Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 23:08:13 (GMT)
From: Feb 21, 2000 To: Mar 05, 2000 Page: 5 Of: 5


kc -:- When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error. -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 08:18:22 (GMT)
__ Anarchist -:- When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error. -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 03:52:15 (GMT)
__ gerry -:- Oh no it really IS keith, he's a jesus freak nowNT -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:59:36 (GMT)
__ __ Keith -:- Oh no it really IS keith, he's a jesus freak nowNT -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 16:03:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- Tell the Elkies -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 17:03:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Keith C -:- Tell the Elkies -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 20:42:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Let me tell you about Keith Cameron -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 03:34:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- recollections -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 15:58:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Jim, Nigel needs a talking to...and fun facts -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 17:23:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Big difference, Ger -- BIG difference -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:17:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Well it's all your fault..! -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 19:08:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Keith C -:- Well it's all your fault..! -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 00:32:40 (GMT)
__ G -:- the real Word of God? -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:12:49 (GMT)
__ __ Keith C -:- the real Word of God? -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 00:21:28 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Hey, G -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:25:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- where does consciousness come from? -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 18:29:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Sir David -:- Another big question answered -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 20:28:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- Like, far out man like you should be called ... -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 23:08:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Sir David -:- Don't read this on acid -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:23:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- I'm offended -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 17:29:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- As Mel Brooks once said ... -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 19:21:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- I'm offended -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:32:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- To Master D. -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 21:42:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- To Genius Jerry -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:05:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- Remembering being on drugs -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:15:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Sir David -:- Remembering being on drugs - expelling a falsehood -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 16:43:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- - expelling a falsehood -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 19:37:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- - expelling a falsehood - you're right of course -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:10:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Like, far out man like you should be called ... -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:09:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- And what do you base this belief upon? -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:29:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- And what do you base this belief upon? -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 23:20:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- And what do you base this belief upon? -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 03:19:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- And what do you base this belief upon? -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:25:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sure, G, anything you say -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 15:57:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- p.s. -- to be clear -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 16:32:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- p.s. -- to be clear -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 17:34:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- neuroscientist - an authority on consciousness??? -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 17:26:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Nice try, G -- but no cigar -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:28:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Consciousness - what is it? -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 17:48:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Semantics? -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 00:48:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Semantics? -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 03:25:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sure, G, anything you say (part 2) -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 03:50:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- 'extra-brain' consciousness -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 18:07:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- 'extra-brain' consciousness -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 00:51:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- 'extra-brain' consciousness -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 20:47:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Quantum teleportation, mind-matter interaction -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 03:25:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- As much as anybody -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 00:55:50 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error. -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:01:31 (GMT)
__ __ Keith C -:- When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error. -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 00:47:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error. -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:59:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Keith -:- Need for making sense -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 16:08:49 (GMT)
__ Hal -:- When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error. -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 08:40:52 (GMT)
__ __ Michael -:- When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error. -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:39:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ Hal -:- Sweeping generalisation -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:02:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Michael -:- Sweeping generalisation -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 17:40:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- Conversely, Michael ... -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:02:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Conversely, Michael ... -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:30:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- Very fair, Michael ... 'though ... -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 17:09:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ stonor -:- Thanks for the links cqg! -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 00:51:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Very fair, Michael ... 'though ... -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 18:46:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- Thanks, Michael, -hope you gain as much insight fr -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 19:36:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- You're welcome, but a question... -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 00:05:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Okay, cqg, I've read the first five chapters -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:29:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- Okay, Mike, I was going to reply tonight, but ... -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 21:28:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Okay, Mike, I was going to reply tonight, but ... -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 02:52:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- going to reply tonight, ... -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 19:40:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- And they call it ... pragmatic histiography ...? -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 21:21:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Oh yeah, I forgot... -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 03:48:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- And they call it ... pragmatic histiography ...? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 03:34:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- Wilco, Michael -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 16:40:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Hey Fr. Mickey -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 14:42:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- Your comments -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:49:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Fr. Mickey -:- Hey Fr. Mickey -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 00:16:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- my confession--life with chronic pain -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 00:42:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- my confession--life with chronic pain -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:04:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- my confession--life with chronic pain -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:21:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- my confession--life with chronic pain -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 15:10:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- This flesh body -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 15:38:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- So who's born from below then, Keith? (nt) -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:01:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- This flesh body is real -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 15:53:48 (GMT)
__ __ bb -:- When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error. -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:36:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ Keith -:- Is it Keith from last year? -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:51:19 (GMT)

G -:- M's website keywords -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:06:27 (GMT)
__ Mike -:- Why don't we complete his list... -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:53:57 (GMT)
__ G -:- M's elanvital website keywords -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 13:45:30 (GMT)
__ Runamok -:- M's embedded keywords -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:31:45 (GMT)

Jim -:- I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:04:12 (GMT)
__ Sean -:- I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 22:03:05 (GMT)
__ Eastern Spotted Quoll -:- Hate? It's your middle name! -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 21:11:29 (GMT)
__ __ Hal -:- Hate? It's your middle name! -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 21:59:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ The Masked Marsupial -:- Hate? It's your middle name! -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 01:12:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Hal -:- Hate? It's your middle name! -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 10:38:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Feral Feline -:- Hate? It's your middle name! -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:13:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- I've always posted as Hal -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 20:23:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Puss, Puss , Puss........ -:- I've always posted as Hal -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 02:46:26 (GMT)
__ Deputy Dog -:- I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:05:11 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 22:13:37 (GMT)
__ __ cqg -:- So there are no bad-guys then, Dep? -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:08:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- So there are no bad-guys then, Dep? -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:45:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ cqg -:- Say good-bye again Dep. -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:17:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Hal -:- that was wickedly clever cqg n.t. -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 22:19:20 (GMT)
__ Amari -:- Human Oil Slicks -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:31:37 (GMT)
__ __ x@#%! -:- you guys look a lot like sludge to me -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:45:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ AJW -:- you guys look a lot like sludge to me -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 17:42:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ Amari -:- you guys look a lot like sludge to me -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:50:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Mike -:- That's probably the very best question of all! -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 16:07:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ Hal -:- Oh dear Jim! -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 13:43:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Sludge -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:48:38 (GMT)

Nigel -:- Let's ask for refund -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 00:39:47 (GMT)
__ cqg -:- Refund? - Not such a crazy idea as I first thought -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 16:42:53 (GMT)
__ just another 'enemy' -:- Let's ask for refund -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:42:18 (GMT)

cqg -:- Whatever happened to that LOTU video, John? -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 21:04:31 (GMT)
__ JHB -:- Whatever happened to that LOTU video, John? -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 21:55:50 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Oops! mea culpa... -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 22:29:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Oops! mea culpa... -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 22:57:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- Oops! mea culpa... -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 22:59:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Oops! mea culpa... -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 23:08:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- Oops! mea culpa... -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 23:20:51 (GMT)

Jim -:- Oh Janet, you're so right! -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 17:47:03 (GMT)
__ cqg -:- The fun has just begun? Remember when he said: -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 21:14:57 (GMT)

Angry -:- Cult Recruiting at its Finest -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:21:51 (GMT)
__ Angry -:- Cult Recruiting at its Finest/interpretation -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:44:55 (GMT)
__ __ enemy -:- Cult Recruiting at its Finest/interpretation -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:45:47 (GMT)

Mu -:- HAHAHAHAH and HOHOHOHO -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:20:21 (GMT)
__ mantis -:- HAHAHAHAH and HOHOHOHO - the REAL laugh! -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:34:32 (GMT)

Runamok -:- 'The Rapture' -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:15:40 (GMT)
__ michael -:- 'The Rapture' -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:55:25 (GMT)
__ __ Runamok -:- Is 'The Rapture' for sensitive types? -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:13:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ selene -:- Is 'The Rapture' for sensitive types? -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 20:31:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ Michael -:- Is 'The Rapture' for sensitive types? -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 16:18:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Christianity and Cultism -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 17:20:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Christianity and Cultism -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:13:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down -:- Duchovny and Porn -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 23:23:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ selene -:- Duchovny and Porn -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 23:27:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tie Me Up -:- Duchovny and Porn -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 00:16:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- ps the plot in Rapture was relevant to.. -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 23:37:02 (GMT)


Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 08:18:22 (GMT)
From: kc
Email: kc@vip.net
To: Everyone
Subject: When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error.
Message:
Around '79-80, a year or two after falling out of the DLM community, I was still devoted in my heart to GM. Personally, I prayed with a group that I liked, Christians, but I prayed to GM. Now for me, at that time I looked at Christ, the history, the record, the story and I believed it and ever more so today with understanding. But when I broke the emotional tie to GM I cried for days because I did commit myself totally with child-like innocence to understand and receive the truth of life and my purpose, and I realized I was deceived. One of the people I used to pray with was an elderly man who once asked me for the name of this Guru - Prem Pal Singh Rawat. And I believe he prayed for him if you can believe that. If you read scripture you'll get the idea that our Creator holds serious judgement for those who (unrepentfully) deceive his children. Dangerous territory! I, of course, believe that His (our Creator's)judgement will be perfect. And this thought and heart-filled hope I have for all those who sincerely looked for truth and were deceived by the DLM inticing lie, is that if you really want to become a disciple of your Creator, to be loved and to love, along with millions of others who share the same desire and experience, please let me affirm your hope. There is a God, there is a purpose, and there is an identity that you have in His plan. Not to merge without form with the omnipresent force. No, our God had a plan of relationship, not the loss of individual identity through thoughtless meditation, but through instruction, intercession, and the real Word of God, the Bible. If you want an explanation of the creation story, your purpose, your life before your birth and conception, and the battle with deception, like with Prem Pal Rawat, a type of the Lucifer you've all heard about, that one who is a liar by choice, a proudful self indulgent unbeliever in God the Father, the Creator of all our mortal souls, then drop me a line - I have something to share as a fellow seeker of truth. It is joyous as you have experienced through your faith, though misguided. It is clear about the big picture, worldly prophecy and your life after the death of this flesh body. We need more courageous believers, just like those fearless premies used to demonstrate in the early 70's. Hope to hear from you. Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 03:52:15 (GMT)
From: Anarchist
Email: None
To: kc
Subject: When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error.
Message:
Er, shouldn't that be 'immortal souls'. If you're a Christian then that's what is believed.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:59:36 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: all
Subject: Oh no it really IS keith, he's a jesus freak nowNT
Message:
sorry i couldn't resist, back to work...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 16:03:05 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Oh no it really IS keith, he's a jesus freak nowNT
Message:
hi gerry, good to hear from you, esp. your creative humour :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 17:03:51 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Keith
Subject: Tell the Elkies
Message:
Hi Keith,

Just wondered: have you changed your 'lives' entry at enjoylife org? I seem to recall you expressing gratitude for Maharaji's Knowledge, even though you no longer practiced. I am sure the Elk editors would be very pleased to know you are now praying for your former Master's misguided soul, and will be SO happy to publish the amendment.

(Assuming you ARE the same Keith, of course.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 20:42:58 (GMT)
From: Keith C
Email: kc@vip.net
To: Nigel
Subject: Tell the Elkies
Message:
Hi Nigel. I'm Keith Cameron from British Columbia, different from your other contact.

