
>
>I will pass, for now, on a more detailed discussion of this.  I'll simply
>say that there is considerable bias amongst scientists (who to a large
>extent are not believers in God) against viewing creationism favorably and 
>that this is reflected in what is written.

Again, I don't agree.  Scientists refuse to accept as an axiom the Christian
version of creation.  Instead they draw conclusions that are based on the
best evidence that is available.  The people who are based are the creation
"scientists" who have faith in the biblical story of creation and then go
around looking for evidence that supports their beliefs (ignoring the evidence
that shows that their beliefs are wrong).

>  The reason for this is obvious -
>they have a priori written off creationism as a possible explanation.

No, they haven't.  They simply haven't accepted it as an axiom, which is
what the creation scientists have done.  Many scientists do indeed scoff
at creationism, but that isn't an a priori judgment; it's based on their
knowledge of the evidence.

>  And
>the reason for that is obvious is well - If God exists, then they are
>likely to be personally accountable to Him and they do not wish such
>accountability.

Logically speaking, though, this should make them more likely to evaluate
the Bible's claims objectively, not less.

>  No, you need to look much more closely at the evidence
>than at the scientists - and read books written on the subject from a
>Christian perspective as well.  There is plenty of (scientific) evidence 
>to turn over in your mind there.

None of it that I have seen is convincing.  All too often the creation
scientists seize on some inconsistency that actually has a rational
explanation.  For example, the supposed fact that evolution violates the
Second Law of Thermodynamics is based on a misunderstanding of the Law,
which only applies to closed systems.

    Bob,
    	thank you. I was wondering if I was the only one who thought his
    arguments were both flawed and unsupported. He hasn't dignified my
    request for evidence with any more than a "you show me your's first",
    maybe you will have better luck. So far, it seems like anyone who is
    not for what he is for - in great detail - is against him and the
    right-thinking, upstanding Christians who stand with him as a last
    bastion of holiness in this world of vile evils. Yet he told Nancy that
    he does not see the world as only black and white ... strange.

    re: .28, Collis,
    
    I'm really dispapointed.  You asked me to show where you had said
    various things.  I usually do not do that kind of thing when people
    "demand" it, because by that point in a debate, it is usually way too
    much trouble to go back and pick up the quotes -- and because there
    may not be actual quotes to pick up.
    
    This time, however, I *did* go back and get the quotes and show you how
    the things you have written either *were* accurately interpreted or at
    least could easily *be* interpreted in the ways that I understood them.
    
    Your reponse to me -- by quoting only parts of my "proof" -- seem to me
    to be quite unfair!  Note .28 *by itself* does, in fact, make it look like
    I'm picking on you.  Naturally I disagree and believe my discussions
    on what you said were fair, except in the one case where I said "you
    got me."  
    
    I guess I expected you to show the same grace -- which, incidentally,
    you show more often that I do -- in either backing down or restating
    you assertions to make them clearer and more accurate.
    
>You are really reaching here, Nancy.  You are guessing, and guessing
>badly, about why I consider some material in school books inappropriate.
>It is *exactly* because I believe the material to be inaccurate or
>misleading.  I don't care if it's labeled New Age if it's true.  What
>I care about is if it is true.
    
    No, Collis - I'm saying that *your statement* implies that books are
    bad because of the NA connect.  I am sure that you believe the books
    are bad because you believe they are inaccurate or misleading.  But I
    your earlier statement does not say or support that!
    
>Again, you are reading between the lines.  And you are reading something
>there that I did not write.
    
    Collis, I think I know your views well enough to believe that you did
    not *intend* to imply that.  I am telling you how your statements can
    be -- and apparently often are -- heard and understood by others who do
    not already share your beliefs.  
    
>In my mind, with the exception of this conference, I am usually well
>understood when I write something.  This is true in my personal life,
>in my business life, and in my noting life.
    
    If you do not want to hear what I -- and Bob and David -- are trying to
    tell you about how your statements are heard, or if you disagree with
    us, that's your privilege.  I thought you would want to know and would
    be open to changing your communication -- at least when trying to
    convince us naughty secular humanists, Christian humanists, New Agers,
    et al!  :-{ 
    
    I suppose I shall go through life having several of my cherished
    beliefs mislabeled by those who feel threatened by those beliefs 
    and feel threatened by whatever "enemy" is currently the "in" one 
    to fear.
    
>My only suggestion is that instead of reading between the lines for
>what you think I may have been saying that you first *ask* me if I
>meant such a such before accusing me of it.  For me, I have found that
>actually quoting what the person said helps me to address the issue
>and not something that was not said.
    
    I have shown where you *have* said everything I alluded to except the
    creationism vs. evolution textbook bit and I apologized for that.
    I also went back and dug up your quotes, and I believe I have
    "proved" my point re: the content of what you have been *communicating*
    -- whether or not it is what you *believe.* 
    
    As I said, Collis, I'm disappointed.  I know you can do better -- you
    usually do, and with a great deal more patience and persistence that I
    myself display.
    
    Nancy

Re:  38.29

Bob,

The question, again, is not what non-New Agers support/believe whether
that is you or Communists or someone else.  The question is what New Agers
believe.  However, I think you do make a reasonable point in that New
Agers are sometimes confused in my mind with others who views I disagree
with.  Again, the main reason that this happens is because the lack of
a well specified philosophy of what New Age is.  I do the best I can
with what little I know.  :-)

Regarding seperation of church and state and how religion is necessarily
in many aspects of life, this topic has been well discussed in the Religion 
conference.  I went to great lengths to detail my views there.  I thought 
you were in on the conversion.  If not, I can refer you to the note
where it was discussed.  It answers the points you raise (although not
to your satisfaction).

  >I don't recall seeing these materials.  Are they more prevalent in the 
  >schools than materials that promote absolute morality?  Could you give 
  >some examples?

Fortunately not.  But they are making inroads.  For example, there is
one topic that is a classic "lifeboat" example.  You have x number of
people and only x-3 (or however many) people can survive (according to the 
example).  Who should be killed?  The only information you are given about 
the people their profession/education.

This type of example assumes:

  1)  There is no outside force (e.g. God) which can make a difference
  2)  The value of people can somehow be judged by their profession and
      education
  3)  Individuals have a right to make a decision about who lives and
      who dies in this example

Examples like this also cause unecessary stress unrelated, as I see it,
to the proper role of education.  The sole purpose of this example, as
far as I can tell, is to teach exactly the above points which I believe
are wrong.

Regarding creationism:  I can make the same bland accusations about
evolution that you can make about creationism (that it is not supported
by the evidence, that those scientists who support it are biased) and,
in fact, have to some extent.  Now that we've both made these bland
accusations, there's not much further to say.  :-)

Collis

Re:  38.30

Dave,

  >He hasn't dignified my request for evidence with any more than a "you 
  >show me your's first"...

I thought I made it clear that this was not an issue that I wished to
pursue in detail at this time.  Is that unfair of me?

I did not tell you to first show me your information and then I would
respond.  I simply noted that you are quite quick to condemn the
thoughts that I had without presenting any evidence of your own - and
you were quite aware that this was what you were doing when you wrote!

Collis

P.S.  I didn't really expect it, but I had hoped for an informative
response from my last note to you.  Oh well.  I guess we'll continue
doing this from now until ....

Re:  38.31

Nancy,

I'm sorry I disappointed you and hurt you by what I said.  I was feeling
somewhat frustrated.

I do desire that our time here be not a war of words, but a search for
truth.  I've made a renewed commitment to review what I write and
to try to keep it in a positive vein.

I hear you saying that it is very easy to interpret me as saying some
of the negative things you responded to.  We both agree (I think) that
I did not say any of those things explicitly.  The question is how
easy is it to believe that I meant what you thought I meant.

Unfortunately, I don't think there are any easy answers.  Because my
thoughts am judged very harshly by some in this conference, I tend to 
pick the words I use with great care.  The result of this is that if
I didn't say it explicitly, I probably did not say it at all.  What
may be reasonable assumptions during a conversation between friends
are not reasonable assumptions at all about notes in this notes conference.

This is certainly the way I try to respond to others.  For this reason,
other noters rarely complain to me that I am misrepresenting them.  And
when they do, we can usually get to the bottom of our misunderstanding
because I will always explain why I thought someone was saying something
(and usually the quote that I was responding to is right there).  If,
at some point, they say that they did not say something, then I'll drop
it if possible.

I understand that this is not your style, and I don't wish to make you
change what you're happy with doing.  But I really cannot predict what
kinds of connections that were never intended you (or somebody else) are 
going to find between several statements I write.  Again, if I didn't state
it clearly and explicitly, don't assume that I said it.  (This is called
the reverse-Dave-Meyer method of interpretation.  :-) )

  >Note .28 *by itself* does, in fact, make it look like I'm picking on you.

I really don't think you were picking on me, Nancy.  I was just somewhat
discouraged by the time I got to your note.  Even those that *try* to
understand what I say are missing the mark.

  >I guess I expected you to show the same grace -- which, incidentally,
  >you show more often that I do -- in either backing down or restating
  >you assertions to make them clearer and more accurate.

You're very kind, Nancy.  I will try to be more graceful in the future.

Collis

Re:  56.111

Dave,

In the spirit of being gracious, I will only attempt to respond to those
sentences of your note which are accurate.  :-)

  >I provided your comments immediatly before my responses and included the
  >reply number so that anyone could check those quotations for accuracy.

Thank you, Dave.  I appreciate this.  I believe that this helps to make
quite clear the follow up comments that I make.

  >Here it is the responsibility of the accuser to prove the accusation true, 
  >not the defender to prove the accusation false. 

Agreed.

Collis

Re: .32 Collis

>Fortunately not.  But they are making inroads.  For example, there is
>one topic that is a classic "lifeboat" example.  You have x number of
>people and only x-3 (or however many) people can survive (according to the 
>example).  Who should be killed?  The only information you are given about 
>the people their profession/education.
>
>This type of example assumes:
>
>  1)  There is no outside force (e.g. God) which can make a difference
>  2)  The value of people can somehow be judged by their profession and
>      education
>  3)  Individuals have a right to make a decision about who lives and
>      who dies in this example
>
>Examples like this also cause unecessary stress unrelated, as I see it,
>to the proper role of education.  The sole purpose of this example, as
>far as I can tell, is to teach exactly the above points which I believe
>are wrong.

