Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I'm currently reading some of the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls
    and there is evidence that they were astrology-conscious. For example,
    their calendar (360 days with an extra day in each quarter) is set up
    to base the Creation in (I think Virgo). They have done considerable
    work on the exegesis of the Noah stories, partly to reconcile the
    differing accounts and to bring it in line with their calendar. There
    is evidence that here, too, the astrological signs play a role in
    their interpretations.
    
    What's that to do with Christianity? I seem to hear. Well, John the
    Baptist is believed - by some - to have (at least) studied with the
    Qumran Essenes. There are also some that believe that Paul's
    "Damascus experience" was related to Qumran (aka Damascus).
     	
    I'm not too firm on details at the moment; I need to read a book 
    a few times before details get through to me. I'll dig up title etc.
    if it interests anyone.
    
    Greetings, Derek.

>    "Damascus experience" was related to Qumran (aka Damascus).
>     	

What do you mean by "Qumran (aka Damascus)"?

/john

    The internal evidence of the rolls, especially the roll known as
    the Damascus Document (of which several copies have been identified)
    suggests that the Qumran Community referred to their settlement at
    Qumran as Damascus in the Desert (as opposed to the city of Damasus
    which was located in a fertile region).
    
    This knowledge has been used by some commentators to propose that Saul
    was on his way to Qumran when he was "converted". His 3-year
    disappearance is explained as his schooling in Essene theology at
    Qumran. I find the evidence - on what I have so far read - a little
    thin although I must admit it goes a long way to explain the legal
    problems thrown up (jurisdiction in [city of] Damascus and some other
    minor anomolies in Paul's account.
    
    Greetings, Derek.

    Determining the calander based on the constellations is really
    astronomy rather than astrology. This is an ancient science.
    
    Astrology, based on the concept that the stars and planets influence
    our natures and destinies, is condemned in scripture. It basically
    gives false powers over our lives to mere created matter; this makes
    of it a false god and those who claim to be able to read the stars
    false prophets. It deflects our acknowledgement of God as all powerful
    in our lives. By turning to astrology for answers rather than to God 
    through Jesus, His Word, and the Church, we sin through a form of 
    idolatry.
     

    In some translations of the Bible, the so-called 'wise men from the
    East' in Matthew's version of the birth of Christ are called
    astrologers.
    
    As the slogan goes: The wise still seek him. ;-)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    	Things, of themselves, are neither good nor bad.
    
    	It all depends on how they are used.  
    
    	A drug used in a certain way can become a life saver, the same 
    	drug used in another way can become a poison.
    
	Yes, I know the above is not supported by the scriptures.
    
    			Juan

    
    
    	This is a pointer to a reply I entered to note 205.24 (our old
    	friend Playtoe!).  It is a quote from a book by an astrologer whom
    	I admire tremendously.
    
        Carole

                                 
    Since there's an Astrology topic here already (thanks to Jack (;^), if
    anyone is up for some experimentation, I'd be happy to provide some
    information for you to see if a few of your major astrological transits
    have proven in the past to correlate with some major turning points in
    your lives.
    
    If you don't mind anyone knowing your age (;^), then you need only
    enter the month and year you were born (for example, mine is: November
    1957), and as time allows, I'll enter in your past and future major
    transits from a book written on these transits by Barbara Hand Clow.
    That way you can judge for, and prove it to, yourself.  
    
    Btw, what is provided in the book are in month ranges only.  To get 
    the *exact* time of your transits, you'd have to consult an astrologer.
    
    I, personally, use astrology as a reference too - much like an
    encyclopedia - for information purposes.  For example, when I
    discovered my Moon was in Pisces, and I read up on the significance of
    that, I was amazed to find things out about myself that up to that
    point could not be explained by any other 'system'.  There are specific
    diseases I'm prone to, and other physical, mental, and emotional states
    that were described that correlate to my own life in more than a
    coincidental way.  And so on. 
    
    Other uses for astrology - for example, if Mercury is in retrograde, 
    that's not a good time for communicating ideas because that is usually 
    the time that the greatest miscommunications will occur (so I avoid 
    in-depth notes discussions too, as they tend to become heated (;^)).  
    On full moons, we all know what happens around that time.  And so on.  
    
    Cindy

    There's an article on this in my Astronomy textbook ("Universe" by
    Kaufmann, Freeman Publishers, 3rd edition 1991) by Owen Gingerich. 
    Owen is an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
    in Cambridge and a Professor of Astronomy and the History of Science at
    Harvard University.  Here's an excerpt from his article:
    
    "Perhaps the most extensive statistics on the effectiveness of
    astrological predictions have been compiled by the French psychologist
    Maurice Gauquelin.  He failed to find any correlations between the
    birth horoscopes of 25,000 celebrities and the traditional qualities
    associated with the various zodiacal constellations.  Gauquelin also
    conducted an interesting experiment in which he offered free
    computer-generated horoscopes with the provision that the recipients
    evaluate how well the astrological characterization fit them.  Nearly
    95% of the recipients said they recognized themselves in the
    "psychological portrait," and 80% of their family and friends shared
    the opinion.  What they did not know was that exactly the same
    computer printout had been sent to everyone!" (p. 54)

    
    That's only a very, very, very small part of astrology, Mike.
     
    And it's not at all surprising that an astrophysicist would
    come out with such a comment.
    