Take care..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 03:34:42 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Keith C
Subject: Let me tell you about Keith Cameron
Message:
Keith Cameron, when I knew him, was this really funny (good way) guy who got 'initiated' some time around Millenium, if I remember, completely took the whole thing to heart (unlike guys like Dog, by contrast) and threw himself into premieship with faith, humility and a sweet disposition. He was a little younger than me both chronologically and cult-wise and I remember feeling like a bit of an older brother to him. Not much, just a little.

Keith, do you remember going upstairs to the attic where I think you, Martineau, me and maybe a few other guys all slept at 21 West 13th, going up there after arti, before meditation, and being so completely blissed out that the Lord was here, talking about how cool it would be to someday stopa bullet for him or something?

Were you there when Dave hung himself?

So now you're a Christian, huh? We've got to talk.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 15:58:58 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: recollections
Message:
Yes Jim, I was there in that time of devotion and inspiration and contradiction and confusion. Some of my greatest joys where really the communing with you and fellow 'devotees'. I had to respect your dedications, your humour, your persistence. Obviously, something was wrong with at least three suicides: Dave, Nigel, and can't remember her name off hand, mom with young daughter living in community somewhere. Found her body in Stanley Park. Maybe we attracted desperate people who needed more love than instruction to dissolve into oneness with formlessness. Look, our seeking was sincerely, as was our devotion and faith. Most of us experienced grace in one form or another, obviously not through Prem. I also want to make the point that looking into 'Christianity' was plain to me that I was jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. From one cult and into another cult. Christianity is frought with cultish 'leaders': what do you expect? I just saying that with clarity of mind, teaching and as complete an explanation as can reasonably for you and me, be satisfied, this can make sense. The traditional explanation of creation and purpose is totally, and may I use your words - f*(&@# up! (I knew you'd like that).
Say Jim, thanks for bring some names and memories back to this mind, appreciate it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 17:23:21 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, Nigel needs a talking to...and fun facts
Message:
(Assuming you ARE the same Keith, of course.)

Isn't this what we call 'jumping the gun?' At least we do in the good ole (well-armed) US of A. Jim are you going to let him get away with it? Nigel, how could you? Cyber Tsk, tsk, tsk and triple sheesh to you.

This isn't the same Keith unless OUR Keith Guru Keith Ji has moved from Oz to the land of the endless (hydroponic indoor) bud, also known as British Columbia.

And did you know that Victoric BC is one of two centers in the world for Satanism ??? And guess which certain vociferous and ascerbic opponent of the Lord Balyogeswar lives there ? This is all starting to make sense to me...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:17:07 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Big difference, Ger -- BIG difference
Message:
Gerry,

Nigel made the assumption (a reasonable one, I might add, given that we've only seen one 'Keith' here before and this guy [who I now realize happens to be an old ashram mate of mine and who was really such a neat guy and what a fucking shame to see he's turned into a Jesus freak]) but realized that he might be wrong, given the lapse of time since the first Keith's posts. So he gave this Keith a chance to clarify who's who which he did. End of story. Simple, rational, no one gets hurt.

You, on the other hand, convince yourself (and no one else, apparently) that SB was 'fake' somehow. You then ridicule her story which, if true, was far from a laughing matter. Then you post her real name which you picked up from a post over on RE where she's explaining just how concernced she was about her own personal security. And why did you do this? Because you had a hunch that she might be fake.

Well, fact is, she isn't fake, wasn't fake and you look like a reckless ....... I'll let you finish the sentence. But let me add 'irrational' to reckless. So that'll be 'irrational, reckless ......'

But you're right about me and Satan. That hunch was right on the money.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 19:08:57 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: gerry
Subject: Well it's all your fault..!
Message:
One thing I know from college: if one student is confused on a single point, a whole lot others will be similarly confused on the same point but are unwilling to say so.. So after your post, Ger, and K's reply I guess others must have also thought this was the same Keith. (An anyway, he always did have an eclectic taste in matters of the spirit and I reckon I disagree with both K's equally strongly.)

So apologies Keith, and - I guess - to you Keith, too. That's YOU, Keith, not the other one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 00:32:40 (GMT)
From: Keith C
Email: kc@vip.net
To: Nigel
Subject: Well it's all your fault..!
Message:
It's so good to see you guys have so much fun. Hope you don't get hurt while playing. But that's the fun of play anyway, isn't? A little reckless, very spontaneous, and full of (harmless) insults. :-) No prob! Have fun and, prosper. This is about my experience anyway. I'm accountable only for my behaviour, my believe, my reponse to the (wordly) environment, and utimately to my Father. Any you my friend are in your own (but similar) boat. How's your ride? Please keep in touch.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:12:49 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: kc
Subject: the real Word of God?
Message:
I am disillusioned with Prem Rawat, however:

Where in the Bible does it quote Jesus as saying that the Bible was the real Word of God? How does this sound: In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God.

I'm not into worshiping books. I like some passages from the Bible, but it is inconsistent and contains statements that are not true.

Whatever caused Creation is beyond any concept that I can have. I do not want to be closed off by worshiping a conception. I would rather feel reverence. People think too highly of themselves when they ascribe human traits to the Creator.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 00:21:28 (GMT)
From: Keith C
Email: kc@vip.net
To: G
Subject: the real Word of God?
Message:
Hi G: Thanks for your comments - good points. Where in the Bible does Jesus say.... you know, Christ time and time referred to 'It is written...' quoting himself from numerous book of the Bible. And of course, the word 'bible' is used to simply describe the book(s) contained that tell the story of our relationship with our Creator, the fall and deception, the conditional instruction, the redemption through the 'real' Messiah versus the deceiver (and all of his followers) and judgement which means reward to those with the clarity of message in the minds of his own, or termination of those who could care less. I like the story of Creation, I think is terrific and it makes perfect sense to me. And as for our Creator, think of this way, we are human, with human feelings, our Creator made us in His (gender not an issue) image so He must super human so to speak. Let's not make our Father out to be unapproachable, unthinkable, beyond relationship.

Thanks for your thoughts G.

Take care...

Keith

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:25:06 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Hey, G
Message:
I'd like your take on something. This morning, while coming to work, I was musing on the correlation between God and consciousness. The way I figure it, no consciousness, no God. This is probably why the mystics of antiquity stressed the importance of consciouness so much. They were clever enough to recognize that human experience was completely dependent upon the existence of consciousness. Now, the question which I think becomes most important is, where does consciousness come from? What do you think about neuroscience's efforts to locate it's source in the brain? Do you think they'll ever succeed or do you think they're on a wild goose chase?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 18:29:24 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: where does consciousness come from?
Message:
Another question: What is consciousness?

I think it is a worthwhile effort to understand the workings of the brain, so I wouldn't characterize it as a wild goose chase. As to finding its source in the brain, I don't think they will find it, at least not entirely.

The quality of human consciousness is very related to the brain. Waking consciousness is very different than sleeping consciousness. Now what happens to our consciousness when we die? Who knows. I would think there is at least a radical change. I think it is doubtful that we will just go on to who knows what with our human consciousness intact as it is.

Here's is a link
CONSCIOUSNESS, INFORMATION AND PANPSYCHISM
which discusses the generation problem. I didn't read through it all, but it looks interesting.

I have wondered where the link between awareness and the brain is. One time when I was young, I was stoned and I thought that I had come up with the answer, so I wrote it down. I looked at my 'answer' when I was sober and it made no sense (big surprise, eh?). It is still a complete mystery to me.

Another big question is why there is anything at all.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 20:28:54 (GMT)
From: Sir David
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: G
Subject: Another big question answered
Message:
G wrote:

'Another big question is why there is anything at all.'

I've already answered that question to my own satisfaction, at least. I consider it impossible to have anything but something. Now what that something is and what form it may take, may be changable but I think there is no opposite to 'something'. In other words, there has never been 'nothing' and there never can or will be.

Meaning that there is eternally something. Always was there and always will be. It is a situation which dictates that there can only be a positive. A negative in this instance is quite impossible. i.e. there can only be existence and by its very nature, a hypothetical 'non existence' never has been or ever will be.

If (as I have done) you really see the implications and the reason for all of the above, then it's easy to see why there is life and conscousness. Only positives exist, only existence exists, only life exists, whether it be inanimate or actually organically living.

If the material universe does not exist then that does not mean that existence doesn't exist. Because existence can only exist and it can never non-exist. To put it another way; if there is something that exists and then suddenly absolutely NOTHING existed and then the existence came back into being again; the reality of what had happened was that the state of existence never left and there really was no gap in existence.

Hey G, aren't you sorry you asked that question and got me going on this one again!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 23:08:45 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: Like, far out man like you should be called ...
Message:
Guru David or something. Wow man, like, I can see clearly now %). Yea, like I can really see it, like, what the fuck is this non-existence shit anyway, it's just some weird concept in my head. Hey man, like where or how did you guroooove on that? do you got some good ass weed or something, or did you just like you know, get it out of the air? You know, man, they say the answer's blowin' in the wind. WOW! far out. Cool, now I can stop thinking about all this shit.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:23:00 (GMT)
From: Sir David
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Don't read this on acid
Message:
Congratulations on being the first person who had any idea what I am going on about! Well it does sound like some sort of acid revelation but I've not indulged in that since 1972. No, all of my 'existence theory' came to me by simple reasoning and logic.

I think there is a problem that often we are blinded by old and worn out word associations which are wrong. After some thought, I finally understood the real meaning of the words 'existence' and 'nothing'. It kind of blew my mind. Something I'd not seen before.

Of course there can only be existence. Of course, there has never been a 'nothing' and never will be. Of course, you can only ever have 'something'. Then I followed on the train of thought from there and realised that there was never any choice in this matter. There was always something and there was always existence. It couldn't be any other way.

Kind of freaked me out a bit, how it could never be anything else but what it is. Like the whole universes, all existence, dimensions, God, consciousness, you, me, us, the whole kaboodle - all of it had to be and can only be. It simply has to exist because there is no alternative.

Huh, some people might say - 'Well what if consciousess or energy or existence, the whole shabang never existed (hypothetically)?' 'Surely' people say, 'that would be hypothetically possible?'

To which I would say - no way Jose. For it to hypothetically not exist, it must be a something, a whole shebang something, to actually (apparently) disappear or never appear. Sorry mate, you've already contradicted yourself because you've already admitted that there's a positive, an existence, to hypothetically disappear.

The universe teems with existence because it's the only thing which is. There has only ever been existence. You can never have a 'nothing' because a nothing ain't there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 17:29:49 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: I'm offended
Message:
Congratulations on being the first person who had any idea what I am going on about!

David, I've known for some time now what you're talking about. And I don't think I'm the only one. Sorry. What you don't seem to grasp is that this existence that must 'be' is completely dependent upon the fact that you are a sentient being. Capiche? So the question remains; Where did consciousness come from? Why do sentient beings exist? How did that happen?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 19:21:53 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: As Mel Brooks once said ...
Message:
As Mel Brooks once said ...

'this is a question that can only be answered by George Raft tossing a coin.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:32:05 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I'm offended
Message:
Sorry to offend you Jerry but you didn't give me the status of guru when you last spoke about this with me.

I'm afraid I don't understand your statement about this existence being dependent upon me being a sentient being. Surely, all existence includes me, you and all of us, and is not there because of me and you etc.

Perhaps my understanding of what existence is, is different to how you understand the word. Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes.

Regarding how or why consciousness exists; I think that's a different question to the one I was trying to answer. My question and answer was based upon the logic that there could only ever be existence.