I think the example is designed to make people think -- not necessarily
to force them to think a certain way.  If this example were brought up in
class, Christian students might answer that they would pray to God, and that
they would prefer that everyone in the lifeboat should die than that some
should be killed.  They might even say that they'd voluntarily give their
own lives so that other people could live.  The example might start an
interesting discussion about value systems.  What's important is that the
value system should not be imposed by the teacher or the textbook.  The
role of the teacher in dealing with this kind of subjective issue should be to
make their students think, but not to tell them what to think.

>Regarding creationism:  I can make the same bland accusations about
>evolution that you can make about creationism (that it is not supported
>by the evidence, that those scientists who support it are biased) and,
>in fact, have to some extent.

The difference is that I'm right and you're wrong.  Obviously, you think the
reverse.  I just wanted to make it clear that IMO your complaints about
the bias of scientists are without merit, and that there is no justification
for teaching creationism in the schools.

I know of several specific cases where the claims of creationists have been
shown to be wrong (not always to the satisfaction of the creationists -- isn't
faith a wonderful thing?), but I'd have to do some research to get all of the
facts right.

>Now that we've both made these bland accusations, there's not much further
>to say.  :-)

Actually there is plenty to say: we could examine and debate the scientific
evidence.  However, you've said that you don't want to get drawn into that
debate, and I have to admit that I don't want to spend the time right now
looking up the reference materials to produce concrete facts.  There's a
lot on this in BIOLOGY and some in RELIGION for those who are interested.

				-- Bob

Re:  38.36

  >The difference is that I'm right and you're wrong.  

:-)

  >I just wanted to make it clear that IMO your complaints about the bias 
  >of scientists are without merit...

Let's define "bias".  According to my American Heritage Dictionary, it
means the same as prejudice.  (All relevant definitions used the word
prejudice in defining it.)  When I looked up prejudice a month ago, it
talked about pre-judgment.

Yes, I certainly believe people are biased on both sides of the issue.
I also believe that people have made reasonable judgments based on
reasonable reasons on both sides of the issue.  To claim that those on
one side of the issue are "fair" and those on the other side are "unfair"
indicates to me that:

  1)  you have a bias  :-)
  2)  you understand human nature very differently than I do

To say that any large group of people, scientists or otherwise, or
inherently unbiased is wrong, in my opinion.  The only question is
the amount of the bias.

In my opinion (again), there are strong reasons for people (scientists
or not) to desire to believe that there is no God.  There are also
strong reasons to desire to believe that there is a God.  Both of
these desires are often shown up in the beliefs that we end up with,
regardless of the facts.

  >I know of several specific cases where the claims of creationists have been
  >shown to be wrong (not always to the satisfaction of the creationists...

I am *sure* you are right.  Interestingly enough, I have read the same
of evolutionists...

Collis

    re: .32 and .36
    
    Collis,
    
    
>This type of example assumes:
>
>  1)  There is no outside force (e.g. God) which can make a difference
>  2)  The value of people can somehow be judged by their profession and
>      education
>  3)  Individuals have a right to make a decision about who lives and
>      who dies in this example
    
    Bob gave an excellent response to your points 1) and 3) regarding
    the lifeboat exercise.  I would add the following regarding 2):
    
    Having kids *discuss* this usually leads them to realize that the value of
    people cannot and should not be judged by their profession and
    education!  It causes them to challenge what might otherwise be an
    unexamined assumption!
    
>The sole purpose of this example, as
>far as I can tell, is to teach exactly the above points which I believe
>are wrong.
    
    I believe you are very mistaken here.  The purpose of this example is
    clearly *not* to teach any of those three points.  I urge you to ask
    some public school teacher who is actually using this example!
    
    This is actually an excellent exercise to use in Sunday School or youth
    group with junior or senior high kids.  It makes them really think
    about their faith and can make them stronger in their religious values.
    For example, "On what basis do *I* value people?  Would I have enough 
    faith to give up *my* life in this situation?"
    
    And, like Bob said, the exercise *properly used* in school is a forum
    for the *students* to explore their values -- including their religious
    values and their faith in God.  As such, it is an excellent opportunity
    for Christian kids to witness to other kids... without jeopardizing the
    separation of church and state!  As such, Christians should welcome
    this opportunity!
    
    It amazes me why all Christians don't welcome this as a marvelous
    teaching tool!  (Is it because someone labeled it New Age and made them
    afraid?)
    
    Nancy

Re: .37 Collis

>              -< Should we move this to the evolution note now? >-

I think our little rat-hole involves more that just evolution, so I've
started a new note, 148, to discuss alleged scientific bias.

				-- Bob

More on Note 38.36

  >I think the example is designed to make people think -- not necessarily
  >to force them to think a certain way.  

Since Nancy agrees with your points, I will add more.

This example does not force one to think any way.  But it does shape the
problem in such a way that a certain answer is "natural".

Again, the natural answer excludes God, values people based on their
profession and education and assumes that individuals have a right to
make such a decision.  Do you really not believe that?  Can you not
see that this is the "natural" response given the phrasing of the
problem?  Is their anyone else in this notes file that thinks that these
are "natural" to believe based on how the problem is phrased?  There
certainly are many outside of this notes file that believe this.

Nancy and Bob, I think you are missing the point.  The point is that
the topics I am bringing up here are NOT necessarily going to be
discussed when this example is given.  Many children will just assume
the three points above and go on to deal with the "problem" they have
been given which is to decide who should live and who should die.  What
makes you think an 8 or 9 year old is going to see an assumption about
God in this problem or an assumption about their right to judge or
an assumption about on what basis others should be judged?  They have been
given a problem be a teacher and need to solve it.  This is going to
be the focus of the discussion; not an analysis of whether or not the
problem is a fair question with hidden assumptions.

If the issue they wanted to discuss was, "Do we have a right to judge
who should live and who should die?", then the question should be
asked in such a way that they are NOT expected to make such a judgment.

If the issue they wanted to discuss was, "Can God move in a situation
unexpectedly and change the circumstances dramatically?", then the
problem should be presented in terms that are NOT black and white.

If the issue they wanted to discuss was, "Should people be judged by
their profession and education?", then the problem should include
other possibilities for offering judgment (instead of limiting the
information provided to simply profession and education and expecting
a judgment to be made).

Collis

    Bob, Nancy,
    	it is my impression that Collis is interested in this discussion
    only as a vehicle upon which to present his opinions. He has shown no
    interest in either hearing or presenting any verifyable facts. I do not
    know with what logic he disputes the fossil records that dispute
    "creation 'science'" or where he gets his ideas as to what goes on in
    schools. My challenges on the school issue were not even responded to.
    He says there's a plot yet objects to me saying he thinks there's a
    plot. I suggest that the teachers who present the material he condemns
    might attend a mainstream Christian church and he ignored me. 
    	Why don't we just let him keep his illusions intact and not attempt
    to bother him with any facts or concerns ?  So far all we have
    accomplished is to provide him a platform to spread his paranoia from.
    Everyone is wrong but him, nobody knows The Truth but him, he is the
    salvation of mankind - the one who will lead us to God. Except that I
    thought Jesus already did that. I suggest that we accept his lack of
    good faith in this discussion as a rejection of discussion and leave
    him to his monologue. Or do either of you retain hope that he will
    either show cause or modify his view ?
    

    RE: .40
    
>Again, the natural answer excludes God, values people based on their
>profession and education and assumes that individuals have a right to
>make such a decision.  Do you really not believe that? 
    
    I really do not believe that.  
    
    I do not believe that at all in the case of 1) (excluding God -- to
    me it definitely does not) and 3) (having a "right" to make the
    decision -- some decisions are forced AND ARE MADE whether or not the
    decision-maker has a "right" to make that decision).  I think
    2) (how people are valued) is a valid educational question that is
    designed to discuss and bring out the very values that you think it opposes!
    
    Again, Collis, I urge you to talk to teachers who actually *use*
    this exercise and find out why and how it is *really* used instead
    of assuming the bad things you have heard about it!  *I HAVE USED* 
    values clarification exercises in CHRISTIAN education and they are
    among the most powerful, *VALUES-BUILDING* teaching tools that exist!
    
>Nancy and Bob, I think you are missing the point.  The point is that
>the topics I am bringing up here are NOT necessarily going to be
>discussed when this example is given.  Many children will just assume
>the three points above and go on to deal with the "problem" they have
>been given which is to decide who should live and who should die.  
    
    Again, I vehemently disagree (that I am "missing the point.") I
    do think *you* are missing the point by basing your conclusions on how
    the exercise is *presented* and totally ignoring what happens next!!
    That's why I keep URGING you to talk to someone who has taught it!!
    
    >What makes you think an 8 or 9 year old is going to see an assumption about
>God in this problem or an assumption about their right to judge or
>an assumption about on what basis others should be judged?  They have been
>given a problem be a teacher and need to solve it.  This is going to
>be the focus of the discussion; not an analysis of whether or not the
>problem is a fair question with hidden assumptions.
    
    I am somewhat doubtful that this particular exercise should be (or in
    fact *is*) used with children as young as 8 and 9.  I hesitate to state
    this here, lest you run with *that* point and ignore the rest of what I
    am saying.  I think it *can* be used with children that young, but I
    personally hesitate to dwell on something potentially that scarey with
    them.  Older kids and teens can and do easily abstract such problems.
    But please do not sidetrack this based on whether 8- and 9-year-olds
    are or are not getting this, becuase that is not your real issue.
    
    Again, Collis, you are focusing only on the presentation of
    the exercise and totally ignoring how the lesson itself is conducted!
    Such an approach is totally unfair.
    