    Cindy

    
    So, Mike - when's your birthday?  I noticed you didn't take me up on
    my offer. (;^)
    
    Cindy

    I wouldn't doubt that there are astrophysicists who would say that the
    Bible is bunk, too.
    
    Richard
    

    .8  Cindy,
    
    I don't know if fair since I'm not a total stranger to you, but here's
    my birthday:
    
    January 5, 1948.
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA, planet Earth.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    What do you think about it?  Do you think it's bunk or is it legit!

    .14
    
    I don't take astrology terribly seriously, Jack.
    
    Something that may be of interest though, the synagogue adjacent to
    the Phoenix College campus (Mike Heiser probably knows the one) has
    a room lined near the ceiling with the twelve traditional symbols
    of the zodiac.
    
    Richard
    

    This is just a "think about it" question.  Considering the fact that
    the Israelites of the days of old intermixed their worship with Baal
    worship, and men like Hezekiah tore down the alters and the high places
    of the baals, I wonder how Hezekiah would respond if he walked into
    this synagogue and saw the Zodiak symbols?  
    
    My guess is that he would have them removed.
    
    -Jack

           
    
    Re.13 (;^)
    
    Richard,
    
    Here ye be!  Doesn't matter that I know you, since these date
    ranges come directly out of (a purely objective) book without 
    any interpretation on my part.  Only you can tell if significant 
    events took place in your life right around these times...or not.
    
    Cindy
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    For:  Richard Jones-Christie
    Date: January 1948

    Key Life Passages
    -----------------

    Saturn Return:		8/77
    Uranus Opposition:		12/86-10/97
    Chiron Return:		10/98-11/98

    1st Chiron Square:	      	3/58-12/59
    Chiron Opposition:		6/81-3/83
    Upper Chiron Square:	10/92-7/93

    Note - these are ranges only.  To get more exact positions for
    your birth chart, you'd have to consult an astrologer.

    Uranus Opposition is typically referred to as 'mid-life crisis'.

>    So, Mike - when's your birthday?  I noticed you didn't take me up on
>    my offer. (;^)
    
    Cindy, mine is October 4, 1962; Leominster, MA.  Maybe now I can learn
    my sign too ;-)
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>    I wouldn't doubt that there are astrophysicists who would say that the
>    Bible is bunk, too.
    
    ..and there are some who trust it as God's infallible Word so what's
    your point?

>    Something that may be of interest though, the synagogue adjacent to
>    the Phoenix College campus (Mike Heiser probably knows the one) has
>    a room lined near the ceiling with the twelve traditional symbols
>    of the zodiac.
    
    Richard, thanks for reminding me about this because it ties right into
    a question I've been meaning to ask.  The synagogue is Temple Beth
    Israel (I've been there a few times) and the 12 stained glass windows
    around the dome are the symbols for each of the 12 Tribes of Israel.
    Now before I go further...
    
    Q: Is anyone familiar (Cindy?) with ancient zodiacs that pre-date, and
       were corrupted by, the Babylonian zodiac we use today?  Anyone know 
       anything about the Hebrew Mazzeroth?  How about the Persian system?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>    This is just a "think about it" question.  Considering the fact that
>    the Israelites of the days of old intermixed their worship with Baal
>    worship, and men like Hezekiah tore down the alters and the high places
>    of the baals, I wonder how Hezekiah would respond if he walked into
>    this synagogue and saw the Zodiak symbols?  
>    
    >    My guess is that he would have them removed.
    
    The apostle Peter would have the same reaction if he saw his High 
    Throne in St. Peter's Basilica with the Greek mythology symbols on it
    praising the works of Zeus.
    
    Mike

    >    Uranus Opposition is typically referred to as 'mid-life crisis'.
    
    All 11 years worth?!
    
    what do the other things mean?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    re.20
    
    Mike,
    
    Here's what David Frawley has to say about Vedic Astrology in his book
    named the same:
    
    "Vedic astrology is the astrology of India and the areas under its
    cultural influence.  It has been used by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and
    Sikhs.  It was practiced in the whole of India and in what are now
    parts of Persia, Afghanistan, and Russian Central Asia.  It is still
    used in Tibet, Sri Lanka and Burma.  It followed Hindu and Buddhist
    influence into Indochina and Indonesia.  Its influence spread to China
    and the Middle East, perahps even to ancient Babylonia and Egypt in
    very early times.  If the astronomical references in the Vedas are
    accurate, it may be the original form of astrology from which all the
    others emerged."
    
    He also tells that there are references going back to before 3000 B.C.
    and perhaps as far back as 6000 B.C., in the earlier Vedas.
    
    The differences between Vedic astrology and what we have in the West,
    is that the Western uses the Tropical zodiac, and the Vedic uses the
    Sidereal zodiac.  There's a fairly simple way to convert from Tropical
    to Sidereal (using the degrees as an indicator).  David goes on for an
    entire chapter in his book comparing the differences and giving
    insights into them.   He states in that chapter that, "About 2000 years
    ago, when Western astrology was in its formative stages, the two
    zodiacs coincided.  Since then, with the precession, the two zodiacs
    have been moving slowly apart, around 50" per year.  Hence the Tropical
    zodiac shows the actual astronomical positions of some two thousand
    years ago." 
    
    David also notes in that chapter that the 'Knowledge of precession was
    lost altogether in the dark ages. [of Western civilization]".  Both
    Sidereal and Tropical systems have their uses, however the Sidereal is
    the one that corresponds 1-1 with astronomical positions.
    