There are a few things to seriously consider with regards to consciousness.

a) Is it dependent upon organic life such as Jim believes?

b) Is the opposite true and is consciousness independent of organic life forms and can it exist without physical forms?

Neither premise has been proven beyond all doubt. The jury's still out, as we know. Most people subscribe to either a or b. I think people have their own strongly held ideas about this but since it cannot at present be proven either way, the debate never reaches a conclusion.

But I do think it's important to look carefully at all the facts with an open mind.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 21:42:02 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: To Master D.
Message:
I'm afraid I don't understand your statement about this existence being dependent upon me being a sentient being.

The way you look at things, Oh Great Guru, is restricted by the limitations of consciousness. In the realm of consciousness, where we sentient beings 'exist', there can be no 'nothing'. There can only be 'something'. That's what I mean. To try to comprehend 'nothing' while locked in the boundaries of consciousness is impossible. In fact, I would venture to say that 'nothing' is what occurs during non-rem sleep, when it's believed that those parts of the brain that give rise to consciousness have been effectively shut down. That's where 'nothing' is.

I agree with Jim. I think, if not for wishful thinking that life continues beyond death, it's pretty obvious when you take all that science has learned about the brain, through modern imaging techniques, as well as what's been learned from damage to various parts of the brain and the effect that has on consciousness, that consciousness is no more when those parts of the brain necessary for it are no more as well. I mean, just be friggin' reasonable about it. What other conclusion can you come to? You're just playing see no evil, hear no evil, etc. etc. if you look at it any other way. IMHO, of course.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:05:37 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: To Genius Jerry
Message:
The way you look at think, Oh Genius Jerry, is also restricted by the limitations of consciousness (which includes conceptual thinking). Care to disagree with that? You have a conception of 'nothing', that's all it is, a concept. Regarding the statement about non-rem sleep, the key word is 'believed', just more concepts.

What happens during non-rem sleep, do they really know?

Your statements about the brain are pretty vague, and no, it is not obvious. Here, you are saying that if someone doesn't agree with your reasoning, they are unreasonable. That is presumptuous. And that your conclusion is the only valid conclusion. Really. Once again, here is an attack on the motives of those that disagree, here in the form of 'wishful thinking'. More baloney. Let's see, before someone used 'believing in Santa Claus', etc. etc. blah blah blah. It's so old.

As to biological life continuing after death, I agree, it doesn't.

Also, how are you defining consciousness, the ability to respond to the outside world? the quality of what we are aware of? Sure, the brain has a great deal of an effect on that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:15:16 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: Remembering being on drugs
Message:
The logic...God has always existed, because He never was not..He never was'nt here. God could have existed before creation. Creation, and souls were apparently created for His pleasure. Have had the experience on drugs, like looking behind a sacred spiritual curtain, that the reality within was one with the reality outside of me. Remember saying to self, 'keep this one realization in mind - don't do this again'. Coming down off drug, wondered, why did I say that anyway. Don't have to be so ignorant now, because my consciousness of this union is closer to mind and heart. I love the idea of their being a Creator, who loves, provides and though we can not separate ourselves totally from whence we are (came) the separation necessary in creation (time and space) can be through this duality: conflictual and disagreement, or union and harmony while maintaining the creation. My creator, (and I concur) that creation is good, especially because of the effect of the preception of duality in harmony, in love, and gratitude. Can't exactly experience this peace believing however, that its all about me, as the creator and created. In my mind, I accept, and want to, the idea of Creator provider, and my separate observance of His glory. It's sweet.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 16:43:05 (GMT)
From: Sir David
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: Keith
Subject: Remembering being on drugs - expelling a falsehood
Message:
Sounds to me like you've still got some stuff left over from the Hindu/Buddist philosophy, which I now understand to be completely way off the mark. As premies we were force fed this stuff and it takes a long time to throw it all out and get rid of it. Bill Burke will vouch for this.

I'm not a Christian but I think the Christian way of seeing things is better because they base their beliefs upon love, which is the reason for everything. Love between people and love between a God and His people. OK, the God bit's hard to see but the love between people is apparent.

To see this in a different perspective, imagine God adoring you and looking at you with total love and adoration, regardless of how high or low, good or bad you think you might be. He worships the very ground you walk on and overlooks your faults and obvious imperfections and sees them as irrelevant.

He is glad he's got you and will always appreciate your existance. You mean the world to Him and always will do. There will never be a time when He does not adore you with every fibre of His being and His love for you will last forever.

It's about a relationship of love and that will never end. Love never ends and love between you and Him will go on for all time because that is the way it's supposed to be and always will be. There will never be a conclusion because the story goes on forever. That God fella is a romantic at heart. He's a lovin' kind of guy.

Too good to be true? No it's not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 19:37:15 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: - expelling a falsehood
Message:
Dave, you say:

'I think the Christian way of seeing things is better because they base their beliefs upon love'

Bit of sweeping generalisation there, Dave. They've a way of getting good press with this idea, but then so did the Maha.

And the god of the old testament actually condoned the likes of this:

Psalms, Chapter 137

137:1
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
137:2
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
137:3
For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us
one of the songs of Zion.
137:4
How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land?
137:5
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
137:6
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
137:7
Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
137:8
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
137:9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.




Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:10:28 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: - expelling a falsehood - you're right of course
Message:
Well you're right, of course, cqg. And after reading Keith's diatribe about the lake of fire, I am reminded of how 'unloving' is fundamental Christianity. Anyone who believes that there is a God who is as cruel as this, has definitely had no experience of Him.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:09:10 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Like, far out man like you should be called ...
Message:
G ,
Maybe this is the famous Sad Guru Dave .
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:29:31 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: And what do you base this belief upon?
Message:
As to finding its source in the brain, I don't think they will find it, at least not entirely.

Why do you say that, G? Surely it can't be because brain science has slowed to a standstill in recent years. In fact, the opposite is true. So why do you think this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 23:20:13 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And what do you base this belief upon?
Message:
Because I don't believe that consciousness is simply a property of the brain. One reason is because of intuition. Another reason is the quantum observership problem and other related issues in physics. I believe that consciousness is a quality in and of itself and that the brain is more of a doorway from consciousness to the physical world, rather than the creator of consciousness.

Also, I believe that this is an area where the ability to measure is limited. How do you measure consciousness? What is it? What in the brain is conscious? atoms, molecules, groups of molecules, electrical currents? How are they going to know that they found the source?

What do you think consciousness is?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 03:19:08 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: And what do you base this belief upon?
Message:
Because I don't believe that consciousness is simply a property of the brain.

With all due respect, G, that's no 'because'. That's just a restatement of your belief.

One reason is because of intuition.

What about intuition? What do you think it is? There's a lot been said about intuition? Do you believe all of it? If not, how do you distinguish what's credible from what's not? By intuition? :)

Another reason is the quantum observership problem and other related issues in physics.

Could you please explain yourself here? Are we talking Penrose? Capra? What? My understanding is that this so-called 'problem' has been unjustifiably bandied about as support for metaphysics and good old 'magical thinking'. But what are you saying?

I believe that consciousness is a quality in and of itself

you mean beyond definition, analysis or understanding? Ineffable and indivisible? Eternal and self-effulgent? Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? Why do you believe this? And, more importantly to me, do you think scientists share your view? If not, why not?

... and that the brain is more of a doorway from consciousness to the physical world, rather than the creator of consciousness.

Again, why? Why do you think this? And -- again -- do you think scientists agree? If so, great but if not, why not? Are they missing something that you understand?

Also, I believe that this is an area where the ability to measure is limited. How do you measure consciousness? What is it? What in the brain is conscious? atoms, molecules, groups of molecules, electrical currents? How are they going to know that they found the source?

Who knows? We sure can't isolate consciousness so exactly at present. But I think science's amazing progress, in this field as in so many others, suggests one thing for sure: it's wrong
to put any sort of ceiling on our possible knowledge even years from now. To do so on an even greater time frame -- decades, centuries, how about millenia? -- is sheer folly. The truth is, we hve no idea what locks we'll pick, what codes we'll break in the long run. We can't even think of the right questions we'll be wrestling with a hundred years from now. How can we say which ones will be answerable and which ones won't? Truth is, we can't.

What do you think consciousness is?

Oh that's easy. If truth is the consciousness of bliss, then consciousness must be the bliss of truth (or something like that). I personally think consciousness is some sort of combination of synaptic/sensory interplay with the world and our brains. But, really, I don't know shit about this. Just that they're working like crazy and are far from abandoning the work site yet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 04:25:30 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And what do you base this belief upon?
Message:
It is my intuition that consciousness is a quality in and of itself. I do not have to justify this to you, considering that you do not know what consciousness is.

'...this so-called 'problem' has been unjustifiably bandied about as support for metaphysics...' (regarding the quantuum observership problem)

Says who? Do you have an answer to this 'so-called' problem? You are being flippant about one of the most significant problems in physics.

'do you think scientists agree?'

Remember Sagan's baloney detector? appealing to authority? There are no scientific authorities on consciousness. Besides, there is no scientific consensus on this subject.

'...consciousness is some sort of combination of synaptic/sensory interplay with the world and our brains.'

Why do you believe this vague statement, because you read it somewhere? or is it your intuition?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 15:57:17 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Sure, G, anything you say
Message:
There are no scientific authorities on consciousness.

What, then, would you call neuroscientists? 'Intuitionists'? Sorry, what you've just said is ridiculous. Oh by the way, don't forget Sagan's Baloney Detector!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 16:32:04 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: p.s. -- to be clear
Message:
'authorities' don't have to have definitive answers. They just have to have some specialized knowledge of a matter that makes their opinions about it more worthwhile than the layperson's.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 17:34:41 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Jim and G
Subject: p.s. -- to be clear
Message:


I've not read his work, but J Jaynes, in 'The Origin of
Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral
Mind', posits that consciousness is a fairly recent
phenomenon - recently like 3000 years ago.

Just thought I'd throw that one into the melting pot.


& while I'm here, have a quirky quote:

'Like all religions, the Holy Religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both Logic and Faith. We have Faith that She is Pink; and we Logically know that She is Invisible, because we can't see Her. '

oh alright, one more:

'We must accept the other fellows religion . . . to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful. '

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 17:26:34 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: neuroscientist - an authority on consciousness???
Message:
A neuroscientist is a scientist who studies the nervous system. The word consciousness is not defined as 'the nervous system'. Try looking it up in a dictionary.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:28:15 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Nice try, G -- but no cigar
Message:
A neuroscientist is a scientist who studies the nervous system. The word consciousness is not defined as 'the nervous system'. Try looking it up in a dictionary.

Are you serious? Your 'argument' here suggests otherwise. My understanding is that neuroscientists study the brain (which is part of the nervous system) and not all things, but many related including the juicy, still-somewhat-ephemeral-but-hopefully-not-for-long subject of consciousness.

Here's a link you might find interesting:

The Brain Project

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 17:48:20 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Consciousness - what is it?
Message:
One problem is that the word consciousness has more than one meaning. I am distinguishing between awareness, what we are aware of, and the mechanics involved. Certainly the nervous system is a part of our being conscious, but to say that it alone is solely responsible for all aspects of consciousness is a huge assumption. Until proven, you cannot equate the two. So no, just because neuroscientists study the nervous system does not make them the authorities on consciousness. There is still too much that is not understood for anyone to be called an authority.