    I also think it is extremely naive to think you can ignore and avoid
    discussing 'forced-choice' situations, which is what the lifeboat
    exercise is.  Regardless of whether you believe we have any "right"
    to determine who would live and who would die in such a case, it is
    a coward's way out to refuse to even consider or discuss it!  As Bob
    said, a Christian might witness via offering his own life!
    
    Nancy

    re: .41, Dave,
    
    I guess I see Collis a little more sympathetically than you do -- and
    anyway, he really pushed one of *my* buttons with the lifeboat exercise
    criticism!  But we came to a dead-end on New Age labeling, I guess.
    (Sigh)
    
    (Collis, you're stuck with getting my response in spite of David.)
    
    Nancy

Collis,

I agree with what Nancy wrote.  I, too, was surprised that the lifeboat example
was being used with 8 and 9 year old children -- I'd assumed you were talking
about teen-agers.

Certainly teen-agers should be able to question the premises of the example --
and it's this questioning that might lead to a very interesting discussion.
With 8 and 9 year olds I'm not so sure.  I don't think even the 8 and 9
year olds would be indoctrinated by the lifeboat exercise into becoming
moral relativists, though, as long as it was part of a balanced program.  I'd
be more worried that my kids were being indoctrinated with absolutionist
thinking.

				-- Bob

    I have started a new note by providing some detailed information about
    the values-clarification approach and providing an exercise similar to
    the Lifeboat:  The Fall-Out Shelter Problem.  (It has some significant
    differences.)  I have tried to provide some insight into _why_ and
    _how_ such an exercise might be used.  This information is from a book
    by Sidney Simon, Leland Howe, and Howard Kirschenbaum.

    Recent notes in this string and the portion of it that landed in the
    attributes of Satan string (and maybe the subsequent spin-offs) remind
    me a little of the Bugs Bunny cartoons about the Tasmanian Devil.
    
                                    � �
                                     ^
                                    ���
    
    Actually, in my experience with New Agers, this kind of discussion is
    usually absent.  In fact, a criticism one could make in some New Age
    circles is the credulity with which many ideas are accepted.  It seems
    to me that the god of the 20th century could be named MIND.  Some
    people, upon seeing the clay feet of this god seek a god called
    FEELING.  A criticism of some more conservative Christians might be the
    way some seem to see Satan under every rock and behind every idea that
    does not bow in the right direction.   Yet the mind, like the Lucifer
    principle, are good and holy when in the right relationship with the
    rest of our being, always subject to the Most High God.
    
    DR
    
    
    

    re:.46
    	You find the credulity of the New Agers even more striking than the
    credulity of the Christian right ?  Interesting. I've often been amused
    by the credulity of both but never found either to be more striking
    than the other.

    re:  .47
    
    Guess you can tell which circles I travel in.  I really don't pay much
    attention to the "Christian right."  Actually, there's lots of
    credulous folks wandering around, and some of them think they're
    scientists.    
    
    DR

 
     The religion that I practice, for some reason, always tends to
 get lumped into that group of things that are called "New Age".
 Why, I don't know as it predates Christianity by several centuries
 it might as well be called "Old Age".
     Now, I never had very much contact with this "New Age" stuff.
 Then this last Summer one of my neighbors was out in here garden
 tying crystals on her tomato plants. My curiosity got this best 
 of me and I asked her what she was doing. 
     "The crystals will focus Cosmic energy that will be absorbed
 by the plants and help them to grow", she informs me. 
     "Really ? I've never heard of this before." 
     "Don't you know about crystals ?" she asks me.
     "I've never considered them as a substitute for cow manure
 to be honest with you".
     "Oh, I use manure too, but you should learn about crystal power,
 it can change your life".
      She then offers to let me borrow a book about crystals. Which I 
 agree to take a look at. Now let me tell you I had no idea just how
 ignorant I was on this subject. Why proper use of these things will make
 you stronger, smarter and healthier, maybe even better looking too. I am
 not certain because I skipped around a lot in the book, especially when
 I came to the parts about Atlantis.
       A few days latter she is out in her garden and I figure this is
 a good time return her book. Right of the bat I notice she has a crystal
 stuck on her forehead with a piece of tape. It is hard not to notice a
 thing like that. It's even harder not to mention it, but I try. 
       "You are probably wondering about the crystal on my head, right ?"
       "I had noticed it. You have a headache ?" 
       "No I'd use a different one for that" 
       As I said I am pretty ignorant about this crystal stuff, so I 
 don't know which type are for headaches. Anyway, my neighbor launches
 into an explanation about the crystal on her head that leaves me at 
 a loss for words. Something about exposing it to sunlight while on
 her head will cause it vibrate in tune with her brain waves. At least 
 I think that was the gist of it. 
        She also tells me she has other crystals that she wears while
 playing the piano and starts into another dissertation on vibrations
 that I am unable to make heads or tails out of.
         Let's just say I am a bit of a skeptic on the subject of
 crystal power.
         Some weeks latter I ask about a book on Zen that I have been
 trying to find at a bookstore I frequent. The person says they can 
 order it, but the "New Age" bookstore a couple blocks away might have
 it in stock.
         I arrive at the place and ask about the book. I am told that
 all the books on Buddhism are upstairs along the back wall. I am in 
 luck they have it stock. Unfortunately they have a hefty mark-up on
 it above suggested retail, so I decided to order it back at the other 
 store and save a few bucks.
         Might as well browse around as long as I am here. Lots of books
 on crystals I notice. I wonder about the idea of constructing a crystal
 rock garden as some kind of "New Age" tourist attraction. It's probably
 been done already.
         Shamanism seems to be big too, judging from the amount of
 of books about it this place. Do new age shamans use crystals ? I am 
 afraid to ask. I don't think I could handle another explanation of
 vibrations. 
          Books about "Channeling" also seem to get a lot shelf space
 in this store along with, "how to" books on discovering you past lives.
          The bulletin board has lots of posters for upcoming seminars
 where you can talk with "Channeled spirits ", attend a crystal workshop
 or have a physic reading done. Usually for a considerable sum of money
 by my standards.
          "Find your book ?" the woman in the store asks me.
          "Yeah, but it's kind of expensive."
          "We are having a sale soon, why don't check back in two
 weeks. You can probably pick it up for 25% off."
          "You mean you will mark it down to suggested retail ?"
          "Yeah" she laughs  "I'll bet you are a Buddhist aren't you ?"
          "How could you tell ?"
          "Buddhists always seem to think that the books here are overpriced"
          "We are a notoriously cheap religion. Do you believe in any of
 this stuff, like crystals or channeling ?"
          "Nah, I am a collage student. This is a good place to work 'cause
 I can do my studying here at work at night. I think most of this stuff is
 just a way to make money."
          "Some people think that the "New Age" movement is a conspiracy
 to take over the world"
          "Nah, they're just out to make a fast buck"
          "I have a neighbor who ties crystals to the plants in her garden"
          "I'll bet she paid big bucks for those crystals too. See what I
 mean ? You seriously think that people who go around tying rocks to plants
 to make them grow are gonna take over the world ?"
          "It's not my conspiracy theory and I can't imagine why anyone in
 their right mind would want to take over the world anyway."
          "You can make a lot of money peddling conspiracy theories 
 There are always people paranoid enough to believe that some group is
 out to take over. You know, Masons, The Illuminati, The Bilderbugers or
 Hitler is sill alive in Brazil and plotting to make a come back. I think
 paranoia fills a void in peoples lives."
           "Perhaps you are right."
           So, I left the "New Age" bookstore wondering if perhaps that the
 big choice in modern life is between paranoia and cynicism. Then it occurred
 to me that this was a rather cynical thought in itself. 
            My neighbor moved away a couple of weeks ago. She was a nice
 person and I'll miss her. She is a very talented pianist. Although I have 
 my doubts that her crystals have anything to do with it. Maybe they are like
 Dumbo's magic feather. 
            Her tomato plants didn't do very well. Too much cosmic energy
 perhaps ? Maybe new agers are out to take over the world, but they are a
 ways from making any great inroads into the highly competitive world of
 backyard tomato growing. 


                                                          Mike  

           

    re:.48
    	no argument here. There ARE lots of people walking around willing
    to believe - a bit too readily. Some are scientists, some Christians,
    some New Agers. And more. We should note, however, that just because
    those who believe something are credulous - or downright gullible - has
    no bearing on what they believe, which sits apart from the believers.
    

    .49
    
    Reading of your experiences brought a smile to my face. :-)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    
    Mike,
    
    I really enjoyed that.  You tell a story very well!  I can see where
    some new age practices can look outlandish (don't think I'd tape a
    crystal to my forehead, but maybe she did this so that it could get
    the sun and her hands would be free?  Very ingenious of her!), in
    fact that must have looked really funny ;^).  I could go on to tell
    you about standing in rivers and leaving crystals there....but I 
    guess I'll leave well enough alone 8^).
    
    Carole

    Mike,
    
    That was great!  Being one who appreciates and has worked some with
    crystals and stones, your story is, imo, a good example of how certain 
    knowledge can be exploited, distorted, and abused.  It's sad but true.  
    And it seems to happen all the time. 
    
    I also really liked your comment about cynicsm and paranoia filling
    voids in people's lives.  Indeed.
    
    Thanks very much for the insights and smiles,
    
    Karen
     

    Mike,
    
    I like it! OK, I confess -- I asked for and received a crystal for
    Christmas.  Bonnie said if I wore it to work she'd disown me.  (I
    haven't.) I've also had experiences with rocks that I would not
    document in this file but would be willing to discuss off-line.  So has
    Bonnie, but she probably wouldn't even discuss them off-line.
    
    Regarding tomatoes, I imagine they _WERE_ negatively affected by the
    crystals.  If you want to know what will help your plants (beyond
    simple prayer, which will always help), just ask them.  
    
    DR
    
    

Mike,

I. too, really enjoyed that.  Entertaining, plus food for thought!

My main experience with crystal power is in reference oscillators for 
frequency counters, phase locked loops, and the like.  I find they work quite 
well.  I also have a hefty (3 pound or so) single crystal specimen of smoky 
quartz, but that's just because I find it beautiful. (thanks, God!)  It's also
a great paperweight. 