    Will provide your ranges tomorrow.
    
    Cindy

    Hi Richard:
    
    So you are a Capricorn; like me ....
    
    		... and Jesus!
    
    Greetings, Derek.

no wonder i like you guys so much!

earth signs are the ones i get along best with, particularly capricorns.





andreas. (last day of virgo or first day of libra, depending on which book
          you go by)

re .8


cindy, i'd like to take you up on the offer.

my birthday is sept 23rd, 1959, 12:08 CET, near stuttgart, south west
germany. 

if spring/summer 1992 doesn't show in my major transitions then astrology 
is bunk! just kidding, but this was my most significant phase in life so
far. also i am told that due to the combination of my signs, mostly of the
non-cardinal flaky variety (sagittarius rising, gemini moon, virgo influence 
in sun) i am particularly good at avoiding all astrological predictions! 
:-)



andreas.

>    very early times.  If the astronomical references in the Vedas are
>    accurate, it may be the original form of astrology from which all the
>    others emerged."
>    
>    He also tells that there are references going back to before 3000 B.C.
>    and perhaps as far back as 6000 B.C., in the earlier Vedas.
    
    There is evidence that shows Adam started the Hebrew Mazzeroth so the
    above would be false.
    
    Mike

    
    Re.27
    
    Mike,
    
    On that one, I have no idea what you're talking about, since I'm not at
    all familiar with the Hebrew Mazzeroth.  
    
    Cindy

    Cindy, you should be.  Consider it your homework assignment for the
    year ;-)

Note 641.9

>                           -< astrology is bunk >-

>    Owen is an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
>    in Cambridge and a Professor of Astronomy and the History of Science at
>    Harvard University.

Note 641.12

>    I wouldn't doubt that there are astrophysicists who would say that the
>    Bible is bunk, too.
    
Note 641.19
    
>    ..and there are some who trust it as God's infallible Word so what's
>    your point?

My point is that you almost always find someone with credentials to back your
point.

Richard

    
    For:  Mike Heiser
    Date: October 1962
    
    Key Life Passages
    -----------------
    
    Saturn Return:          3/91-12/91
    Uranus Opposition:      2/2004-1/2005
    Chiron Return:          3/2012-2/2013
    
    1st Chiron Square:      7/84-5/85
    Chiron Opposition:      10/93-7/94
    Upper Chiron Square:    11/99-12/99
    
    I'd rather not say what these things are at this time...rather
    it's more important that you look back on your life and see if
    these dates hold any correlation for some of the more significant
    or (in some cases) difficult life transitions that have taken
    place in your own life.
    
    Not sure what your sun sign is as I don't have that table with me (I
    can only remember my own (;^)).  Anybody know? 
    
    Cindy

	Richard, very good observation. 

    
    For:  Andreas Gutzwiller
    Date: September 1959
    
    Key Life Passages
    -----------------
    
    Saturn Return:          2/88-11/88
    Uranus Opposition:      2/2000-1/2001
    Chiron Return:          3/2009-1/2010
    
    1st Chiron Square:      7/81-3/83
    Chiron Opposition:      10/92-7/93
    Upper Chiron Square:    11/98
    
    >non-cardinal flaky variety (sagittarius rising, gemini moon, virgo
    >influence in sun)
    
    Good heavens!  (;^)

re .33


cindy, thanks so much, you're a darling!


you really must tell me what all this means.

you said uranus opposition was mid-life crisis. i thought i was 
having one now, you mean it's gonna get worse than now!!! ;-)

and when am i going to meet the love of my life??

is saturn return a step up the career ladder? 1988 was a good year
work wise. what is all this chiron stuff? did i miss something?

help!! 

pleaaaase do tell...

:-)


andreas.

ps. i am a believer! i swear! :-)

>    Saturn Return:          3/91-12/91
>    Uranus Opposition:      2/2004-1/2005
>    Chiron Return:          3/2012-2/2013
>    
>    1st Chiron Square:      7/84-5/85
>    Chiron Opposition:      10/93-7/94
>    Upper Chiron Square:    11/99-12/99
    
    I have no idea what these mean, but in looking back, there isn't 
    anything significant in any of these dates.  They don't cover when I
    met the love of my life, my wedding engagement, my wedding, the births of 
    my 4 children, or any other significant event in my life.
    
    Mike

    
    Re.29
    
    >Cindy, you should be.  Consider it your homework assignment for the
    >year ;-)
    
    Alright then, Mike - create a new topic and enlighten me!
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.35
    
    Mike,
    
    The dates aren't about external events, for the most part.  They're 
    about internal growth, primarily of the spiritual kind.   
    
    >astrology is bunk
    
    OK, fine.  Whatever.  You're certainly entitled to your beliefs.
    
    Cindy
                                                             

    Well if it's spiritually related, it still doesn't apply to the dates
    of my acceptance of Christ as my personal Savior, my re-dedication, my
    water baptism, the times the Holy Spirit manifested Himself through me
    according to 1 Corinthians 12, when I started attending any of the
    churches I've been to, when I started to take God's Word seriously,
    etc.
    
    You may call it my opinion, but you proved it is bunk, just as the
    psychologist's experiment in the astrophysicist's article proved it was
    bunk.
    