A conceptual model of consciousness is just that, a model, and what they are researching is mechanics involved with consciousness. What is harder to understand is the quality of our awareness and what we are aware of. For example, why does red look red? They can partially describe the mechanics involved in triggering the experience, but then what? What is the experience of red and what is aware of it?

Thanks for the link. The stuff on the quantum physics involved looks interesting.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 00:48:54 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Semantics?
Message:
G,

Is it really necessary to distinguish consciousness from awareness? I mean, we know what's being spoken about here. Obviously when we talk about consciousness, we're talking about our ability to be aware. I don't know why you find it necessary to distinguish the two. It just confuses the issue. You're the first person I've heard try to define the word consciousness in terms of mechanics and awareness in terms of experience. I think that distinction only detracts from an understanding of the issue. Maybe not for you, but for me.

They can partially describe the mechanics involved in triggering the experience, but then what? What is the experience of red and what is aware of it?

It doesn't matter. What matters is that the mechanics have to be there in order for the experience to exist.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 03:25:36 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Semantics?
Message:
'Is it really necessary...'

I think it is necessary. There is a difference between the 'I' who observes the experience, the experience, and the triggering of the experience. Artificially ignoring all but the physical mechanisms is evading the more difficult questions. It may be good for neuroscientists, but that is part of their job. I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to live my whole life like it is a science experiment, it's an absurd attitude.

'...consciousness, we're talking about our ability to be aware'

Say that x is some quality, now consider the statement 'the state of being x is the ability to be x'. That doesn't sound quite right and it doesn't say anything about what x is.

By the 'ability to be aware', I suppose you mean the physical mechanisms and that these physical mechanisms are required for consciousness. Are you implying that the mechanisms = consciousness? You don't know this. I think you're falling into circular reasoning.

'It doesn't matter. What matters is that the mechanics have to be there in order for the experience to exist.'

You didn't answer the question and it does matter. You didn't answer the question because you don't know the answer, no one does (that I'm aware of).

Secondly, how do you know that? If you don't know what 'red' is (or the 'I' is), then how do you know it can't be experienced without the mechanics? How do you account for near death experiences where there was no measurable brain activity? or other experiences not induced by physical stimulii?

Also, how do you know there is not awareness outside of brains? Oh, I know, 'There is no scientific evidence for awareness outside of brains, therefore it does not exist', a statement with no logical basis. Frankly, I think there is awareness outside of brains and I think there is evidence.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 03:50:11 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Sure, G, anything you say (part 2)
Message:
Also, how do you know there is not awareness outside of brains? Oh, I know, 'There is no scientific evidence for awareness outside of brains, therefore it does not exist', a statement with no logical basis. Frankly, I think there is awareness outside of brains and I think there is evidence.

G,

You're beginning to sound funny with your constant apeals to the logic umpire. No, not funny so much as arrogant. Why do I say that? Because you really sound like you think scientists are stupid or something. So stupid that they're committing one logical fallacy after another and, poor guys, they don't have you to wake them up. Tell me straight, do you think that or not?

Anyway, no one here has argued that'there is no scientific evidence for awareness outside of brains, therefore it does not exist'. What
I've said anyway is more akin to 'there is no scientific evidence for awareness outside of brains, therefore there is no reason for believing that it [extra-brain consciousness] exists'. Big difference.

Anyway, you say you think there is evidence of extra-brain consciousness. What?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 18:07:38 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'extra-brain' consciousness
Message:
I'll tell you straight, scientists are smart people, many are geniuses. I don't think they are stupid and I don't think you are stupid. But I don't think that those scientists that share your philosophical beliefs are infallible, nor are the others. Scientists need to have a physical definition of consciousness that they can work with. What I have doubts about are philosophical interpretations of data based on this definition (or definitions).

'no reason for believing' sounds like a value judgement. Just because there might not be scientific evidence for something doesn't mean people should discard their beliefs about it. Life in general is not a scientific experiment. Should people wait for science to figure out everything before they believe? Some beliefs contradict scientific fact, other are simply not scientifically proven. There is quite a difference.

Evidence for 'extra-brain' consciousness:

1. My lamp talks to me (just kidding).
2. There are energy beings, I saw them on Star Trek, and Star Trek is the Word of God, so it must be true (just kidding).
3. I went to a psychic and the crystal ball told her things about me (just kidding).
4. Evidence for a universal consciousness, this has already been discussed, so I won't repeat it.
5. Reports of 'esp', near-death experiences, other 'paranormal' experiences. Also, experiences I have had myself and have heard first hand. I haven't reached any conclusions, but I don't think all this should be ignored. As to relating my personal experiences, I would rather not do so on a public forum, but I can say that people are not just making things up.
6. As to whether organisms without brains have 'consciousness', I don't know. What is the scientific definition of consciousness, reponding to the environment, other criteria? I haven't read much about this.
7. There are colonies of organisms (both single-celled and multi-celled) that seem to cooperate as if they are of 'one mind' but having no central brain or no brains at all.

A question: do you think it is possible for a robot/computer to have consciousness?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 00:51:14 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: 'extra-brain' consciousness
Message:
5. Reports of 'esp', near-death experiences, other 'paranormal' experiences. Also, experiences I have had myself and have heard first hand. I haven't reached any conclusions, but I don't think all this should be ignored. As to relating my personal experiences, I would rather not do so on a public forum, but I can say that people are not just making things up.

Why don't any of these ever withstand the rigour of double-blind scrutiny? At the very least, you have to admit that there are boudn to be all sorts of cases of people imagining esp or paranormal experiences. That's a given. So where are you going to draw the line between what's true and what's imagined? And how?

The fact is, some of the biggest proponents of esp have been routed and soundly discredited. Uri Geller? Sai Baba? These guys are the supposed champions but really they're just fakes. So who else is there? Who's able to step up to the plate and prove their power such as to claim Randi's $1,000,000 reward? No one so far. Why?

6. As to whether organisms without brains have 'consciousness', I don't know. What is the scientific definition of consciousness, reponding to the environment, other criteria? I haven't read much about this.

I agree with Jerry that you seem unduly preoccupied with semantics here. What's your point? I'm sure there are several 'scientific definitions' of consciousness but so what?

7. There are colonies of organisms (both single-celled and multi-celled) that seem to cooperate as if they are of 'one mind' but having no central brain or no brains at all.

Yes, well that's interesting for sure. I guess that explains how intelligent, otherwise normal people can spend their whoel life investigating things like ants or bees. But they do study these things and they're not left with the impression that there's some sort of extra-ant-brain or extra-bee-brain consciousness. Instead, they find some fascinating examples of evolved, complex communication and specialization. Point is, the experts aren't left with your impression. If you don't think they're stupid, and you realize they've been studying these organisms so deeply, why not read what they have to say instead of shooting from the hip? You seem almost skittish about this.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 20:47:27 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: G
Subject: 'extra-brain' consciousness
Message:
'Scientists need to have a physical definition of consciousness that they can work with. What I have doubts about are philosophical interpretations of data based on this definition (or definitions).'

Couldn't agree more about the need for having a meta-level and it's nature. The problem with the standard model is the old humunculus one. If awareness is explainable by the usual linear theories then so is my awareness that I'm aware. And so is my awareness of my awareness that I'm aware. This is one of those infinite regression problems that the additive problem doesn't address. You cannot go down this route without dealing with the nature of self-refencing systems, the additive/linear route can never solve this, it's a logical inconsistency. The problem here is that the new age route, as the other option most people then go toward is seriously un-productive. But these are not the only options.

''no reason for believing' sounds like a value judgement. Just because there might not be scientific evidence for something doesn't mean people should discard their beliefs about it.'

Belief without challengeable and verifiable theories is just dummy sucking, fine over a pint & a laugh, or emotional neediness but hardly worth arguing over.

I too have had extra-ordinary experiences on a daily basis for nigh on 20 years, it's not the experiences that are the problem, but explanations from brains that are ingrained with linear thinking.

'6. As to whether organisms without brains have 'consciousness', I don't know. What is the scientific definition of consciousness, reponding to the environment, other criteria? I haven't read much about this.'

You ought to, it's fascinating stuff. Best place to start would be AI, where the main argument for three decades has been between the additive/linear model & the synthesis/network/self-refencing model.

A question: do you think it is possible for a robot/computer to have consciousness?

The constructivist model would say it is inevitable over time IF the robot/computer was able to generate it's own component parts that keep it alive, ie it was a self-referencing system otherwise no chance.

Last but definitely not least G you missed the two best arguments for question marks over the standard model of matter:

(1) what the fuck is happening in experiments on light where depending on whether the experimenter is looking for particle light or wave light determines whether the light behaves in either particle or wave fgashion. Bear in mind that a particle can't be a wave & vice versa. Light responds in the way the experimenter wants. On whatever level you take it the light is 'conscious'.

(2) There are also two sub-atomic particles very tightly bound and in opposite rotations. When separated, however great the distance, when one of them has it's rotation reversed, the other reverses its spin with absolutely NO time delay. This is a standard and well known, but un-explainable problem in 20th century physics. It breaks all known physical laws of the universe.

You should do some reading (if that isn't too patronising), on the quantum level, but to balance also some reading on the HUGE number of drugs in our body and how crucial they are as neuro-transmitters among other things. They are involved with both information processing & increasingly looking likely, awareness & mood alteration, and we're talking serious drugs here, such as opiates, psychedelics such as DMT/psycho-actives, down to cannabinoids. As anyone who has experimented with these drugs will know, their effects on reality models can be a little dis-orientating to put it mildly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 03:25:24 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Quantum teleportation, mind-matter interaction
Message:
'There are also two sub-atomic particles...'

Thanks for bringing up nonlocality.

Below is a link to a page at Scientific American's web site. It discusses experiments that have been done dealing with 'teleportation' using entangled particles.

Beam Me Up

Another page from Scientific American regarding an experiment:

Schroedinger's Cation - Physicists prove that an atom can be in two different places at once

A quote from that page:
As Niels Bohr was fond of saying of quantum mechanics, 'If you think you understand it, that only shows you don't know the first thing about it.'

Here's another web page that looks interesting:

Getting to the heart of mind-matter interaction

I have some more links, some regarding light experiments, but later.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 00:55:50 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: As much as anybody
Message:
G,

I'm sure that you're aware that, in this past decade, there has been a tremendous amount of research in the neuroscience community in the study of consciousness. Foremost among them is this guy: My man Antonio I haven't read this particular book, yet, but I did read most of his other one, 'Descartes Error', which was an excellent study of the dependencies that reason has on healthy emotions. Excellent book.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:01:31 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: kc
Subject: When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error.
Message:
We need more courageous believers, just like those fearless premies used to demonstrate in the early 70's.

Personally, I think it takes more courage to give up the faith. After all, faith is what we've clung on to all our lives as if it was our life's source and only hope. To jump into the abyss of faithlessness (with regard to God, at least) takes much more courage than to hold onto faith in him. It's the unknown. It's taboo. Forbidden. The penalty is death (supposedly) and damnation. To risk all that takes a leap of courage indeed. But oh, the feeling of liberation in doing so. Try it.

Chicken?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 00:47:39 (GMT)
From: Keith C
Email: kc@vip.net
To: Jerry
Subject: When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error.
Message:
You know Jerry, God looks after His own. And if the consciousness of and/or articulation of faith (inextricably bound to hope and love) has let you down, you'll be just fine, I'm sure. No one likes to feel screwed up with mumbo jumbo spiritual crap. Been enjoying the outdoors lately?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:59:04 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Keith C
Subject: When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error.
Message:
You know Jerry, God looks after His own.