I don't know a lot about the organic (would that be an appropriate word?) use 
of crystals, other than it seems to me that most biological systems have 
bandwidths of a few kilohertz at best, and the most obvious piezoelectric 
effects in crystals are in the hundreds of kilohertz to tens of megahertz 
range, so I'm a bit sceptical (okay, I'm also a techno-weenie).  

Is there anyone here who could provide a simplified explanation of how they 
are supposed to do what they do, what claims are genuine, which are hype, et 
cetera?  Thanks.

Peace,

Jim

Very well written, Mike.  I enjoyed it.  Keep it up.

Collis

    Donald,
    
    A 'closet crystal wearer', huh?  ;')
    
    What kind of crystal is it?
    
    Ro
    

    Hmmmmmm -- You'd think this was some other note file -- but then I'm a
    Christian and I don't find any conflict with New Age ideas.
    
    Ro -
    
    Don't know what kind, 'though my guess is quartz.  I'll bring it next
    time we get together.  It's small, but seems meant for me.
    
    re:  Plant vibrations - 
    
    Somehow it seems very unlikely that plants would not resonate with
    something from the earth.  What's important for me is learning how to
    listen to them.  My first experience with direct communication with a
    plant was back in '73 or so, when a tree screamed just before I took a
    saw to it and cut it down.  Both Bonnie and I heard it.   At the time I
    was too stupid to stop and reconsider what, why and how I was acting. 
    Even today, I'm reluctant to talk about the incident when I'm near
    trees; they really don't like it.
    
    That's not to say that humankind  do not have the right and obligation
    to tend the forests of this great planet -- including thinning and
    harvesting -- but it must be done with humility and atunement with the
    planet, the forest and the individual tree.  
    
    DR

    	The use of crystals is not something most techno-weenies can really
    appreciate. Sometimes the use of crystals seems to produce a predicted
    result. So far so good. The techno-weenie then says "GREAT !  How did
    it DO that ?". Then some shaman utters some more or less plausible
    explanation or someone says "I don't know, it just does." and, either
    way, the techno-weenie is unsatisfied. Some ultraconservative
    Christians believe such stuff to be the work of the devil, and they may
    be right. I've never heard any explanation that *I* can accept but I
    know that it sometimes seems to work. Nor has anyone ever shown me why
    this is more likely to be the work of the devil than of God and I don't
    expect they will. But, I'm just another techno-weenie ...
    

I carry a crystal called a Boji with me practically
everywhere I go.

Is it doing something special for me?

Yes.  It reminds me how much I love the person who gave it to me.
It reminds me of someone for whom I would lay down my life in a heartbeat.

Is it doing anything for me beyond that?

I don't know.  Is that not enough?

Peace,
Richard

    Several days ago I recorded a program titled, "Voices Of The New Age".
  I finally got around to viewing it last night and I thought I'd put a
  review of it in this topic because it touched upon many points
  that have raised here previously.
     Boy was this thing slick or at least it seemed intended to be slick.
  Being a child of the age of TV and mass marketing I consider myself
  pretty good at knowing when someone is trying to pull off a very
  manipulative "soft sell" and this show really set the old alarm bells
  ringing.
     A string of "New Age" heavy hitters presented a overview of various
  aspects of the new age movement. Several of them used a pretty common
  technique of stringing together several quite factual statements and
  then arriving at a conclusion that is simply an assertion not supported
  by the previous statements. 
     An good example was how "Psychic Healing" was presented. It was 
 explained how illness can be caused by a persons state of mind, which is
 quite true and the importance that a persons mental health plays in 
 recovering from a serious illness, also quite true. This was followed up
 by the conclusion that, "It is generally accepted that the cause and 
 cure of nearly all disease is takes place in the mind." Say what ? !!!
 "Generally accepted", by who ?
     It the part about near death experiences the presentor talked about
 his own "NDE" as is was called and how it lead him to interview over 100
 people who had been clinically dead in a Hartford Conn. area hospitals,
 30% of whom had a experience similar to his. Two other people related
 their NDE's which were also similar in nature and then conclusion was
 drawn that there was "irrefutable statistical evidence" of a spiritual
 existence after death. Using this standard I could interview 100 six
 years olds and claim there was "irrefutable statistical evidence" for
 the existence of the Tooth Fairy. While NDE is a widely observed
 phenomena and certainly a worthy subject for research the conclusion
 reached in this program is a bit far reaching to put it mildly.
      This provided a nice introduction to the subject of spiritual
 beings and "channeling". It was pointed out that numerous passages
 in the Bible begin with "The Lord spoke to me" or "The spirit of the
 the Lord came upon me". It was hinted at but, not directly stated that
 the Bible is a channeled document. I suppose this was intended to make
 channeling seem "OK" to anyone who might be worried that it was occult
 in nature. This was followed by an interview with a woman who channels
 a being named Emmanuel. Then she went into a trance and Emmanuel made
 a brief appearance and gave us the message that life is a choice between
 "Going forward in love or retreating in fear". 
       After the channeled entity went back to it's alternate plane
 of existence a new age psychologist put forth the theory that it is
 possible that these are not actually separate beings, but the channel
 is in touch with their creative sub-conscious and communicating to
 us from an altered state of consciousness. 
       Another new age psychologist said there was a problem with channeled
 beings because they caused a person to feel dis-empowered to control their
 lives because of the existence of a spiritual being of great wisdom that
 is outside the sphere of normal consciousness. 
        That more and more people are eating healthier food and getting
 regular exercise was presented as evidence that new age ideas are gaining
 wide spread acceptance. This is also supposed to be true of increasing
 concern for the environment. 
         A new age composer said that because new age music has no rhythm
 (Ain't that the truth) to it, it is healing in nature. Rhythm is from our
 primitive past and not from our higher consciousness. Personally, I prefer
 Mozart and Haydn however primitive they may be.
          Meditation was not claimed to something that was new age, but
 a common element of the all the worlds great religions. New agers, of
 course, practice meditation. Time after time in the program new age
 beliefs and practices were prefaced by explaining how they were well
 within the framework of the "world's great religions" while showing
 easily recognizable imagery from Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism
 and Judaism. The point was repeatedly made that the new age movement
 is a synthesis of all the "great spiritual traditions". 
           There was also a lot of appropriately rhythmless new age
 music and film of waterfalls, babbling brooks and waves breaking on
 the shore while the voice over spoke of the new age beliefs being
 "God centered" or "Seeking a higher spiritual awareness" As a matter of
 fact there was much running water in this show I had to get up and go
 to the bathroom a couple of times. 
             Near the end of the show yet another new age psychologist
 said anyone wishing to "take the plunge into the new age" should be
 careful because there were some charlatans out there who were just
 after your money and not to be put off by "trivial fringe elements
 such as crystal or pyramid power". 
               I have to give this high marks for production value.
 The script and images all fit nicely together. The topics were
 arranged in an order so they flowed from one to another each one
 introduced by and building upon the previous one. Plenty of soft
 sincere voices and pleasant smiles and soothing pastel clothes and
 backgrounds throughout the whole show.
               In end it came across as mostly production values and
 not much substance. The best comparison I could make was that it
 reminded me of Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" campaign spot or
 the Gallo wine wedding commercial of a few years ago. 
                Not surprisingly I think it could be used by both those
 say new age beliefs are compatible with Christianity and those who say
 they are not. It was that shallow, glossy and vague.

                                                       Mike
             
         
              
     
 

    Mike - 
    
    I think that part of the problem with discussing that which is "new
    Age" is that nobody has yet defined what is included in that particular
    subset.  Those for or against the "New Age movement" seem to make
    little sense to me as I don't understand what they mean by the term
    "New Age".  Maybe that's why the show seemed so amorphous to you.
    
    I go to what many would term a "New Age" church.  I don't define it
    that way.  It is metaphysical in that the members believe in a power
    greater than what can be perceived by the physical senses (God), but
    that's not so unusual in terms of most western religions.  What dogma
    is associated with it are drawn from a combination of world religions,
    science and philosophy.  And that doesn't make it "New Age".
    
    Can anybody give me a concrete definition of what the term "New Age"
    really means??? 
    
    Nanci 

Nanci,

No, I don't think anyone can.  Perhaps some approximations, but that's
similar to what Mike watched on the show.

Collis

    In that case, Collis, why does the term seem to illicit such a strong
    reaction from traditional Christians?  (I'm asking you in particular
    since you fall into the category of "traditional Christian" to me. 
    Sorry about the label...but I don't know how else to put it.)
    
    Nanci

    Nanci:
           Not that I am likely to be mistaken for Collis, but let me
    state that I am not answering for him.
           I think the reaction is because the new age movement, whatever
    it may be, holds Christianity as one of many religions that are all equal
    to each other and conservative Christians ( I think that is the
    preferred term) are absolutely sure it is the only true religion and
    all others are false religions, with the possible exception of
    Judaism. I don't remember what the position is on that.
            I am sure there are other reasons as well, but this one comes
    to mind right away.

                                                               Mike

Because the approximations of what New Age is clearly show that it 
claims many things which are not true and does not claim the basics
of what is true.

Now, when Shirley McLain (sp?) gets up and announces that she is
a bondservant of Jesus Christ and is saved by his death on the cross
and does not need to be reincarnated in order to grow closer to God,
then I think I'll need to reevalute what I said.  :-)

Collis

    Collis, I for one am eternally grateful that you are so willing and eager
    to set us straight whenever we diverge from the "truth" as you know it. 
    
    -- Mike

    RE.: .38
    
    	THAT is the whole issue isn't it?  Nobody has a concrete definition 
    for the New Age Movement.  It is not (imho) so much a group of people
    as it is a way of thinking.  A way of 'believing' if you will.  
    	I agree with Collis.  While it encompasses many christian beliefs 
    it is not at all compatible.  Christianity clearly states that there
    is ONLY ONE way 'to get to God' (have fellowship with him).  While the
    new age idiology says that all are equal.

    re:  .69
    
    "New Age Ideology says that all are equal"
    
    Speaking as one who identifies himself as a "New Age" person, I can say
    that ideology is NOT one of the things I'd attribute to New Age
    thinking.  In fact, I'd say rather that it is a rejection of
    ideological mindsets that first gets many people thinking about what
    else could be available.
    