    Mike

i don't think you lose alot by not taking astrology seriously, mike.

actually, because it is neither a proper science nor truly a religion
(in all its manifestations, that is) you shouldn't take astrology too 
seriously at any rate.

from own experience i know though, that astrology is fun and thought
provoking. when i first got into it at the age of twenty, in a study
of birth charts (characters), the first thing that i discovered through
astrology is that there is neither good nor bad in people, just different 
ways of seeing things. whether astrology is bunk or not, this has proved
to be a helpful insight, ever since.

i stopped doing astrology when through the study of birth charts, i
discovered there was too much truth in astrology for my comfort! i didn't 
want to kow then, about the other part of astrology, the predictions,
because this whole area would have carried some unsettling implications
if it was also to contain some truth.

as far as i recall though, even astrological predictions are only
about probabilities (event X is likely to happen at time T) and not
about certainties and that the idea of knowing 'bad' predictions is 
knowing how to avoid them.

so for me, my investigation into astrology turned out to be incomplete.
not a very honourable finish, because, for my part, i still feel if there 
is any way to tell the future, then i'd rather not know. it seems to me
that such predictability would take from the spice of life. but i remain
intrigued by astrology and it's wider implications.




andreas.

    It *IS* a religion.  You have to serve somebody, and if it isn't God,
    it's whatever you use to guide your life.  Astrologists worship the
    stars and rely on them for their daily decisions.
    
    Mike

astrology (alongside related disciplines such as chiromancy) is supposedly 
based on countless years of observation. it falls under the category of early 
human's attempts to understand nature and the laws of the universe (issues
which are today being addressed by science) in an objective manner rather 
than relying on deities.

i think you could easily argue that at the time (and to this day), astrology 
takes the place of religion as much as science takes the place of religion.



andreas.

    
    In the Mayan culture, there is no differentiation between science and
    religion.  Astrology and astronomy are only different sides of the same
    coin.
    
    Cindy

    
    >It *IS* a religion.  You have to serve somebody, and if it isn't God,
    
    God can speak through the stars as well as through a Bible.
    
    Cindy

>    In the Mayan culture, there is no differentiation between science and
>    religion.  Astrology and astronomy are only different sides of the same
>    coin.
    
    Cindy, you just proved my point.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    >    God can speak through the stars as well as through a Bible.
    
    He does through the Hebrew Mazzeroth (which Richard saw in Temple Beth
    Israel in Phoenix).  The Bible says the Heavens declare the Glory of
    God.
    
    Anyone care to venture a guess what the Glory of God is?  Hint: it's
    not Creation.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    
    Re.44
    
    Fine.  Whatever.
         
    Cindy

    Has anybody here noticed that Cindy has acquiesced alot lately! :-)
    
    Just kidding Cindy.
    
    -Jack

yes, her wisdom definitely shows. :-)



andreas.

    
    Nah, just remembered a Biblical verse about casting pearls, Jack.
    
    Cindy

.40 Mike Heiser

    It *IS* a religion.  You have to serve somebody,

Why do you believe that you have to serve someone?

Steve

         
    The real truth?
    
    	Christianity is bunk.
    
    Cindy

    Of course Cindy.  Just as I suspected!  
    
    Jesus speaking to the church of Laodicea stated that he would rather
    they be hot or cold than lukewarm.  A lukewarm individual can be
    blinded from their perception of heat.
    
    Always appreciated your honesty!!
    
    -Jack

             <<< Note 641.51 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon" >>>

>    The real truth?
>    
>    	Christianity is bunk.
    
    	Cindy --
    
    	So why are you here?  Just to tell us that Christianity is
    	bunk, and to convince us that your religion is somehow better?
    
    	At least the atheists and agnostics and participants of other
    	faiths have the courtesy (or the diplomacy) to say that they
    	are here to find out more about Christianity, or to search
    	for understanding or something.
    
    	I've seen nothing of the sort from you.  Just crystals and
    	feminism.  And bunk.

    
    Re.53
    
    Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!  Gotcha!
    
    I was one of the original moderators of this file.
    
    So there. 
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.52
    
    Jack,
    
    You didn't *really* fall for that line, did you?
    
    Cindy

    Uhhhh well I'm afraid I did!  You just never know what to expect in
    this file.
    
    Now of course the day Patricia states that she is a subscriber to the
    entire precepts of the Pauline epistles, it is then I will have a
    coronary!! :-)
    
    By the way, my understanding is one of the current mods is an
    atheist...or a non Christian.  Can't remember which!
    
    -Jack

                                     
    Re.53 again
    
    Now I'd like to get serious for a moment and point out a few things.
    
    >I've seen nothing of the sort from you.  Just crystals and
    >feminism.  And bunk.
    
    You see, this is one of the underlying attitudes that I have sensed
    here by a few, and if you wonder why more women - especially like me - 
    don't participate, then just look at this statement above.    
    
    After such a statement, would you feel your responses valued and
    respected in this conference?  I think not.  I have a hard time
    thinking that I would ever respond here with such a statement as 
    "All I've ever heard from you is just a bunch of male chauvanist
    preaching, and Bible-thumping...and bunk.", because that's what 
    the equivalent would be.
    
    Oh, I'll remain here.  And I know this isn't representative of the
    majority of the men who participate here, either.  But it's still an
    attitude that exists here, and unfortunately it does nothing to
    encourage female participation of the more liberal persuasion.
    