Well, if there was a God, his own would be all of us, and I don't think he'd be too particular about who's a windbag on his behalf, who believes in him, and who doesn't. He'd probably just love us all irregardless. At least, this is the god I've created in MY heart and mind. I don't know what kind of god you've created, or what you mean by 'his own'.

And if the consciousness of and/or articulation of faith (inextricably bound to hope and love) has let you down, you'll be just fine, I'm sure.

It's not that I feel let down by faith in God (that is what we're talking about when mentioning faith, right?). It was rewarding to an extent, believe it or not, while it lasted. It's just that the truth about God's existence seems more likely that he is a creation of MINE, not visa versa. That being the case, what's a guy to do? Reason before faith, Keith. If my faith defies reason, it has to be ammended or let go of altogether. You just can't keep believing when reason tells you that there's pieces missing. That's Maharaji's philosophy. I tried to live by it, and only wound up an empty shell as a result.

Been enjoying the outdoors lately?

The weather's been getting a little better in my neck of the woods, thanks for asking. It was a cold, cold winter. I'm glad it's coming to an end.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 16:08:49 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Need for making sense
Message:
I've found (am finding) that an explanation for my mind is important. Logic isn't the enemy of faith. Jerry I'd like to share some pieces that make it seem more sensible to me. I am going to defer (caught in the time thing and events prison) but want to continue .....

Thanks.

kc

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 08:40:52 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: kc
Subject: When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error.
Message:
Oh no Keith,

The last thing I want is a fabricated belief system based on mythology. This is real delusion and ignorance. The Christian track record is appalling. The Christian history makes Mr Rawat and his organisation appear positively saintly by comparison.

Maybe if you Christans dropped the old testament stuff and focussed on what Jesus was recorded as saying it would be more palatable.

There is very little in the bible which Jesus( real name Yeshua )
actually said. But if you take just that and forget the rest it's reasonable stuff.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:39:13 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error.
Message:
Hal wrote:
'The Christian history makes Mr Rawat and his organisation appear positively saintly by comparison.'

Hal, that is quite a sweeping generalization. There are terrible points in Christian history and some great periods, but, as one who actually studies the history of Christianity, I strongly disagree that it makes 'Mr Rawat and his organisation appear positively saintly by comparison.'

I don't think that Keith should come here to convert, but the lack of knowledge many people have here about the history of Christianity and Christianity is sad; way too much of their information seems to have come from Rawatt and his minions or is coloured by traumatic Roman Catholic childhoods.

Hal also wrote: Maybe if you Christans dropped the old testament stuff and focussed on what Jesus was recorded as saying it would be more palatable.' This is called the Marcionite heresey, and is also part of the historical basis of Christian anti-semitism.

I don't want to get into a theological argument here, but I think that it is best to pay attention to the words we use. I am as guilty as others about using sweeping generalizations, but I am trying to avoid them.

Paz,
Padre Miguel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:02:10 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Sweeping generalisation
Message:
I apologise. I'm certainly not qualified as a Christian scholar. My response was a hasty reply made quickly on my way out of the door this morning. Hal
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 17:40:13 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Sweeping generalisation
Message:
Hal, I apologise for being so sensitive on the subject, but the years of Rawatt and crew claiming Jesus as Perfect Master and that he 'taught this Knowledge' makes me a bit defensive as there is so much to be corrected.

I agree, the history of Christianity is certainly not one of constant and ever ascending decency and goodness; the Crusades and the Inquisition alone provide enough fodder for criticism, and no one should defend those actions, but there are many Christians who are decent folk and not trying to convert you, take away your rights, or your money.

I hope things are going well with you as you explore your new-found freedom from the cult.

La Paz,
Padre

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:02:13 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Conversely, Michael ...
Message:
Conversely, Michael ...

there are many Christians who are trying to convert you, take away your rights, and your money.

Sorry, but you gotta be fair on this.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:30:26 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: Conversely, Michael ...
Message:
I think that I am fair on this and I have acknowledged such things on this site in the past. However, it is very trendy to bash all Christians and put them in the same basket. I think that Keith is trying to convert, and I think he has come to the wrong place. I will not stand around and let some folks make sweeping generalizations, and I won't ignore mistakes regarding history. Is that unfair? Do I have to preface everything by saying 'Inquisition, Bad. Crusades, bad. Christian Right, Bad. Culture destroying missionaries, Bad?' Hitler was a vegetarian, do all the vegetarians have to preface their discussions with 'Hitler, bad?' I think that it is accepted here that Christianity is not perfect, and I haven't claimed that it is perfect, but do you really expect a priest to ignore some of the statements made here?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 17:09:04 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Very fair, Michael ... 'though ...
Message:
Nicely put, Michael, - fairness certainly does seem to be one of your attributes.

My retort, on the other hand, might have seemed a little, shall we say ... 'nit-picky', - a bit of a side-swipe even, but I felt the other side of the coin needed some representation. ( I hope this doesn't make me another 'trendy Christian-basher').



You say that: ' the lack of knowledge many people have here about the history of Christianity and Christianity is sad'

Sad, perhaps, but then the Church itself has covered up (or at least tried to cover up) many of the more controversial aspects of its history. Many of the teachings at the root of the Christian religion in fact owe their origin - not to the Israelite culture of 2000 and more years ago, but to far more ancient mystery schools. I don't expect you to take this as fact simply because I'm saying so, but if you're interested in the Churches' true origins, I can recommend highly the works of the theologian/philosopher Alvin Boyd Kuhn. (link)

At present I'm reading his 'The Lost Light' (written in 1940), about which the President of the National Library Board said:

'This book will be to religion what Darwin's work has been to science'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 00:51:13 (GMT)
From: stonor
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: Thanks for the links cqg!
Message:
Fascinating!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 18:46:32 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: Very fair, Michael ... 'though ...
Message:
I'm willing to take a look at it. I am aware of the similarities between St. Paul's Christianity and the sect of Mithrais, but I am not always open about the claims of those who belong to so-called 'ancient mystery schools.' Any study of the Church in the first and second centuries will show you that there were many different 'schools' of Christianity until the arrival of Constantine and the Council of Chalcedon.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 19:36:04 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Thanks, Michael, -hope you gain as much insight fr
Message:
Thanks Michael, I hope you gain as much insight from him as ... well, as I did (now why do I think that sounds pompous? Kuhn's literary style rubbing off on me perchance?)

P.S. You with Constantine then?

Jings!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 00:05:18 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: You're welcome, but a question...
Message:
cqg, I went to the site and will read the book on the Third Century since that is my area of interest. I have one question though: doesn't it bother you that this guy is a Theosophist? I mean, to me that makes him a fringy kinda guy. Also, this was written a while ago; I tend to keep up with recent scholarship on the subject. I saw the names Origen, Augustine, and Clement while skimming the book; I have read a lot of their writings and am fairly conversant with their works, so it will be interesting to see what Kuhn does with them.

P.S. How come I have never heard of this guy and can't pull up any information on him on any search engines?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:29:22 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: Okay, cqg, I've read the first five chapters
Message:
cqg, I've read the first five chapters of 'The Shadow of the Third Century' and I have a few problems with his thesis. No one who has read 'The Gospel of Truth' is going to agree with his premis that it is the basis of gospel attributed to Matthew; there are no similarities at all! Plus, he takes a quote from Augustine and makes it sound as if he was in on some big conspiracy to hide the truth of Xian origins; for the Hellenists, ancient was good, and new was not so good. Augustine was claiming an ancient linage for Xianity in order to make it sound good; sometimes the simplist answer is the most accurate. His claim that the Essenes had been around for thousands of years is wrong; they came about in the 2nd century BCE as a reaction to what they considered the corruption of the Temple priesthood and they died out in the 2nd century CE. Reading the Nag Hammadi library and the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls will clear this stuff up. I'll keep reading, but it seems that he was more interested in pushing his theosphist agenda than in the actual historical origins of Xianity.

Perhaps you should read Peter Brown's 'Body and Society' and WHC. Frend's 'Rise of Christianity' to get another perspective of early Xian origins.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 21:28:23 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Okay, Mike, I was going to reply tonight, but ...
Message:
Okay, Mike, I was going to reply tonight, but ...

somehow other matters got in the way, but I WILL reply later, and ... give me time to check out your other authors (any links?)

BTW, you say you've read the first five chapters? Blimey, give me time to catch up.

P.S. I was in the middle of giving you my feedback on Theosophy, but that'll have to wait - got a bus to catch.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 02:52:41 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: mgdbach@hotmail.com
To: cqg
Subject: Okay, Mike, I was going to reply tonight, but ...
Message:
If you want we can do this via e-mail, that will give us more time to answer completely and we won't hi-jack the thread.
mgdbach@hotmail.com
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 19:40:47 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: going to reply tonight, ...
Message:
email? Could do. Or perhaps you know of another discussion forum that would be suitable. There again, perhaps there are some observers out there who would prefer to keep the discussion going on this forum?

I'll respond to your previous post in about an hour.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 21:21:24 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: michael
Subject: And they call it ... pragmatic histiography ...?
Message:
Michael, I'm wondering if your impression of Kuhn's writings isn't partially clouded by a desire to find (a tad too quickly perhaps?) something you can disagree with.

I really don't see how you can boil down his work about the 3rd Century CE (or AD, as we used to say) as being simply a thesis on how the Gospel of Truth might have a connection with the Gospel of Matthew (he merely acknowledges Massey's take on the subject without commiting himself).

As for the non-historical factor, he quotes this from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica:

'the tendency to reshape history for the edification of later generations was no novelty when Chronicles was written (about the fourth century B.C.). Pragmatic historiography is exemplified in the earliest continuous sources.'

So do we trust the word of the early 'historians' or not?

The Essenes were known to the likes of Pliny, who says:

'The Essenes had already existed several thousand years and one of the best ascertained facts concerning this sect is that they possessed secret holy writings of their own, which they guarded with special care.'

Josephus declares that the Essenes (link) have existed 'from time immemorial' and 'countless generations'. Philo agrees, calling the Essenes 'the most ancient of all the initiates' with a 'teaching perpetuated through an immense space of ages'. Josephus and Philo -- as well as several other ancient writers including Pliny the Elder -- are in consensus on two points in regard to the origin of the Essenes:

1. Their original origin is lost in pre-history with certain ancient legends linking them with Enoch;

2. There was a major remanifestation of the Essenes by Moses at Mount Sinai.




Kuhn goes on to observe that:

'... the Epistles of Paul and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were old, old documents taken from the Essenian libraries and foisted upon a credulous rabble as new writings of the first century.

For we turn to the Encyclopædia Britannica and under the article 'Essenes' we read that 'they preserved in their libraries the books of the ancients and read them not without an allegorical interpretation.'

He then asks:

'What becomes of the Christian faith if it is true that those Gospels and Epistles, with an unhistorical and purely typal figure of Jesus the Christ in them, were in Essene libraries from a very remote period?

The origin of the Gnostics' beliefs he has no doubt in accrediting to the Ancient Egyptians:

'The fine Gnostic Christians had of course their own wonderful Gospel, The Pistis Sophia, which traces to Egyptian backgrounds beyond all question. The voices of the old Egyptian gods speak volubly in such documents in the hands of early Christians.