    It would be accurate to say that New Age persons believe that all
    ideologies are ideologies, and all religions are religions.  I for one
    am a strong Christian, and I _DO_ believe Jesus was correct when he
    said, "I am the way."  I do _NOT_ believe that particular sects of
    Christianity are the way, and I do _NOT_ believe that Jesus limits
    Himself to believing Christians.  I further _DO_ believe that the
    revelations available from the Christ have never stopped, and that they
    are available to anyone who will wait upon the Lord and listen.
    
    Finally, I believe that Jesus and Mary yearn for acknowledgement of
    their sojourn in this physical plane, and that such is important to the
    completion of our growth as a race.
    
    DR
    
    

  Re. The last few


     Being neither Conservative Christian or New Ager, as far as I know, 
  please  allow me to make a couple of observations about the some of
  frustrations I have sometimes found in dealing with both.
     It has seemed neigh well impossible to engage in a dialogue with
  a lot of Conservative Christians that I've met. It has not even been
  possible to establish that there are shared values between us. I've even
  been told that in the case of two identical actions mine is wrong and
  sinful while the same action performed by a Christian is just fine.
     In dealing with some Conservative Christians it is quickly made clear
  that you are "wrong", end of discussion, period. Nothing one says will
  even be considered. It will be met with a quotation from Scripture. These
  quotations serve as kind of a force field that prevents any actual
  communication from taking place. You exist only for the purpose of being
  converted. While there may be plenty of talk of love and concern for you
  it bloody hard not to feel the cross hairs on neck and sense that there
  is a finger ready to pull the trigger and bag you.I am quite serious about
  this. It's hard not to feel like a hunted animal sometimes when attempting
  to communicate with some, not all, Conservative Christians. 
      Seneca wrote," He that removes trust from friendship strips it of
  it's value." Having had the singularly unpleasant experience of someone
  pretending to be my friend in order to convert me I can assure you that
  there must be trust for friendship, mutual respect and love. If any
  encounter begins with the assumption that one of the persons is in the
  wrong and need to be converted then it is merely a case of trophy hunting
  and not dialogue based on respect for another human being. It's like dealing
  with the playground bully where the choices are surrender or getting 
  beaten up.
       Dealing with some, not all, New Agers can be equally frustrating
  in an entirely different way. Some New Age beliefs seem well beyond
  any explanation. Not that that everything needs an explanation mind you,
  but I get a sense that people would rather abandon responsibility and control
  of their lives. Belief in a higher powers is one thing, so is positive 
  thinking, yet there is a element of wishful thinking will do the job or
  a reliance on what I can only term, magic and mumbo-jumbo that I find
  truly disconcerting.
       Also, there is a lot of time and effort put into things that seem
  relatively pointless to me. Things like past life regression leave me 
  at a loss. Paying no small sum for a psychic reading or a consultation
  with a channeled spirit are also things that make me shake my head and
  wonder. To me it smacks of Mediums and crystal balls and all the 
  paraphernalia of the great spiritualism craze that occurred in the first
  part of the century. 
        I guess in this case the mutual respect breaks down on my end.
  It is possible to have a dialogue with people who believe and practice
  these things, but I can't help but wonder if it is at all worthwhile.
  I just can't take some of this stuff seriously and that makes it hard
  to take the people who believe in it seriously.
       Perhaps what I am tying to say that there is a kind of naivete'
  to much of of the New Age movement that makes me wonder just how much
  of it is "real" and how much of it is smoke and mirrors. How many of
  these people are sincere and how many of them are in it for the money.
        When New Age meets Conservative Christian I think you have a case
  of indefinable force meeting an immovable object. Those who seem to 
  be open to nearly everything encountering those who are open to 
  virtually nothing.
           Under such circumstance I don't think questions of defining
  things or establishing what is true is really of any consequence as there
  is no actual communication taking place. It is does not appear to be a 
  question of getting either group to talk to each other, but rather how
  to get them to listen to each other and I mean listen and not just be
  poised ready to hurl Scripture and arguments refuting it at each
  other. 
         There, by now I've managed to irritate both sides equally,
 so I'll end this by saying I see the problem being a lot of talking,
 but no communication taking place. 
            
          
                                                  
                                                           Mike

re Note 38.71 by SA1794::SEABURYM:

>         When New Age meets Conservative Christian I think you have a case
>   of indefinable force meeting an immovable object. Those who seem to 
>   be open to nearly everything encountering those who are open to 
>   virtually nothing.
  
        Wow!

        If we had a "Notes Hall of Fame" topic, I'd nominate Mike's
        entire note above!

        Bob

    RE:  .71 and .72 
    
    Amen.  Great job!
    
    I laughed out loud at "the indefinable force meeting an immovable
    object"!  
    
    re:  .71 
    
    Not everyone makes money on the New Age.  The annual dues for The
    Universal Listening Post are $15, which barely pays for printing and
    postage for our bi-monthly newsletter.  We have members who consciously
    try to exist moment-to-moment on the money which manifests for the
    things they need.  
    
    I view things like channeling, past-life regression and astrology,
    as having great validity.  But they can also be a trap for those who
    would rather not take responsibility for their lives right here, right
    now.  
    
    Just because there's a lot of BS around doesn't mean there isn't some
    truth.  Being open to all new ideas doesn't mean you have to accept all
    of them.  But if you're NOT open to them, how will you know if you've
    missed the boat? I recall that in first-century Palestine, many were
    looking or a military Messiah; perhaps some didn't even SEE the
    possibility of Jesus as Messiah.  
    
    DR

    
    
    I see things very much the way DR does.  All kinds of people are
    ripping off all kinds of people in all kinds of ways.  It is not
    solely attributable to the New Age, or Christianity for that
    matter.
    
    Mike, you refer to a number of things that you include under the
    New Age.  Mediums and astrologers and past life remembrance have
    been around for a long time.  I don't know who it was that lumped
    all of these things together and labeled them New Age....it 
    certainly wasn't me! ;^)  I am an astrologer and have studied
    this subject for quite a number of years.  As with any study that
    is deep and rich, the learning goes on and on.  I am always amazed
    at the new things that keep emerging through my studies.  I have
    also worked as a medium.  Some incredible healing moments have
    occurred through this communication process...for myself and others.
    I have worked as a healer, both for people and for the earth.  It
    is very humbling.  And regarding past life regressions, I agree
    that some can get lost in this pursuit, because people are only
    looking to escape the life they are in, or any number of other
    reasons.  However, there is something very important available
    here.  First, you have to accept the process of reincarnation to
    really discuss this with any openness of validity.  With that
    stated, I'll go on.  I believe that we are at a very important
    moment in the history of humanity.  We are at a crossroads of
    sorts and in order to continue the journey, a major healing has
    to take place.  We as human beings exist in many subtle bodies.
    One of them is the emotional or astral body.  Through our many
    lives, wounds have occurred and emotional energy has accumulated.
    Each time we incarnate, these wounds and charge up energy come
    with us.  It is one or the major reasons we continue on in ruts,
    re-experiencing the same painful lessons over and over.  We haven't
    released that energy and allowed ourselves to heal.  One way to
    facilitate this healing process is through very sensitively led
    past-life regression or similar processes where these emotions
    and energies can be allowed to move.  Once they do, we can allow
    ourselves to finally feel this stuff and let it go.
    
    Some of the things you talk about Mike are used as parlor games
    but not all of it.  There are some of us who have the greatest
    amount of respect for ourselves and others and the gifts we have
    been allowed to use for the betterment of all.
    
    Carole

    Thanks Donald (.70 and .73) and Carole (.74) for so eloquently
    expressing your views on this matter.  Having personally experienced
    some very deep healing in the presence of both of you, I can
    acknowledge that most of the people I know who are involved in *new
    age* activities do so with responsibility and purity of intent.
    
    In appreciation,
    
    Ro
    

Re:  38.71

I suspect that part of the reason this note has achieved such high
acclaim in such a short period of time is that it manages to denigrate
several minorities represented in this file while remaining silent
on the faults of the majority.

Collis

    Collis - 
    
    Did you notice that the acclaim came from those who I would consider to
    be associated in some way with one of those minorities?
    
    Nanci

re Note 38.76 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> I suspect that part of the reason this note has achieved such high
> acclaim in such a short period of time is that it manages to denigrate
> several minorities represented in this file while remaining silent
> on the faults of the majority.
  
        I saw it more as good-natured teasing -- from the above I see
        that you can do it too!  (Perhaps not as eloquently, but with
        greater economy of words.)

        Bob

Thanks, Bob.  Some tell me I have a way with words.  :-)

  
    Collis:

            Would you care to enlighten me as to who constitutes
         this majority I remained silent about ? Given the diversity
         of beliefs represented by the individuals who participate
         here, I've yet to discern any sort of majority opinion
         that prevails in this conference. Once you tell me who
         they are I'll make sure they receive the proper measure
         of denigration. We can't have anyone feeling left out 
         can we ?
            I endeavored to be candid about the discomfort level
         I sometimes feel with some individuals from either group.
         A friend of mine keeps telling me that I should refrain
         from telling people what I actually think about things.
         Perhaps he's right about this. 
            Collis, tell ya what, I'll stop expressing my opinions
         and beliefs that others might possibly disagree with or
         feel uncomfortable about right after you do. Is it a deal ?


                                                     
                                                             Mike 
 
          
             
 

Hi, Mike,

Just as there is some truth to what you chose to write, there is
some truth in how I chose to respond.  :-)

No, I'm not going to make more of an issue out of this.  You certainly
do have the right to express your opinions, even when they perpetuate
stereotyping and labelling.  (Even when it's the truth, it perpetuates
this, so you can't win!  :-)  )

I just thought I'd point out another aspect of what was said (or not
said).  Feel free to find the kernel of truth in what I said and
throw out the rest.