    I'd like to suggest that from here on, we try to avoid such statements
    as "*whatever* is bunk", because it shows a complete lack of respect
    for what another person may hold true, and it does nothing to encourage 
    and open and positive dialogue.
    
    Cindy 

    
    Re.56
    
    Jack,
    
    Beliefs don't matter so much, but in order to be a mod (I was invited
    originally, but did not accept due to my workload at the time), one has
    to at least *respect* the topic of the notesfile that is being
    discussed (as opposed to thinking it's 'bunk'), and so that is where I
    was coming from.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy:
    
    I find it interesting that you actually used an illegal tactic of
    entrapment to ferret out Joe's feelings about New Age philosophies.
    
    Now it would be just as valid for Joe to respond and say, "I was only
    kidding too!"  Then we would have his word against yours.  However,
    consider also that Joe has always been forthright in his feelings about
    New Age Philosophies.  You reject Christianity in your own life, am I
    correct in this or am I wrong (no assumptions intended).  
    
    You can reject it and you can respectfully reject it.  I define bunk
    as the rejection of an idea so it would seem the if you reject it, you
    are really bunking it but in a polite way.  Therefore, the words used
    are only symbolic.  The substance is still there...Fundamental
    Christianity is rejected (bunked) by you and New Age is rejected
    (bunked) by him!
    
    -Jack 

    
    Re.59
    
    Jack,
    
    My note was not a deliberate attempt to do anything of that sort.  I 
    did not expect anything more than to mirror Mike's response so that 
    he 'might' get an idea of how it feels, and stop his incessant 
    'astrology is bunk' comments that I have been doing my very best to
    tolerate whilst trying to have a reasonable discussion about it.  But
    as you see, I finally gave up.   
    
    I do not reject Christianity, and I also don't reject other religions
    either.  I may reject your particular interpretation, however. But I
    would tend to say, "I don't agree with you.", rather than to say, "Your
    opinion is bunk.", and inside I would *truly mean* that 'I don't agree',
    rather than 'your opinion is bunk'.  There is a difference. 
    
    Cindy

             <<< Note 641.57 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon" >>>

>    After such a statement, would you feel your responses valued and
>    respected in this conference?  
    
    	Frankly, Cindy, my responses are rarely valued here, so I'm
    	not worried about others' reactions when I do not pull my
    	punches.  Surely you agree that I do not hold back!
    
    	Take a look at the quote from you that I responded to.  Tell
    	me why I as a Christian should respect your statement.  Your
    	attempt at lecturing me is nothing short of the pot calling the
    	kettle black.
    
>    "All I've ever heard from you is just a bunch of male chauvanist
>    preaching, and Bible-thumping...and bunk.", because that's what 
>    the equivalent would be.
    
    	No it wouldn't be, because I was not the one who used the term
    	bunk.  I was only throwing your statement back at you.  Frankly
    	I can fully understand why you would see my entries as male
    	chauvanism and Bible-thumping given what you say in here.  You
    	are entitled to that opinion, and I think it is rather accurate
    	from your perspective.
    
>    I'd like to suggest that from here on, we try to avoid such statements
>    as "*whatever* is bunk", because it shows a complete lack of respect
>    for what another person may hold true, and it does nothing to encourage 
>    and open and positive dialogue.
    
    	I had to go back and take a look at who wrote what, because I
    	thought I was sure it was YOU who said that Christianity was
    	bunk.  I went back and looked, and sure enough it WAS your
    	name in entry .51.  Maybe someone has broken into your account...
    
    	-----------
    
    	And in .54 you said:
    
>           -< particularly liked your last comment - such honesty! >-
    
	You don't think it was an honest reply?  It was exactly what
    	I see.  You try to distance yourself from feminism in some of
    	replies you've posted, but from my perspective you are as
    	feminist as you see me chauvanistic.  And lately it has been 
    	reply after reply of crystals, astrology, mysticism, etc.  I 
    	just next unseen through those discussions.  It doesn't 
    	interest me.  If it did, I'd participate in whatever::new_age 
    	or something.  So it only follows that I'm going to say "just
    	crystals and feminism."  Don't you see how I could say this?
    	But until now I've pretty much ignored you.  Then today you
    	tell us that Christianity is bunk, and you wonder why I add
    	on another phrase, "and bunk"...
    
    	From my perspective it is perfectly truthful.  This is what
    	you've presented to me about yourself.  You've been hostile
    	to the Christianity that I know, and now you even make a
    	blanket statement.
    
>    I was one of the original moderators of this file.
>    
>    So there. 
    
    	Well, I've been complaining about this conference and its
    	sometimes absolute hostility towards traditional Christianity
    	from the time I started reading here.  So you were a founder.
    	It fits.  As the twig is bent...  

       <<< Note 641.59 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>    I find it interesting that you actually used an illegal tactic of
>    entrapment to ferret out Joe's feelings about New Age philosophies.
    
    	I gave no indication to Cindy about my feelings towards
    	New Age philosophies up until my last reply.  Even at that
    	it was merely a "not for me" response if anything.
    
>    Now it would be just as valid for Joe to respond and say, "I was only
>    kidding too!"  
    
    	I was not kidding, but I still don't see where Cindy said that
    	she was kidding.  Did I miss it somewhere?
    
>    You reject Christianity in your own life, am I
>    correct in this or am I wrong (no assumptions intended).  
    