And Augustine? Isn't he more responsible for the way Christianity is today - more so than even St. Paul or even JC?

He's certainly coloured it with his own views.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 03:48:04 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: Oh yeah, I forgot...
Message:
I'm sorry, I didn't reply to your comments on the Essenes. We really don't know much about the Essenes outside of their writings and the comments of Pliny and Josephus; some claim that the community at Qumran were Essenes but modern scholarship is not in agreement on this subject. Perhaps Pliny and Josephus's claims regarding the ancient lineage of the Essenes holds as much weight as Augustine's claims regarding the ancient lineage of Christianity: it was a means of making them acceptable to the people of the Mediterranian Basin, who considered the ancient to be good and the new to be not so good.

I think that the claims of Christianity's ancient linege in the esoteric practices of mystery religions holds as much weight as M's claims regarding the lineage of the so-called Perfect Masters, with Jesus, the Buddha, and others as Perfect Masters; it is a claim I don't accept.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 03:34:36 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: And they call it ... pragmatic histiography ...?
Message:
cqg, I didn't write a very good transition from saying that I had trouble with Kuhn's thesis to my sentence about his statement that the 'Gospel of Truth' was the basis for Matthew. His thesis is that Xistianty is based on the 'ancient mystery relgions' and was not something new. I do have trouble with that thesis, and I didn't have to have a desire to find something with which I disagreed, these things came up while I read his writing.

Have you read 'The Gospel of Truth?' Have you read Augustine, Origen, Clement, or even Julian the Apostate? Have you read the Nag Hammadi library texts or any so-called Essene scriptures? Have you read 'The Secrets of Enoch?' I have. Have you read any Gnostic scriptures? I have. Most scholars in this area know that the Gnostics were influenced by Persian and Egyptian mysticism; I won't argue that, but the claim that the Gnostics are the 'true Christianity' is not new, either, but it doesn't hold up.

As for Augustine, I once thought that he was some kind of creep and the Pelagius was cool until I started reading their writings. Augustine was actually more compassionate than Pelagius, and Augustine's arguments against the Donatists revealed a more forgiving nature than the Donatists. Before you buy Kuhn's story entirely, READ Augustine, Origen, and the others. Don't just take some Theosphist's word for it (yes, I am prejudiced in this area).

I will be away this weekend and won't be able to continue this discussion until Monday. Hasta luego.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 16:40:38 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Wilco, Michael
Message:
Michael,
Sorry to hear you have a block with Theosophy.

Believe it or not, 'though my awareness of some of the authors you mention is pretty limited, I did in fact print out and read a translation of the Book of Truth only yesterday!

So, how about I'll check out Augustine (link), and you check out this brief biog.of Kuhn?

I'll re-post after the weekend

Enjoy!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 14:42:27 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Hey Fr. Mickey
Message:
Hi Father Mickey
Great posts. I think people, regardless of their religious persuasion, should know the Bible, at least a little, especially if they are going to argue about it. And I agree that far too much Christian bashing goes on.Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

None of the (non-fundamentalist) Christian churches I have visited have asked me to blindly surrender to someone I never met, or to give my money to someone I've never met. Nor have they told me to 'not think' or to not question something, the way I was told as a premie. Well there was that one gal at coffee hour who told me I would have to 'die to myself' in order to become a Christian--that scared the hell out of me, and sounded very cult-like indeed. Having already died to myself when I followed 2 different gurus, I am no hurry to do that again. But she was the exception to my meeting otherwise intelligent, thinking, non-proselytizing Christians when I was church shopping. I still don't go to church anymore, but I may go back one day.

I think thoughtful Christianity is miles away from a cult mindset. The main thing I see in non-fundamentalist religious organizations is an emphasis put on balance--balancing the intellect with the spiritual, our humanness with the divine, & preserving the dignity & free will of people. This is so vastly different from the kind of 'surrender everything' mode of a cult in which human dignity is undermined & degraded and there is no balance and perspective.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:49:10 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Your comments
Message:
Refreshing Helen. Thanks for your insights!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 00:16:27 (GMT)
From: Fr. Mickey
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Hey Fr. Mickey
Message:
¡Hola, Helena! ¿Comó está?
I agree, that woman sounds scary. I think that she was making reference to one of St. Paul's nutty statements; too bad Deputy Dog has left, he could tell us what Ram Dass thinks it meant.

I actually expect people to question things, and I don't want them to simply accept whatever they are told in Church, but not all churches or priests are like me.

Is it cold where you are? We are deep into Summer here, and I have been going to the beach when I have a chance.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 00:42:57 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Fr. Mickey
Subject: my confession--life with chronic pain
Message:
Hey Michael!

That woman was a little scary, but I probably get a little too intense at these coffee hours when I am visiting churches. Maybe she was feelin' a little bitter about carrying the ol' cross of Jesus on her back, and talking with a fancy free Unitarian just set her off--ha ha! I have often felt that Christianity must be a hard path indeed, which is probably why I have avoided it--it looks too difficult to me!

I am okay, wrestling with back again the last couple weeks and feeling a bit discouraged. It's hard to accept that I have to deal with this--and the simplest things are sometimes like moving mountains. I know what I need to do--swim. Swim 3-5 times a week, it's the only way out according to my rheumotolgist. I'm like the alcoholic who gets the riot act read to him 'you either stop drinking or you die'--and then says 'what were my choices again?' I know that the walking is not enough, I have got to start swimming if I want to beat this pain. Thanks for listening, I know this can't be fascinating but this is my life and sometimes it sucks. The thing I always flash back on was that I fractured my ol' back when I was a premie and really making stupid choices. I fractured it sledding with a bunch of kids down a hill I had no business going down, really steep, on one of those little saucers. I was in charge of these kids and fractured my back and my hand at the same time. This was 20 years ago and my body's never been the same. It altered my life so much, I can't tell you,it altered my personality too. SOmetimes I think I beleive in God because I am on my knees praying so much because of being in pain, and my faith does give me pain relief. Who knows what that is about. Maybe it is about letting go.

It sounds beautiful where you are, Robyn will be so jealous that you've been swimming . It hasn't been bad here in the DC area lately, but a few weeks ago it was horrid, like the tundra for about 3 weeks straight--very depressing. I am going to send you an email very soon, the one I wanted to send you last year, the stuff I am still wrestling with, about what religion I am going to raise my kid, I hope you don't mind.

Enjoy your swims and the good weather!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:04:52 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: kc@pib.ca
To: Helen
Subject: my confession--life with chronic pain
Message:
Helen, I want to help you and ask our Father, please heal Helen, or show us how to heal her. Helen, in scripture there is instruction to anoint with oil. The healing is not the oil, as I understand, but the obidence to Divine instruction. Oil represents the Word of God, the truth. Anoint yourself if no one elso of faith will (olive oil) '...and the prayer (to God) of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise her up; and if she have commited sins, then shall be forgiven her....The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous person availeth much...

Take a look for yourself at James 5:13-20
I just love reference in scripture to this as well, that when we repent of our sins in Christ's name, our Father not only forgives, but forgets. Reminds me of last day prophecy, for those who apparently do not to acknowledge our Creator will be forgotten, erased from His memory (and ours) as if they never existed from the beginning of time. Umm! Oh, and that is what the lake of fire means...to be burned from the inside out, to be erased. You and I could not enjoy a picnic in heaven while my aunt Grace screamed incessantly in hell now could we? I believe there is a plan.

Helen, another couple of tips; have a Dr. of Traditional Chinese Medicine friend, uses acupuncture and herbs and diet well to mitigate pain. Also, have heard, Udo Erasmus Optimum oil blend of polyunsaturated oils helps. Also markets enzymes. Apparantly we lack 15% of enzymes per decade because of refined and cooked foods. This impacts negatively on body. Wishing you good health Helen. Keith

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:21:45 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: my confession--life with chronic pain
Message:
It's all so well intentioned Keith you sweet person.

But why does it make me feel like ...... Well queeezy ....Uuurgh!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 15:10:50 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Hal/Keith
Subject: my confession--life with chronic pain
Message:
Dear Hal,
When born again Christians preach to me I try to take it in the spirit of love and spit out the parts that make me feel that queezy feeling (like the parts about hellfire and damnation-yuk).

I do find that the more I walk a path of faith and love the less pain I have.

Keith
I went to an acupuncturist for 2 years and it really helped, I think I will go again. Also I agree with you about diet it is extremely important. I have heard of the co-enzyme sam-e, Runamok says it is only 20 bucks a bottle at Walmart, I thought it was a lot more expensive. The main thing is that I have to start swimming and make that a priority. I have never been real athletic but I will have to change my tune about that. There are worse things that could happen than being in good physical condition, eh? I am going to start tonight, start swimming 3 days a week.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 15:38:07 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: This flesh body
Message:
I started swimming about 3 months ago, and have found it to improve my physical health significantly!

Also, I'm not a 'born-again' Christian. That reference is scripture has been terribly misinterpreted; my understanding is simply, that Christ referred to: unless you have been born from above: from spirit body to flesh body, you can not be saved. Reason, because God instructed it to be so. There were, according to scripture, fallen angels (angel only meaning messenger, in fact spirit body), who came down from their 'habitation' and seduced the daughters of Adam (Adam was not the first created flesh on earth). This resulted in the bybreds, giants that were killed in the flood of Noah. The theory, we all existed with the Creator before we were born in the flesh and return when we this body returns to the dirt.

Beautiful day in BC today!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:01:56 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: So who's born from below then, Keith? (nt)
Message:
So who's born from below then, Keith? (nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 15:53:48 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: This flesh body is real
Message:
Sorry Keith, you sound like a 'born again' to me when you cite references about Adam and other scriptures. I prefer to see the scriptures as more allegorical than actual.

This flesh body seems awfully real to me. I can't see God punishing a whole race of humanity because of the sins of Adam. I also don't see how having a body should be some kind of punishment anyway. We have to accept life on its own terms, I can't count on some farfetched story in the Bible being true. I do count on my own experience though.

It seems to me Keith that you traded in one set of prepackaged beliefs (premie-hood) for another set (fundamentalist Christianity). It's not my business what you do except when you tell other people they are going to hell if they don't beleive what you beleive. That is just as bad as telling people you have the knowledge and they don't. We all want some neat little wrapped up philosophy to live by that provides all the answers. But I think in a way you are lying to yourslef if you think you have it all figured out. Living with uncertainty is something all of us ex-es have had to do and it feels really awful, but I think it is necessary to heal from the impulse to get into yet another addiction.

Anyway you seem like a nice guy. I am MUCH more impressed by religious people who just live the truth that they feel instead of talking about it all the time. Telling people they are going to hell is actually NOT the best conversation-starter.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:36:06 (GMT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: When I let go,it was very hard to admit my error.
Message:
Keith, is that you? The Keith from last year?

When I turned 45 I recieved mail from the american aarp
which is the 'old folks' lobbying group.
In it, were the following words, in the exact same
print size as the mailing.

'If you recently turned 50, PLAN ON AND EXPECT to live to
88 for woman and 84 for a man because that is actual average.'

Turns out those under 50 blow the curve and make it seem like
the average is 73.

So, I guess the guys on the forum have (just a tad?) under
40 more years to live. (in that 'ashram in the jungle without
ice cream nearby'-lord of universe quote).
That is 40 more years just to be average.