Collis

    
    
    Mike S.,
    
    Just curious....do you have any feedback on my reply .74?
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

     Re.82

        Carole:

                I am going to have to ask for bit more more time
        to ponder a lot of what it contains. You covered a lot of
        territory; past live regression,reincarnation and astrology
        just for starters. 
                Since I've previously mentioned that these are things 
        I have a hard time understanding you might well understand that
        it will take a bit of doing to give you a, hopefully coherent,
        response.
                I often do my best thinking while I am running, so I'll
        "run on" what you had to say a couple of times this weekend and 
        see if come up with something.


                                                    
                                                        Mike                 

    
    
    Ok, thanks Mike.  I get anxious when my notes drop off into
    the 'void'. ;^)
    
    Carole

    
    Since this is the Christian Perspective notes file, I guess one should
    look in the Bible and see what it says about astrology, spiritism,
    divination, etc.  You can see for yourself in the following scriptures:
    
    Isaiah 8:19, 20
    Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27
    Acts 16:16-18
    Galatians 5:19-21
    Revelation 21:8; 22:15
    Deuteronomy18:10-12
    Jeremiah 10:2
    
    

 

  Carole:


          It is somehow appropriate that that your last reply made
  reference to the "void". It seems that you are aware of the place
  that this holds in Zen thought. Curiously enough, while out running,
  it occurred to me that some of the difficulties I have with, so called,
  New Age beliefs is that they are not easily reconciled with Zen practice.
          Your reply hinged on belief in reincarnation. Needless to say
  this is a controversial subject amongst Buddhists. You may or may not be
  aware of this. I am not sure. Knowledge of this is something that lies 
  beyond the realm of the living. At least that is how most Zen Buddhists
  would view it. You clearly hold to a different belief about this. 
           As I read your reply I kept asking myself "why?" as I read
  through the topics you covered. Perhaps this is where I run into considerable
  confusion about "New Age" beliefs. It seems to me that a lot of the things
  you wrote about involve attachment to the self. It looks like what you
  wrote about is in a sense heading is in the opposite direction from Zen, 
  not totally, but much of it. This is not to say that this is the "wrong"
  direction, just a different direction.
           You also wrote that you think we are at a critical juncture in
  history. I smiled as I read that. I imagine that every generation
  thinks this to be the case. To be honest with you I am not sure that any
  particular instant in time is any more or less critical than any other.
  I sometimes thinks that there is a bit of lag in our understanding 
  the evolution of out culture and society and how they change. One will
  often read about how WWII could have been averted in the 30's if certain
  things had been done differently. Actually, the seeds of that war were 
  sown about 1917. When people talk about how we may be at a point that
  is our last chance to change the course we are on I wonder if that point
  wasn't really forty or fifty years ago. This is not to say we should do
  nothing or that change is not possible. I just think that maybe we are
  locking the barn door after the horse is gone. I guess you could fairly
  say that I am less optimistic than what I perceive to be the general
  attitude of the New Age movement.
             Your comments that many of my criticisms of the New Age 
  movement we equally true of Conservative Christianity is valid. In my
  opinion much of what I have seen and heard leads me to conclude that
  Conservative Christianity is also very self attached. Even more so than
  much of what I know about the New Age movement.
              I hope this in pretty much in line with what you were looking
  for in terms of feedback. If it is nor, or if there is something that 
  you would like me to clarify or elaborate on, let me know. Also if 
  think that I am misunderstanding "New Age" beliefs please do some
  elaborating or clarifying of your own.


                                                            Mike
               
           
           
  

    	I don't think of myself as a "New Age"-er. Much of what New Age
    people seem to believe in leaves me skeptical. On the other hand, this
    weekend I was called upon to do a little "crystal healing" and, again,
    it worked. A woman suffering severe menstral cramps had taken as much
    over-the-counter meds as she dared and was still in great pain. I
    located a large crystal (does the kind matter?) and used it to absorb
    the pain from her. She was asleep in 5 minutes and awke refreshed much
    later. How did I do it ?  Haven't the foggiest. Is it reproducable ? 
    Generally. Do I care what Conservative Christians think about what I
    did or what the source of relief might be ?  Not in the least. For all
    I know it is no more than a powerful placebo effect. That works.

Dave (.87),

Thanks for sharing the 'crystal' story.  I'm curious was the crystal clear 
quartz or was it colored...not that it matters as it obviously worked!!!
I've found in my study of polarity that it to works whether the subject 
believes in it or not.

Ro

	RE: .86

	Hi Mike,

	You mention that much of what I wrote about involves attachment
	to the self.  First, why do you say that?  My feeling is that
	you are saying that based on your ideas of what the 'new age'
	is rather than what I shared.  Second, I have two good friends 
	who are Buddhists.  They are also astrologers and psychotherapists.  
	They seem to be able to incorporate all of this together without 
	any problems.  I believe at least one of them ascribes to 
	reincarnation as well, along with a number of other philosophies.

	Regarding the critical juncture in history, my feeling is that
	humanity is at a point of a shift in consciousness, similar
	to a shift from 2nd to 3rd dimensional awareness.  I think we are
	at the point of shifting to 4th dimensional awareness.  I get this
	from literature that I have read and experiences that I have had.
	One of the requirements for this transition, I feel, is the healing
	of the past through the healing of ourselves.

	Carole 

    Mike,
    
    As Carole noted, you say it involves attachment to the self.  I would
    not call it attachment to the self.  What it does involve from my
    Christian-perspective is to 'love thy neighbor as thy self'.  This is
    not in an ego-centered way, but if I don't love and honor myself (in
    otherwords if I have low self-esteem or am shame-based) how can I 
    love my neighbor?!?!  In the process of healing one's self, we in
    turn are healing everyone for we are in fact One, there is no
    separation.
    
    Ro
    

    re: .87
    
    Dave,
    
    In the specific instance you described here, all that "maximum dose"
    medication might have finally kicked in!!  (It often works that
    way.)  Or your personal attention may have had a relaxing effect on
    her.  I'd be interested in hearing about your other experiences,
    though, since you say that it is generally reproducable.
    
    Just curious,
    Nancy

    Ro,
    	it was a shade of purple, part of a geode (?) the size of my fist.
    I've never studied "polarity" - or whatever - but liken the method to
    prayer - prayer without words. Or focusing ?  Or meditating ?  I
    recognize the state *I* need to be in for it to work, and it's the same
    state I enter into when it is used on me. One thing for certain, I'm
    not "making deals with the devil"(or anyone else) in that state. 

    Nancy,
    	the meds had more than a reasonable time to "kick in". They weren't
    doing the job. On the other hand, it IS possible that what I did
    simply allowed the meds to do their job. I'm not about to take any
    credit for "healing" anyone. I just spent a few minutes and relieved
    some pain. Or helped relieve some pain. I had tried hugs earlier, it
    didn't help. All my other experiences were of a similar nature, one
    person was in pain and another passed a crystal over the affected area
    and then the hurting person went to sleep without the pain and woke up
    refreshed. I've had it done/done it half a dozen times or so.

    Dave,
    
    Sounds like an amethyst.
    
    Polarity is a system of energy balancing; it works to bring the life 
    energies of the body into a state of balance.  I guess it could be
    described as a combination laying-on-of-hands, acupressure, massage 
    therapy.  It too requires focusing, centering to allow oneself to be
    an instrument through which God/love works.  Some description of it are 
    very scientific, but one doesn't have to understand it to know it
    works!!  Some practioners use crystals as in aid in this work.
    
    I've just completed a course in it and have some remarkable experiences
    with friends and loved ones.  
    
    Ro
    

    Well, I know *hugs* can have a healing effect. :-)

    Re.89
    
    Carole:
    
    
      Yes, some of what was in my reply was based on my general
     impression of the new age movement, but also what you wrote
     pretty much fell within the realm of what I had read and
     heard before. you didn't say anything that changed my perception
     of the new age movement.
      First let me say that I used the term self-attached as the most
     neutral I could think of. It was my intention to try to avoid
     the use of "loaded" words.
      You first stated that much of what you wrote was based on believing
     in reincarnation. Since I do not we could both call it quits at this
     point and each go our way. 
       It is this point that I consider to be based on self attachment.
     Belief in and concern about the past or future state of a personal
     personal spiritual indentity involves self-attachment. I also believe
     this to be true of Conservative Christians belief in salvation and
     survival of the soul after death. 
       I have no problem with the idea that your Buddhist friends believe
     in astrology or reincarnation or work as psychologists. They, quite
     simply, are not me. Their, "practice" as we Buddhists say, is different 
     from mine. Not wrong, not right, just different from mine. 
       As for our differing views of history. Maybe we should just agree to
     disagree about that ?

          
                                                               Mike

     

    Re.90


  Ro:
      Isn't the "Love thy neighbor..." a command given under threat
    of punishment ?  This is command from God and if you obey it
    you are rewarded, violate it and you are in trouble. Not exactly
    an expression of unconditional love as I see it.
      I am afraid I can't answer your question because I do not accept
    the premise that it is not "ego-centered". Well... actually I see
    more as coercion rather than egocentric to tell you the truth.


                                                               Mike
                                       

Re:  38.97

  >Isn't the "Love thy neighbor..." a command given under threat
  >of punishment ?  This is command from God and if you obey it
  >you are rewarded, violate it and you are in trouble. Not exactly
  >an expression of unconditional love as I see it.

Whether something is done from "unconditional love" is not dependent
on the consequences of the behavior, but rather on the attitude of
the heart.

I agree with you that the attitude of the heart can be shaped by the
consequences, but this is not a necessity.

Collis

    
    Hi Mike....yes, I guess we can call it quits and agree to disagree.
    I guess what I had wanted was to share a little bit of where I am
    coming from and how that might be different than what you have come
    to know as the 'new age'.
    