    	I don't see how anyone who says, "Christianity is bunk" can
    	do anything but reject it...

    	re .60
    
    	Uh, either I'm terribly confused, or I've been hoodwinked and
    	Jack *IS* right that I was entrapped.
    
    	I need a break...

i was very surprised to learn that carl gustav jung, christian and 
one of the leading heads of this century, did not dismiss astrology 
off hand as bunk.

in one of his studies he checked into the compatibility of married 
couples by correlating astrological criteria. as i recall, in astrology
one indication of compatibility is given if the moon sign of a spouse 
is astrologically compatible to the sun sign of the other spouse. 
in astrological terms the sun sign represents the conscious personality,
the moon sign represents the subconscious personality. the study is 
published in a book entitled essays on synchronicty, accausuality and 
occultism [as i translate the terms] and in the end of this particular 
research jung concludes 'that those alchemistic teachings were confirmed 
to a large extent' (paraphrased).

this is not to say that jung believed in astrology, but he kept an
open mind and did not dismiss it off hand as bunk.




andreas.

re .61


>	my responses are rarely valued here


you are doing yourself a great injustice, joe.

speaking for this one reader i can proudly admit that i greatly
value and respect your contributions.

this was not always so.



andreas.

       Consider the following reasoning...
    
    	ZZ  Christianity is bunk!  (Cindy makes this remark but is not
            serious.)  The trap is set.
    
        Joe's Response!
    
        >I've seen nothing of the sort from you.  Just crystals and
        >feminism.  And bunk.
    
    	Cindy's response:
        
       ZZ You see, this is one of the underlying attitudes that I have sensed
       ZZ here by a few, and if you wonder why more women - especially like
       ZZ me - don't participate, then just look at this statement above.    
    
         Entrappment!  Cindy's kidding, Joe's serious; Cindy reveals she's
    kidding but points out how Joe really feels.  I state that Joe can just
    as easily say he was kidding too so we're all even!! :-)  This is fun
    detective work!  Cindy, I did see your reply to this whole thing but
    was just showing how my thought process went.
    
    -Jack

almost reads like the summary of soap!



give it a break, jack.

    I'm going to be a spy some day!!!!

and i hope to be a priest jack, if they take atheists for the job!!!

    Andreas,
    
    I think you would make a wonderful minister!  You could start a UU
    fellowship right their in Zurich!
    
                                     Patricia
    

    
    Re.64
    
    Thank you, Richard.  
    
    Cindy

now there's a thought patricia! all i need now is to know is how to start 
a UU fellowship!



andreas.

    Should I call the UUA and suggest they send you some information?
    
    As a lay person, you could be President of the fellowship.  You would
    need an MDIV however to be an Ordained Minister!
    
    I just reread your introduction from last December, and I am convinced
    you would do a superb job.
    
                                   Patricia
    
    Becoming an Evangelical UU!

    Andreas:
    
    You sound like a great guy so please don't take this as a perjorative
    remark toward you.
    
    In order to do the Lord's work, you have to make some real personal
    commitments and convictions in the area of spiritual leadership. 
    Church leaders are called by God...called to a high calling.  They are
    equated to the stars held by the right hand of God.
    
    If the UU is not a church, then this is one thing.  The Church however
    is an institution built and layed upon the foundation of Jesus Christ
    and is here for the purpose of bringing together those that are
    likeminded, called to fellowship, and called to serve the Lord.
    
    As an atheist, it would seem you, in all honesty, would be doing a
    disservice to yourself and to the Church by pursuing a calling when you
    don't believe in a personal God.  Scripture tells us that To everything
    there is a time and a place under heaven.  As an atheist, you as a
    servant of the most high would not be complementary to you or to God.
    You'd be chasing after what you perceive an illusion and God would in a
    sense be mocked.
    
    Keep searching to get the ultimate questions answered.  Is there a
    personal real God?  Does God love me and have a plan for my life?  
    Coming from this Christian perspective, sleep on it a while.  You may
    find it is more of a challenge than you expected.
    
    -Jack

    >Why do you believe that you have to serve someone?
    
    take a look around.  You really only have 3 choices.

    >    	Christianity is bunk.
    
    at least we have historical and scientific fact to back it up with. 
    Haw, haw, haw!!
    
    Mike

>    My note was not a deliberate attempt to do anything of that sort.  I 
>    did not expect anything more than to mirror Mike's response so that 
>    he 'might' get an idea of how it feels, and stop his incessant 
>    'astrology is bunk' comments that I have been doing my very best to
>    tolerate whilst trying to have a reasonable discussion about it.  But
>    as you see, I finally gave up.   
    
    Cindy, all you have to do is prove me wrong.  
    
    And speaking of incessant, I mentioned before that a certain topic in
    here makes me nauseous, but it isn't the only one.  If you want the truth, 
    there is just as much incessant anti-Christian comments in here.  This is 
    surprising for a conference that considers itself a Christian conference.  
    I've had to bite my tongue quite a bit in here the past few months and
    now I'm starting to wonder why I'm even here.  I really don't see much
    in this conference that supports its name.
    
    Mike

    .60 Cindy,
    
    	Allow me to explain.  It's a variation of the golden rule:
    
    	'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.  But if
    others ever really do unto you what you've done unto them, let it
    be written off as negativity toward Christianity.'
    