Whatever time does to your views, just be cautious about
hanging out excessively with people with strongly held
christian views. I DO hang out with some, but I find myself
having to kind of wipe off the bulk of what they have to say
because the tendency in any belief is to try to make
everyone within reach view it exactly the same way.

I think I would like to read a Kieth post that kind of launches
into your version even more.

Hal, give the guru's trip 2000 more years and see how it
compares to yeshua's. 'saintly' is a big stretch!
Total domination and posing as the ultimate ruler.....
But I know what you meant.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:51:19 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: bb
Subject: Is it Keith from last year?
Message:
No. I'm Keith Cameron, BC Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:06:27 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: M's website keywords
Message:
Here are the meta keywords for M's web site
(you can see them if you do view source on the 'enter page', you know, the one that looks like a toilet bowl, a hypnosis wheel, a condom, a cock ring, a monkey trap, or (if you add some spikes) a bear trap):

Maharaji, Maharaj ji, maharaji, maharaj ji, maharaji.org, Maharaji's message, Mahraji; Maraji

Hey, he forgot(?) one: miragey
I mean, that's how premies say his title after all! Are their 'minds' trying to tell them something? I guess he doesn't want to reinforce that.

Here's another one he forgot(?): Guru Maharaj Ji

Of course, the keywords are only about one thing: him

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:53:57 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Why don't we complete his list...
Message:
G: So that anyone doing a search would be led to his site (and thus, make sure they don't find this one):

- fraud
- moron
- flim-flam
- hamster
- ratwat
- brain-dead
- mr. mind
- airliner-for-one
- gold toilet seats

etc, etc, etc.

Those keywords have a little more accuracy, IMHO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 13:45:30 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: All
Subject: M's elanvital website keywords
Message:
Keywords in meta data:

'Elan Vital, Maharaji, Knowledge, Maharaji's message'

Description in meta data:

'Elan Vital, incorporated in 1971, is a US charitable organization that sponsors events and conferences throughout the US at which Maharaji is invited to speak.'

What they don't tell you:

EV was originally named Divine Light Mission, a cult incorporated in 1971 as a church. It still is officially a church. Prem Rawat goes by the title 'Maharaji', he used to go by the title 'Guru Maharaj Ji'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:31:45 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: G
Subject: M's embedded keywords
Message:
He's probably got his magic keywords embedded in the code for lots of different pages on his sites, judging from his presence on search engines.

I don't go his sites (bad memories of past visits to his physical sites) so let me know if you get a chance to view other source codes.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:04:12 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them
Message:
'Hate' is such a funny word these days. Some PC policy wonks decided that after centuries of meaning simply a strong dislike or aversion to something or someone, 'hate' should now be reserved for crimes of racial bias or other such prejudice. Well fuck that. 'Hate' works perfectly fine the old way and that's how I'm using it.

I feel a very 'strong dislike', a visceral aversion, if you will, for the premies who post here. Why? Because I despise their words. I despise their thought patterns. I despise what they've turned into, what they've let their cult leader turn them into: backbone-less and forked. Kind of like snakes, I guess.

I get back from work today. Now let me tell you, 'work' consists of dealing with alleged rapists, murderers, even prosecutors. Not to mention my secretary. [ :) ] None of these people, if I recall, ever made a big thing about being 'seekers of truth'. Not to me anyway.

So I get home and take a look at some of the threads. And what do I see? The same old, same old. Premies denying the obvious. Denying all contentious facts and, if they're particularly cautious, denying even innocuous ones. They're liars and they know it. Why do I hate them? Because they engender disgust and revulsion in me. I don't force it, it's a natural reaction to their lies and bullshit.

Do I like feeling this way? No, not particularly. I've got a lot of friends, friends of all stripes, rich, poor, young, old, educated, not. I've even got some friends who believe weird shit; that in itself isn't ath big a problem, just gives us something fun to argue about. But I don't have friends who are liars, who would lie to me about my own life or about the obvious implications of all sorts of matters related to the cult I spent my twenties in. No, I hate people like that. I hate what they do and how they do it. Most of all, I hate what they represent.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 22:03:05 (GMT)
From: Sean
Email: seang2@earthlink.net
To: Jim
Subject: I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them
Message:
Now Jim, snakes are really quite beautiful, marvelous creatures of evolution. They do not lie and the only God they follow is the one streaming forth from their DNA commanding them to go forth and chow.
Now repeat after me:'The only important thing is my experience';
The only important thing is my experience'; The only important thing is my experience';
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 21:11:29 (GMT)
From: Eastern Spotted Quoll
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hate? It's your middle name!
Message:
But unlike you Mr Slime , we are not cowards. If you had any bottle you would stand and deliver......But you won't! The 'guys ' have decided deletion is safer. You think people haven't noticed? DUH!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 21:59:23 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Eastern Spotted Quoll
Subject: Hate? It's your middle name!
Message:
It sounds like Maharaji has really filled you with love, grace , wisdom and peace brother ji. I think I should return to M right now.

a very impressed Ex premie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 01:12:23 (GMT)
From: The Masked Marsupial
Email: It's a Joke!
To: Hal
Subject: Hate? It's your middle name!
Message:
Gee , I'm mortified! I know who you are and you know who I am.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 10:38:17 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: The Masked Marsupial
Subject: Hate? It's your middle name!
Message:
I know who you are and you know who I am? I'm mortified? What the hell does that mean?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:13:10 (GMT)
From: Feral Feline
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Hate? It's your middle name!
Message:
That means that you are posting under a new alias but you can't disguise your style. And with a little intelligence I'm sure you can work out my identity.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 20:23:27 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Feral Feline
Subject: I've always posted as Hal
Message:
So maybe your wrong there. Anyway why don't we get straight and end the mystery. If you do know me then you'll know that perhaps I'm not as clever as you J and don't like games much.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 02:46:26 (GMT)
From: Puss, Puss , Puss........
Email: Maybe but your style is very familiar
To: Hal
Subject: I've always posted as Hal
Message:
Hal and ????
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:05:11 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them
Message:
Jim,

One parting shot please. Most of the ugliness we see in others is just a reflection of our own nature.

No I won't be back, HEAR THAT CHRISTINA!

It's been fun posting here, believe it or not. I'm getting tired of hearing the sound of my own voice though.

I draw my conclusion to this conclusion-less topic.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 22:13:37 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them
Message:
Dog,

You leave like you came, with a meaningless aphorism. Too bad. I always thought you were a bit sharper than all this. And as for this being a 'conclusion-less' topic, the conclusions are all there, Dog, for those unafraid to reach them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:08:07 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: So there are no bad-guys then, Dep?
Message:
Sounds like the ultimate cop-out to me, Dep.

You say:

'Most of the ugliness we see in others is just a reflection of our own nature.




And there was I thinking Pol Pot, Hitler, et. al. to be bad guys ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:45:08 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: So there are no bad-guys then, Dep?
Message:
cqg,

The first word in my quote is most.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 21:17:23 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Dep
Subject: Say good-bye again Dep.
Message:
And here's one more to help you on your way: (evil grin, heh, heh, heh...!)

'A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

Bertrand Russell -- A History of Western Philosophy

Byeeee!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 22:19:20 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: that was wickedly clever cqg n.t.
Message:
n.t.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:31:37 (GMT)
From: Amari
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Human Oil Slicks
Message:
Jim:

What I don't understand is why premies bother coming here. They complain that we (exes) trash them, usually after they attempt to point out that we are misguided, and that if we had only hung in another month, or maybe 10, 15, perhaps 20 years, we wouldn't be posting on this site, grumbling like dyspeptic Frogs about Miragey and His Good Ship Lollipop. You know, we just didn't try hard enough. Or we tried too hard (this is usually from the Johnny-Come-Lately crowd who practice Knowledge Lite].

Overall I tend to like most people I meet, even here online, but my regard for premies dissipates the moment they begin their evasion tactics. If we were sitting in a bar talking, they'd be the ones who would start to look into their drinks when the questions became a bit too pointed; kind of like Human Oil Slicks. Of course, they don't see the evasion because such evasive techniques are necessary to their continuing devotion to the M-o-rama. All they see is exes' refusal to swallow their tripe, considering us lost in the maya and, thereby, evading the Truth as Revealed by You Know Who. Their attempts at satsanging us are akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. They might have a good seat, but they're gonna go down with the ship nonetheless.

And last, but not least, they're a pain in the ass.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:45:00 (GMT)
From: x@#%!
Email: None
To: Amari
Subject: you guys look a lot like sludge to me
Message:
Don't kid yourself bucko, if we were sitting in a bar right now I wouldn't be looking in my beer glass wondering how to answer the likes of you. You think normal society has a place for your brand of biligerence. Your the kind that sits behind your computer screen and hurls abuses you'd never have the guts to say in public. What's a matter.You can't walk away can you? You can't let others walk their own road in peace. The kind of sentiment expressed by you and Jim doesn't leave room for peace does it? Unless you guys get over this you are just pumping out more venom into an already putrid pond. Unless you get over this you are part of the problem.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 17:42:28 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: x@#%!
Subject: you guys look a lot like sludge to me
Message:
Hi there Guru Worshipper,

You say, 'Your the kind that sits behind your computer screen and hurls abuses you'd never have the guts to say in public. What's a matter.You can't walk away can you? '

Well, my big brave anonymous premie, sitting behind a computer, at least our pal Jim isn't hiding anonymously, shouting from behind his fence, to those on the other side, 'You should be braver'.

Who are you 'x@#%!'? Oh experiencer of the ultimate reality, follower of the Perfect Master, and voyager beyond the three worlds, what are you scared of? Who are you? And what is 'your kind'?

How much of your cash did you hand over last year?

Has the lion shagged the lamb yet? (I still notice one or two guns on the news. What happened?)

Do you believe 'Guru is Greater than God?'

Looking forward to hearing from you, courageous premie cyber warrior.

Anth Ginn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:50:21 (GMT)
From: Amari
Email: None
To: x@#%!
Subject: you guys look a lot like sludge to me
Message:
First, it's spelled 'belligerence,' and secondly, you seem to be the one displaying it. But why do you come to a site which you know is antithetical to your beliefs? And why are you insulted and aggrieved when your cherished beliefs are not embraced here (nor are the premies who attempt to espouse them on this site)? It's like you walk into a bar looking for a fight, and then cry in your beer accusing the patrons of belligerence.

So, why do you come here? Do you really expect us to return to M? If you are so peaceful within inside (remember that phrase?), I doubt you'd have the need to come here accusing exes of not being peaceful. Or are you a Soldier of Miragey?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 16:07:38 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Amari
Subject: That's probably the very best question of all!
Message:
Amari: You asked the most important question of all, WHY do they insist on coming HERE to spew their nonsense? If there were an officially sanctioned pro-M forum, wouldn't they find it insulting if we went there and engaged them the same way they try to do it here? How can they, for a single second, expect a different reaction here? Ahhhh, but of course there is NO OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED PRO-M forum...... why? Because M is afraid of what the premies will say. So, they come here and spit their brain-venom in some lame attempt to disable our thought processes, once again.

Sorry premies, we've had THE ANTIVENIN and we are immune to that particular brand of brain-disabling poison. So, don't waste your time here.....