    One thing that I truly believe is that we cannot heal the world unless
    we heal ourselves, and the only way to heal ourselves is to feel and
    release a lot of old pain.  Isn't that what your practice is, in a way?
    Maybe my understanding of Buddhist practice is off here.  I have been
    toying with the idea of signing up for Level 1 Shamballa training.
    In my heart, I believe it is a very similar process to what I have
    been going through for a while now....just in a different context.
    
    I guess what I was really looking for Mike was for us to come to a 
    point where we could say to one another...."I respect you, your path and
    your process".  I hereby say this to you.  Can you say this to me?
    
    Carole

  
    Re.99
    
    Carole:

           Yes, most definitely, your life, your beliefs and your path
     are your's alone and I recognize and respect that. 
           My understanding of Buddhism is actually more in the line
     of heal the world and then you will find your "original self"
     to use a bit of Buddhist speak.
           Perhaps we simply have different approaches to complementary
     if not necessarily identical "goals".

                                                               Mike   

    Mike - and Collis etc,
    	while it is true that there is the implied threat of punishment for
    those who do not love, this threat cannot force anyone to love. Perhaps
    you can be forced to treat someone as if you love them, or to pretend
    to love them, but what is in your heart will not change. You may be
    able to fool all the people of the world, but can you fool God ?  Or
    yourself ?  Neither nor. Thus the implied threat is not relevent to
    someone's success at loving. Love cannot be bought or forced, it can
    only be given freely.

    Upon thinking about the "two greatest commandments", it came to me once
    that, unlike the commandments of men, one CANNOT break God's
    commandments.  
    
    That is, we DO love God with ALL our heart/mind/soul and strength, and
    we DO love our neighbors as ourselves.
    
    Or ... another way of putting the same thing, one can measure oneself
    with the measure of one's love.
    
    DR

    RE: Jim Kirk's 273.3
    
        
>Being fashioned after AA, they are designed to be spiritual groups, not 
>religious groups.  They have borrowed the heart of love from many sources.

    
    This can also be said for the so-called 'new age movement' groups.
    Though many Christians look on the new age as a religious movement,
    it is actually a spiritual movement.
    
    Carole

    Carole - 
    
    You're right, the New Age is a spiritual movement, but it has many
    trappings and features.  A clever person can get really rich in the New
    Age.
    
    DR

I would agree with you to some extent, DR.  The New Age is a spiritual
movement AND it has many trappings and features.  These trappings and 
features don't cancel out (as implied by the "but" in your note) the 
spiritual aspects of the movement just as the actions of the Jim Bakers
in Christianity don't cancel out the integrity of Christianity in 
general. 

Nanci

    RE .106  Nanci (iiiiiiiii) ;^)
    
                Just a quick question...Do Newagers consider themselves
    Christians?
    
    Dave

    Dave
    
    I'm not Nanci ;-)
    
    but yes, there are many people who consider themselves to be
    both Newagers and Christians.
    
    This may be because what is called 'newage' is so broad. For
    example I've seen earth day, recylcing and the whole ecology
    movement denounced by some people as a new age conspiracy.
    
    Many Christians regard this as simple stuardship of our Father's
    world.
    
    There are Christians who are interested in healing, crystals,
    power points, rocks which appear to have special spritual energies,
    communing with the spirit of the land, etc. This makes them 'new
    agers' in many peoples eyes, but they are not the less Christians
    because of their interests.
    
    There are also many people who are looking into new forms of
    spirituality, women (especially) who worship the Divine as the
    Goddess, people who are followers of Sufi, or Native American
    Religions. Most of these people respect Christian beliefs but
    do not call themselves Christian.
    
    Bonnie

Dave - 

What she said!  :-)


Some "Newagers" consider themselves Christians, some do not, and most, in 
my experience anyway, consider themselves spiritual.  Very few, though,
consider themselves "newagers" per se.  Personally, I see the "new age" 
as merely a different perspective on life, the universe and everything.
It adopts and blends various elements and aspects of the sum total of the
knowledge gained by the human race and combines it into a fresh outlook
on us and the way we relate to each other and the universe.  Since each
"newager" combines and adopts different elements of this knowledge in
tailoring his or her path for his or her purposes, no two "newagers" look
alike.  :-)  That's why the term "new age" is so hard to define.  It's 
more of an individual perspective than a collective philosophy.

Nanci

    I normally don't read or write in GOLF::CHRISTIAN, but I happened to
    peek in there recently and saw a discussion about this topic.  The
    author of topic 62 in GOLF::CHRISITAN has not agreed to having his
    copied here, and notes etiquette generally precludes copying other
    authors' notes to different notes conferences without their permission.
    Without explicitly copying the notes here, if anyone wants to respond
    to or elaborate on the ideas expressed there, I believe that it would
    be interesting and valuable to do so in this topic.
    
    -- Mike

Re: Mike

What an interesting challange.  To me, someone presenting such a 
detailed and authoritative description of the "new age", strictly from 
his/her own point of reference, is kind of like someone who has always 
lived in Europe, never seen the U.S., but has had some glimpses through 
television and perhaps meeting a couple of Americans, offering a 
detailed and authoritative description of life in the U.S. (or vice 
versa).  They will inevitably hit on some facts, whether or not they 
understand them, but there will also inevitably be many errors in their 
understanding.  When the understanding is so far apart it makes it 
difficult to know where to begin such a discussion.  When we base a 
semi-logical position on erroneous premises, it doesn't leave much to be 
intelligently discussed.

I'll think about this further, but in the mean time I'll offer the 
following...  An "age" is a cycle of time; no more and no less.  "New," 
in reference to an age, simply implies a change or transition in cycles 
or periods of time.  The last time an "age" changed, Christ is thought 
to have led it in.  Was there nothing "new" about His message?  Doesn't 
the message in the Book of Revelation imply change and a coming newness 
to life?  If we are concerned about good and evil, can we not see that 
they (whatever "they" truly are) each exist in both the old forms of 
thought and the new?  If old is always "good" and new is always "bad," 
then the "battle" would be an easy one.  From this point of view, 
pre-Christian times should be considered most favourable to God, and the 
last two thousand years should be seen as the work of satanic forces.
But it isn't one or the other.

If we can't get past the "us" versus "them" mentality; if we can't 
recognize that there is some "evil" in us (no matter how noble our 
intentions), and that there is likewise some "good" in those with whom 
we seek to do battle; if we can never find good i the unfamiliar, then 
we succeed in keeping the battle alive within ourselves.  As long as 
the battle is alive and well within us, then it will continue to be 
expressed in the world we see around us. <end_soapbox>

Jeff

    Is there such a thing as New_Agerphobia?  Have you ever witnessed
    it, expressed it or experienced it?
    
    Richard
    

    I have Richard Jones-ChristiaAPHOBIA! :-)

    I suppose I might be considered a threateningly dangerous kind
    of guy by some.
    
    Richard
    

Of course, you are called to turn from any such wickedness and live.

             <<< Note 38.115 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

Of course, you are called to turn from any such wickedness and live.

             <<< Note 38.115 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>Of course, you are called to turn from any such wickedness and live.

This is one of John's more cryptic remarks.  I suspect the *you* means *me*,
not you, Nancy.

I suspect John is saying that I must turn away from my wickedness, and live.
I agree.  At the same time, I must confess that I don't don't hold to much
of what is labelled New_Age.  And while I may be considered by some as a
threat, I am no more dangerous than Jesus.

Richard

    I love Chapel of the Holy Cross near Bell Rock just outside
    of Sedona.  It was one of the most awesomely expressive sculptures
    of Christ on the cross I've ever seen.
    
    Sedona is a beautiful place.  Pricey, but beautiful.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    It is a beautiful place, but there are so many "characters" there now
    that most of Phoenix has newagephobia now.  Most of Arizona doesn't
    hold Sedona in the same light it used to.  It has become the state's
    running joke.

    Worse than Jerome??  Guess I've been gone too long.  ;-}
    
    Richard
    

    Jerome is now a hot-bed for the Satanism, Witchcraft, and other
    occultic forms.

 Maybe I don't want to move back to Arizona after all.





Jim

    Jerome was something of an artists' colony when I lived in Arizona.
    For the benefit of those not familiar with the area, Jerome was a
    mountainside mining boom town which became a ghost town.  I used
    to go there as an art student in college to paint landscapes.  The
    rustic old buildings on winding hills were great subjects.
    
    There was talk of building a resort there.  It would be interesting
    to see the old place again.
    
    Richard
    

    You don't suppose that there just might be some relationship between
    
    New Age,
    New Thing,
    New Man
    New Creation   
    New Heaven
    New Earth
    New Jerusalem?
    
    do you?
    
    And if not in actuality perhaps in desire and commitment?
    
    
                                 Patricia
                                 (who has been occasionally slammed as a
                                 new ager)

    not at all.

    I consider New Age to be a paradox.  Ironically, it is the oldest
    religion in the world.  This was its establishment...
    
    "...Surely you will not die, for if you eat of the fruit of the tree
    you will be as gods, knowing both good and evil".
    
    The new heaven and new earth is a sign of victory over the old world.
    New Age is nothing more than what is termed, "Babylon, Mystery
    Religion".
    
    -Jack

    > New age us nothing more than what is termed "Babylon, Mystery
    Religion"
    
    New age like the mystery religions is not one thing but a loosely
    clustered group of phenomena.  The mystery religions spread at the time
    when the old Gods and Goddesses had lost their hold on the people. 
    
    The people felt adrift and out of control of their environment.  The
    did not feel attached to the old traditions and needed new one's.
    
    I think that is somewhat of what new age is all about.  
    
    Crystals and tarrot cards don't do much for me, but getting in touch
    with one's sense of spirituality and in touch with the Divine all
    around is positive.  Seeking new rituals and new approaches to the
    divine when the old rituals have become rote.  Moving away from the
    rampant materialism and consumerism of our society.
    
    there is much that is positive in the new age movement.
    
    

    The New Age Movement supports the notion of self deification.  I
    personally have a tremendous problem with this.  
    
    I understand what your saying and I respect your opinion.  I still 
    believe the New Age Movement is the oldest religion in the world.  
    It fits perfectly into the precepts Satan layed down in the Garden of
    Eden.  "Surely you will not die...for you will be as gods, etc. etc.
    etc..."
    