    Richard
    

.78

>    I really don't see much
>    in this conference that supports its name.
    
And I really don't see much of it in this conference's severest critics.

Richard

re .74

stop it right there patricia, you're beginning to sound like my sister! :-)


re .75

thanks for saving me jack! :-)



i am a happy atheist actually. 

and my atheism has only come about through being confronted with evangelical 
christians in the first place! that's so remarkable that i am still trying 
to figure out why.

so going by experience i seem to be moving away from the faith (in the word)
rather than moving towards it. but i have no idea where this is leading up 
to.

now back to our usual business. :-)



andreas.

.77>                   -< don't knock it until you try it >-


mike, and to which extent have you 'tried' astrology?

we all agree that the tabloid-press-astrology is bunk.

have you had any deeper insights than this level to 
reach your conclusion?

i am sorry to hear you're so easily nauseated.

as i wrote in the other nauseating topic, there are actually
people in this file due to which i have had bad nights, been 
nervous and agressive to folks close to me. yes. jack martin
and joe oppelt have already given me alot to think about without 
them even knowing it. 

it happens. upsetting without wanting to due to our differences.

giving the benefit of the doubt, asking directly and having
patience gets you out of the fix! i now understand these guys 
better.

if something troubles you mike, please speak up instead of
of just feeling nauseous. we're here to understand each other
NOT TO EAT one another!




andreas.

 ZZ   and my atheism has only come about through being confronted with
 ZZ   evangelical 
 ZZ   christians in the first place! that's so remarkable that i am still
 ZZ   trying to figure out why.
    
    If you think about it, it would seem illogical.
    
    Why would you penalize yourself or penalize God because you had a bad
    experience with some over zealous Christians?
    
    -Jack

i am not penalizing anyone jack. far from it.

in depth discussion has just made this former christian aware
that he can't know for sure whether there is god or not.

hence i now opt for the latter. to me, that's the safer bet.



andreas.

                      
    Let's see.....here is about how the astrology discussion was going, if
    one is to flip it around and use Christianity instead.
    
    	"Christianity is bunk."
    	"Not it's not - Christ was born, lived, and died for your sins."
    	"When was he born?"
    	"Christmas Day".
    	"No - history shows he was born in the Spring.  Christianity is bunk."
	"But that's only a very minute point - you can't decide on that!"
    	"Ok, then, Christ refers to his Father in Heaven, then says they
    		One.  That can't logically be.  Christianity is bunk."
    	"Again, you're taking it out of context."
        "The Bible says to turn the other cheek.  Yet Christians all over
    		the world are killing each other. Christianity is bunk.
    	"That's only because..." 
    	
    	"So prove to me that Christianity is not bunk."
    	"Well...(insert comments).
    	"Nope!  Wrong!  Christianity is bunk."
    
        And so on.
    
    So, Mike, I don't intend to continue this discussion.  I have nothing 
    to prove to you, and even if I did, I have no further inclination (or 
    time) to do so.  Even if I did, it wouldn't make a difference anyway
    (see above sample discussion).  So let's just drop it.
    
    Cindy

    re: .57
    
    But, but..."bunk" is one of my favorite words! 
    
    Bunk is a friendly word, too.  It isn't as caustic as "ridiculous", or
    as grating as "stupid", or as analytical as "illogical" (though I like
    this word, too), or as unfriendly as "idiotic", or as enfuriating as
    "moronic", or as emotional as "caustic spewings from a twisted,
    deviant, dark soul who has not one functioning brain cell".  Bunk is unique,
    multifunctional, and easy to use. 
    
    Use it well and use it often, I say ("bunk", that is).   8^)
    
    
    -steve  

    
    Re.61
    
    And just to make things perfectly clear to you, Joe, yes - I *was*
    kidding.  However, just as you 'flipped it back on me', so was I doing
    exactly that to Mike Heiser to respond to his 'astrology is bunk'
    comment (if you had been closely following this topic).  So I excluded 
    the smiley face.
    
    About your comment on my saying your last statement was honest - I
    meant it at face value - your comments about my 'feminist, crystal
    bunk' was finally revealing your honest feelings about me and my notes.
    
    It was never meant as a setup - my comment and the sole intent behind 
    it was meant for *Mike only*, and *only* as a response to his own
    statements toward astrology.
    
    Cindy 

    re: .59
    
    Jack shows another (of many) interesting uses for "bunk".  Way to
    go, Jack.  It is a good word.  Use it often.
    
    
    -steve

    
    Re.86
    
    Ah, but when Joe used it against me, it certainly didn't appear to be
    used in a friendly way. 
    
    Cindy

    Every student of the Bible knows Jesus was born in the fall.

    
    Go back to the prison note, Mike.
    
    Cindy

re .86


great sales job there steve! i am bought!

in fact makes me feel like i am doing you a favour when
saying "christianity is bunk".

but na, there's a little truth to it. just a bit.

i'll keep an open mind. one never knows what you folks
come up with.


andreas.

    Cindy:
    
    If anything, you dispelled this notion that Christians are supposed to
    be perfect.  You put forth the truth that humanity is depraved.
    
    -Jack

             <<< Note 641.87 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon" >>>

>    meant it at face value - your comments about my 'feminist, crystal
>    bunk' was finally revealing your honest feelings about me and my notes.
    