    -Jack

	The New Age movement, for all the validity of its protest and
	the value of some of its recommendations, is in truth a very old
	blind alley.  There is a very long history to remind us of what
	happens when nature is our ultimate point of reference, from
	the Ba'al worshippers of the Old Testament to the worshippers
	of blood and soil in Nazi Germany.  Nature knows no ethics.
	There is no right and wrong in nature; the controlling realities
	are power and fertility.  Nature sometimes has a charming smile,
	but her teeth are terrible.

				     -- Lesslie Newbigin, "Truth to Tell:
					The Gospel as Public Trust",
					Eerdmans, 1977

	Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of
	the god within.  Anyone who knows anybody knows how it would
	work; ... that Jones shall worship the god within turns out
	ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones.  Let Jones
	worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner-Light;
	let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in
	his street, but not the god within.

					     -- G.K. Chesterton,
						"Orthodoxy", Lane, 1919

    John,
    
    It seems to me that anyone who has not faith in the God within has not
    faith in God.
    
    Is not the very essence of Christianity to invite God into one's heart
    and one's being.
    
    This was very obvious to Paul when he talked about our bodies being
    temples of God.
    
    I love the quote which I believe is from Andrienne Rich that says
    
    "I found God inside me, and I loved her fiercely"
    
    I do agree that nature is not the end all but we are living in an age
    when nature has been seriously neglected.  WE  are steward's of 
    God's blessings and nature is one of those blessings.
    
    Patricia

    See, here's where you and I respectfully differ.  Like you, I am a firm
    believer in positive thinking, self esteem, and loving what makes us
    into our essence.
    
    However, I believe God the Father is a real, spiritual being.  I
    believe we are absolutely nothing without Him.  I believe every idol 
    breath is dependent on His will.  I believe God is worthy of our
    praise.  We cannot praise or worship ourselves.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    You do believe that God is incarnate in Jesus, right?
    
    Do you doubt that God can be incarnate in each of Us?
    
    Do you not believe that Jesus was the first fruit of the spirit?
    
    What do you think it means to turn one's heart and soul over to God?
    When a person does that, then is God not found within that person?
    
    I don't understand how you view inviting God into one's heart and being
    in awe at what that does to one's life, as worshipping oneself.  
    
    Are we not communicating the same thing?
    
    
    Patricia

    Jack
    
    Re:
    
    "I believe that God the Father is a real spiritual being"
    
    What does that mean?
    
    How would God the Father as a real spiritual being be different than 
    "God the Mother".   
    
    Sexual organs?
    
    role in procreation?
    
    Domination?
    
    Easier for human men to worship?
    
    Easier for human men to feel more God like?
    
    
    What exactly do you mean?
    
                            Patricia

>    You do believe that God is incarnate in Jesus, right?

"Incarnate", yes.  "Incarnate" is a specific word which refers to a specific,
unique, one-time event in which God himself became a human being.  He didn't
pick some human being and somehow go inside him.  Jesus was fully God and
fully man, from the moment the hypostatic union was created at his conception.
    
>    Do you doubt that God can be incarnate in each of Us?

God can do anything he wants, but I am not God (Jesus is), therefore God is not
"incarnate" in me.

I receive God into myself when I receive the Precious Body and Blood, and I
pray that he can indwell me so that it is no longer I but He that lives, but
I am not God, I cannot worship myself, no matter how much I try to conform my
will to His, I am totally separate from God and always will be, and it is God
I must worship and not myself.
    
/john

    John,
    
    I agree with much of what you right.  My quote  "I found God within me
    and loved her fiercely" does not to me imply worshipping oneself. That
    is an accusation that those opposed to the theology of the Christ
    within, God within, Inner light etc make.
    
    For me it is an affirmation that when I turn my life over to God, my
    life works.  Only when I turn my life over to God does it work.
    
    how is that different than what you wrote?
    
    Patricia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    You do believe that God is incarnate in Jesus, right?

"Incarnate", yes.  "Incarnate" is a specific word which refers to a specific,
unique, one-time event in which God himself became a human being.  He didn't
pick some human being and somehow go inside him.  Jesus was fully God and
fully man, from the moment the hypostatic union was created at his conception.
    
    
    According to which Gospel?
    
    According to John, Christ was the preexistent son of God that lived
    before the Historic Jesus and was ressurrected after the historic
    Jesus' death.
    
    Is it Matthew and Luke that have the incarnation happening at the time
    of conceptions?
    
    And then does not Mark have it occuring at the time of Baptism?
    
    
    
>    Do you doubt that God can be incarnate in each of Us?

God can do anything he wants, but I am not God (Jesus is), therefore God is not
"incarnate" in me.

>I receive God into myself when I receive the Precious Body and Blood,
    
    Let's agree not to debate whether this occurs symbolically or
    physically.
    
    > and I pray that he can indwell me so that it is no longer I but He that
    > lives, but I am not God, I cannot worship myself, no matter how much I try
    > to conform my will to His, I am totally separate from God and always will
    > be, and it is God I must worship and not myself.
    
    This is not too different than what I am trying to say.  I agree with
    this statement.
    
                             Patricia
                              

>    According to John, Christ was the preexistent son of God that lived
>    before the Historic Jesus and was ressurrected after the historic
>    Jesus' death.

Begotten before all worlds.  Yes, Christ existed before the incarnation,
and was the same Person of the Trinity, the Only Begotten Son and Word,
before the Incarnation, and outside of time and history we cannot make
a distinction between Christ and Jesus.  According to John, the Word
became Flesh and dwelt among us.
    
>    Is it Matthew and Luke that have the incarnation happening at the time
>    of conceptions?

Incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary.  The hypostatic union at the
historical moment of the conception made the Ever-Begotten Word the Incarnate
Word, the Word made Flesh.  Inside time and history, this happened at a
specific moment in time; at this moment Jesus the Man came into being.
Outside time and history Christ always was Jesus and alwasy was to be Jesus.
In history, God became Jesus at the instant Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.
    
>    And then does not Mark have it occuring at the time of Baptism?

No.  That is God showing himself pleased in his Son.  The belief that Jesus
became God at some time other than at the moment of his incarnation, which
happened at his conception, is an ancient heresy known as Adoptionism.

/john

    So john,
    
    What is the nature of Christ today?
    
    Fully human or Fully Divine or both?
    
    What was the nature of Christ before the incarnation.
    
    Fully human or Fully Divine or both?
    
    What is the nature of the preexistent and post existent Son of God?

    By the way?
    
    Is the Christ that existed before the incarnation and the Christ that
    existed after the incarnation Male or Female, neither or Both?
    
                                   Patricia

>    What is the nature of Christ today?
>    
>    Fully human or Fully Divine or both?

1. Both.  Jesus Christ took our human nature into heaven at the Ascension.
    
>    What was the nature of Christ before the incarnation.
>    
>    Fully human or Fully Divine or both?

2. Christ took on human nature at the incarnation.  That is when the hypostatic
union of God and Man took place in history.  Outside of time and history,
the question is irrelevant.
    
>    What is the nature of the preexistent and post existent Son of God?

3. See 1 & 2 above.
    
>    Is the Christ that existed before the incarnation and the Christ that
>    existed after the incarnation Male or Female, neither or Both?

4. The Son of God was incarnate as a male human being.  Before the incarnation,
(as well as after it) Christ was God's only-begotten Son.  This does not imply
male human gender.  Also see 2 above.

/john

    "outside of time and history the question is irrelevent"
    
    What about at the time of Abraham?  Was Christ fully human or fully
    divine?
    
    Why is the question irrelevent outside of time and history?
    
    What does it mean when you say the Jesus was a spiritual male but that
    is not the same as human male sex.  What does it mean that "in Christ
    there is no male or female?
    
    How does Jesus carry his human nature into heaven?  What does this
    mean?
    
    (I hope my questions are thought provoking to you John and to others?
    
    What about others belief about the incarnation?  Is it different by
    denomination and ideology or is it pretty constant?
    
    

>    What about at the time of Abraham?  Was Christ fully human or fully
>    divine?

At the time of Abraham, inside history, Christ was fully divine and was
not yet made flesh.
    
>    Why is the question irrelevent outside of time and history?

Because outside time and history everything that ever was and is and ever will
be already is and was and always will be and always will have been to be.
    
>    What does it mean when you say the Jesus was a spiritual male but that
>    is not the same as human male sex.

Did I say that?  I don't think so.  I said "son".  I did not say "male".
But the revelation of Christ as "son" is important.  To Christ, the Bridegroom,
we, his Church, are prepared to be his holy Bride.  But again, this is not a
concept of human gender; this is the relationship of God to his People.
This relationship is reflected in creation, in the creation of humanity
as men and women who unite with human gender as bridegroom and bride.

>What does it mean that "in Christ there is no male or female?"

That redemption by Christ and membership in the Body of Christ is not
restricted to male or female, to Greek or Jew, to Black or White, to
Now or Then.
    
>    How does Jesus carry his human nature into heaven?  What does this
>    mean?

By the supernatural power of God, Jesus took his glorified human body, the
same sort of human body we will all have at the general resurrection, to
live directly in the eternal heavenly presence of God.
    
/john

        It's somewhat weird to use the word "hypostatic" in
        connection with another medical term, "conception", since the
        medical term "hypostatic" means of or pertaining to an
        accumulation of blood due to poor circulation.

        Bob

The term "hypostatic union" has a specific theological meaning: "the union
of the divine and human natures of Christ in one hypostasis."

The word "hypostasis" in the context of "hypostatic union" has a specific
theological meaning: "one of the three persons of the Trinity."

/john

    Wasn't really sure where to ask this but...
    
    Last evening I saw a two minute segment of the Psychic friends network.
    When this guy was doing a psychic reading, every so often he would say,
    "Thank you spirit".
    
    Which spirit was he thanking here?  
    
    -Jack

    
    You'd probably have to ask him, Jack.
    
    Cindy

    Well it doesn't sound too wholesome.