    	I didn't say "feminist crystal bunk".  Bunk was listed separately,
    	in its own sentence.  As I said previously, it was meant to throw
    	the word back at you.  You even quoted that in your first paragraph
    	of .87, so for you to now get upset by a phrasing of your own
    	making is nothing more than a problem of your own making.
    
    	I see a lot of miscommunication and mininterpretation here.  I
    	missed the meaning of your "Christianity is bunk" statement.  
    	As I already stated, I skip bast most of your stuff out of lack
    	of interest.  I was not (and really still am not) aware of your
    	history with Mike H., except that it exists.  I don't know what
    	you've said to him, nor what he's said to you.  I only know that
    	as of late you've been expounding on crystals, astrology, and
    	Hinduism.  Given that, how would you expect me to react to a
    	statement from you that says (without explanation or smileys)
    	"Christianity is bunk"?  But now I've been filled in a bit on
    	what's going on, and I see that I misinterpreted your intention.
    
    	The misinterpretation continues with your reception of my use
    	of the word bunk.  I've now clarified it (again) for you.
    
    	How about we both start over with each other if we can.  OK?
    
    	I'll just go back to ignoring your stuff.  :^)

    re: .89
    
    That's just a part of its useful nature.  It doesn't have to be
    friendly, even though it is a friendly word.
    
    Besides, I think Joe used the word as a list of things he's seen in
    your notes.  You did use "bunk", so he listed it.  I can see how that
    meaning was missed, however.  I missed it on the first read through 
    myself.
    
    See how useful "bunk" is?  See how it keeps the reader on his/her toes?
    
    
    
    -steve

    re: .92
    
    You will not regret your decision.  There are just so many uses for the
    word- from humor to satire, to debunking (<--- see, there is another
    mutation of it) outright something you do not believe.  And yes, for
    those moody occations, you can even use it as a put down.
    
    So functional, so versatile.  "Bunk" is the word for the 90's noter, to
    be sure.
    
    
    -steve

    I didn't know Cindy and I had a history. ;-)

    
    Re.94 - Joe
    
    >I'll just go back to ignoring your stuff.  :^)
    
    Well that just sounds like a *wonderful* idea.  (;^)  At least we did
    manage to come to a reasonable agreement in the abortion topic several
    moons ago...
    
    >miscommunication...etc...
    
    Yes, Mercury went out of retrograde last Friday - the typical time of
    miscommunication and misunderstanding, - though we seem to be 
    experiencing some strong residual effects.  Hopefully next week will 
    be much better.
    
    Will be out of the office tomorrow, so back again on Happy Monday!
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.97
    
    Mike, see note .91.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    
    Jack,
    
    If you'd like another example of your making false assumptions about my
    'intents', refer to the first paragraph in your note .59 in this string. 
    
    It's utterly and completely FALSE.  And yet you based the rest of your
    note on this FALSE assumption.
    
    Cindy

ZZ                               -< tell me you didn't... >-
ZZ    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        
ZZ        Re.52
        
ZZ        Jack,
        
ZZ        You didn't *really* fall for that line, did you?
        
ZZ        Cindy
    
    Cindy, this is the tone you set and of course I fell for it...I'm
    gullible.  Consequently, my .59 was a falty premise but it was based on
    the fact that sometimes we trick each other...or whatever.  Sorry but
    I'm not a mind reader and I act impulsively based on expectations!
    
    -Jack

    
    Re.102
    
    Jack,
    
    >I'm not a mindreader and I act impulsively
    
    I think I'm going to frame that response.  (;^)
    
    If you were even following this topic a little bit, it should have been
    plainly obvious that I was merely throwing Mike Heiser's "Astrology is
    bunk." statement back at him and using Christianity instead.  Richard
    got it (and probably chuckled too!)- so why didn't you?  At least Joe
    had an excuse in that he wasn't following the topic.
    
    Anyway, that's why it's especially important for you to question your 
    own perceptions, rather than automatically assume and impulsively act 
    from your assumptions. 
    
    Instead, perhaps you might try to calmly, rationally, and logically 
    read the responses, and if there's even a shread of doubt in your mind,
    or the comment is even a little ambiguous, then simply ask for 
    clarification rather than launch into a dead end rathole diatribe bit, 
    complete with labels, assumptions, etc.  
    
    It's as simple as: 
    
    "Patricia (or Cindy), do you really mean ____?  Because this is how I'm
    perceiving it."  
    
    Then we will, at that point, have the option of saying, "Well no, Jack,
    we didn't mean it that way.  Here's what we really meant."  Or, if we
    DID mean it the way you took it, THEN bring out the guns and shoot us
    for it.                            
    
    Cindy

 ZZ   THEN bring out the guns and shoot us
 ZZ       for it.                            
    
    Oh!  Well, that's fair enough!!
    
    -Jack

	You've been asked to do this several times, Jack....so far you have yet
to do it.


Glen

    
    Glen, patience please...(;^)  
    
    I'm hoping we're breaking new ground here, all around.  Let's see how
    it progresses, for all of us.
    
    Cindy

    Oh my Gawd...now I think I'm going to be sick.  Glen, YOU of ALL people
    need to take a good look in the mirror before casting aspersions on ME.
    I could make a Glen Silva HALL of shame with your
    beauties...particularly in the Litterbox!  Glen, you reek of elitism at
    times.  Don't give me the self righteous blah.  
    
    -Jack  

	Nice claim...now back it please.

    Naaah