BTW Amari, your 'bar fight' analogy is absolutely perfect, IMHO!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 13:43:31 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: x@#%!
Subject: Oh dear Jim!
Message:
You've really pushed someones button. Bet your so upset about that Ha Ha
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:48:38 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: x@#%!
Subject: Sludge
Message:
Well x@#%!, I've read the four posts (as at the time of reading) on this thread and your's is the only one where I sense venom. Oh, Jim talks about hate but he carefully explains what he means by that. Your post however just drips the other kind of hate that Jim refers to. Seek help before it destroys you.

Also, you were very rude coming as a guest to a site that exists for ex-premies and not following the basic guidelines about choosing a consistent preudonym. Unless you will consistently use 'x@#%!'.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 00:39:47 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: Let's ask for refund
Message:
And tell everybody else about it. Call it the power of emabarrassment...

Bugger the statute of liabilities. Forget, for the time being, any other legal proceedings running their course... (Tee-hee!). Maharaji claimed as recently as the 1990's to be the Lord Incarnate. The one naked ape skilled in the ancient craft of delivering mankind from death to immortality.

So let's deal with it. Thousands gave - and continue to give - on that assumption, which is why he now has the yacht, the plane, the fleets of cars parked outside overseas mansions while others of his own age (and mine) are still struggling to get started in life.

I know little of what is (or is not) possible under the law when it comes to nailing the hamster to his perch. You'd have to ask Jim, Joe or Marianne. But as an Amnesty member I know the power of bad publicity. Amnesty organise letter-writing campaigns. If enough of you write to such-and-such stinkpot dicator to say you want X released immediately (and in the meantime would you kindly please stop torturing them?) the collective effort can be productive. Increased globalisation might, on the one hand, offer easy markets for multinationals to exploit. The flipside is that governments who would exploit these markets whilst abusing people in their charge must answer to others they wish to trade with in future.

Amnesty deal with bad, bad stuff - more serious than the average ex-premie's. And I am with Katie on this: there are far worse things happening in the world than you could lay at the door of any fake guru (is there any other kind?).

But there is a relevant connection. Maharaji sells his message best to people who have never heard of him. (Just as torturers thrive away from the glare of publicity.) To outsiders who know his past the hamster is another unnactractive pretend messiah. I suspect he sells to NOBODY who has visited ex-premie.org before watching video #2.

As is the practise with Amnesty International, we need not resort to proganda to generate negative publicity. We need only tell the truth. The truth itself is bad publicity and a charlatan doesn't need to lose a high-profile lawsuit to be destroyed by the stuff. Some friendly journalists and editors would suffice. In the UK at least, the blessed Private Eye and the godawful Daily Mail would have reason to take note if we were to all do the following:

Everybody spend an evening or three totting up the approximate hours you spent in 'service' over the years. Convert these to a reasonable p/h rate for the skills involved. Draw up a bill. Tot up your 'voluntary' donations including family bequests handed over upon entering the ashram. Add to these debts accrued from being thrown out when the ashrams and community houses closed (including those for outstanding rents on buildings rented in your own name). A good few thousand per ex, I would imagine...

Collectively write to the cult. Ask for a full refund for moneys solicited under the guise of charitable giving but which were seemingly used for no purpose other than to make one man very rich indeed. Cc our requests to Private Eye, editors of national and international papers, the BBC, John Humphries etc...

Not that we want the refund - or at least not anything like as much as Prem does NOT like to be talked about in disrepectful (or any other) tones...And we wouldn't get a penny back - but just a few minutes airtime might do wonders to prevent others getting involved.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 16:42:53 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Refund? - Not such a crazy idea as I first thought
Message:
Some very interesting ideas there, Nigel.

Apparently the idea of refunding donations isn't quite as unlikely as I first presumed. Check out the following extract from this website




'During a five-month period in 1988, Bob and Dorothy Geary paid $200,000 to the Church of Scientology to gain spiritual perfection...

Instead, they say, they nearly lost their minds.

The Gearys say that they have recovered about half the money paid to the Scientologists. But, they said, they rejected a $44,000 cash settlement offered last month by the church, because it would have required them to remain silent .'



Now THERE's an interesting scenario! In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if overtures haven't been made towards THIS website to hush things up.

(If that hasn't happened yet, I hope I'm not putting ideas into the Maha's head!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:42:18 (GMT)
From: just another 'enemy'
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Let's ask for refund
Message:
Great idea Nigel,
well said also!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 21:04:31 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Whatever happened to that LOTU video, John?
Message:
Whatever happened to that LOTU video, John?



Hi, John (JHB - not JB, formerly BJ, mind you)

Well, the Latvian night is over and gone. You and I are highly suspicious of one another, and the offer of a viewing of the documentary 'LOTU' is ... still on the cards. Or is it?

OK, so Sasha doesn't tickle me the way s/he does you, but how do you know that don't make me as susceptible to 'blissing out' as you once were (you only left Rawat a year or so ago, you say?)

Man, wakey wakey - hadn't I just met Anth for the first time? (Enough to make JOB himself laugh all night long, for ***'s sake.

So ... about that video ... (?)


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 21:55:50 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: brauns@dircon.co.uk
To: cqg
Subject: Whatever happened to that LOTU video, John?
Message:
Chris,

No I'm not suspicious:-) I actually imagined you, sitting on your bed, totally amazed by the wonder and absurdity of a bunch of ex-guru followers meeting each other, most for the first time, and having a whale of a time! If that doesn't give you the right to explode in spontaneous solo mirth, then nothing will!

I think Nigel and Sir Dave or possibly Charlie have my two copies of LOTU. If you read this guys, could you confirm and return to me?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 22:29:43 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: JHB
Subject: Oops! mea culpa...
Message:
The video is, as they say, 'in the post' (along with your long-awaited refund of many years' donations to DLM/EV).

Sorry about the delay, John. Really, the video is addressed and in the bag and just needs a stamp. I will do it in the morn. (My copy doesn't seem to work, unfortunately.)

Think yourself lucky...I promised JW a tape of Leon Rosselson 18 months ago.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 22:57:02 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Oops! mea culpa...
Message:
Nigel,

I sent you an email about the video not working and I asked you if you had checked it in another machine, because I know it played OK here. I also asked you if you had Sky Digital, as I suspect a similar problem I have is with my TV after Sky digital was installed.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 22:59:42 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Oops! mea culpa...
Message:
It wasn't from the US was it? Check it for
gooey lipstick mess if it was.

not supposed to be here

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 23:08:03 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Oops! mea culpa...
Message:
Selene,

The original was from the US but I put it through the gooey lipstick mess NTSC to PAL conversion process:-)

You're welcome here.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 23:20:51 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Oops! mea culpa...
Message:
My not-premie friend should feel honored a
whole conversion protocol
has been invented in her name. too funny! :)

I know I am as here welcome as anyone {snicker}
That isn't what I meant. I'm thinkin' I
shouldn't be here as in
the dreaded internet addiction syndrome. I am
scaring myself lately.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 17:47:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Oh Janet, you're so right!
Message:
Found this over on ELK. Isn't Maharaji amazing? And they said it couldn't be done!:

Janet Whitehead: Sweet connection
From Leicester, UK

'I visited a friend here in Leicester who received Knowledge many years ago, but has been ill for several years and has not been able to attend events with Maharaji or even local video events. She is often not well enough to practice the techniques of Knowledge but she told me that she feels closer to Maharaji and Knowledge than she has ever felt in her life. I found this so inspiring. How he can reach anyone anywhere at any time. It is truly remarkable what he is doing in this world and it is wonderful to be a part of it all and witness it. It really feels as Maharaji said at the end of last year's Barcelona event: 'The fun has just begun.''

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 21:14:57 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The fun has just begun? Remember when he said:
Message:


The fun has just begun? Remember when he said:


' ... when the fighting begins ....'



Anyone got that picture of him in uniform? (published in the Guru Puja brochure at Alexandra Palace, early 1970s, I think) ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:21:51 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Cult Recruiting at its Finest
Message:
Hubbard on the Personality Test
Hubbard also wrote in great detail about the selling techniques to be adopted in giving the test. In HCO Policy Letter of Feb 15, 1961, he set out the tactics which should be used to conduct personality tests and sell Scientology. It makes very interesting reading, and helps to explain why - no matter who the person is or what their circumstances are - they are always told that there is something wrong with them which only Scientology can put right. The following extracts come from publicly accessible documents which are part of the Dissemination Course materials.
Hubbard tells the evaluator how to begin:

'Now, Mr, (Mrs, Miss,) let us have a look at your tests'. Open folder. 'Your I.Q. Score was ----'
a) Less than 100
----------------
'This is very low. Less than average and you obviously have great difficulty solving problems. Scientology training would raise that considerably.'
b) 100-110
----------
'A very ordinary score and you have more difficulty than you need in handling problems. Scientology training would raise that considerably.'

c) 110-120
----------
'An above average score. You can take advantage of opportunity and when you apply yourself, you progress fast. However, a high intelligence is only useful so long as you have data to apply the intelligence to. Scientology will not only give you useful data, but can raise your I.Q. even higher.'

d) Above 120
------------
Ditto.'

Note how, regardless of the intelligence of the person, they are told that they still need Scientology. The person is also told that Scientology can raise I.Q. This is completely scientifically unproven - the Church of Scientology has consistently declined to validate its claims through recognised scientific means. The raising of adult I.Q. is, in any case, generally regarded as impossible. Note also how the evaluator is told to concentrate on the negatives, purposefully aiming to make the person feel bad about himself. This is somewhat ironic in the light of Hubbard's castigation of Christianity in HCO Bulletin of 18 July 1959:
'The whole Christian movement is based on the victim. Compulsion of the overt-motivator sequence. They won by appealing to victims [...] Christianity succeeded by making people into victims.'
Hubbard continues, instructing the evaluator to say something like the following:
'Now let's look at your personality. This is what you've told us about yourself. Understand that this is not our opinion of you, but is a factual scientific analysis taken from your answers. It is your opinion of you.'
As the Foster Report indicated, the OCA is not a recognised scientific analysis and is not regarded as being of scientific value. And, as the following clearly states, the person doing the test is to be given a forcefully Scientological opinion of themselves, regardless of the individual's actual circumstances:
'The Evaluation is given with excellent TR-1. Almost Tone 40. The idea is to impinge on the person. The more resistive or argumentative he is, the more the points should be slammed home. Look him straight in the eye and let him know, 'That is the way it is'.
'TR-1' is 'Training Routine 1'. A 'Tone 40' statement means one that is given with such force that it is irresistible and must be acted upon. The rest of Hubbard's instructions are clear enough: browbeat the 'raw meat'
In point of fact, Scientology evaluators and registrars are given courses which explicitly teach them the techniques of 'hard sell' (and yes, it is labelled as such).

'Above this line is satisfactory but even these points can be raised higher. Also knowledge is necessary to make full use of the best points of one's personality. That can be gained through Scientology.
These middle points will get you by, so long as there is no crisis or difficulty in your life.

Now, this section shows that you are very much in need of help.'

This is represented as being the result of a 'factual scientific analysis', and 'your opinion of you' but is, of course, very much the personal opinion of the evaluator - or rather, something that the evaluator has been ordered to say regardless of the actual circumstances. Hubbard has even gone to the lengths of writing the script, as the above shows.
The aim of the whole thing, Hubbard emphasises, is to sell Scientology and then sell it some more:

'Proceed with evaluation on the low points, column by column. Make a decisive statement about each. If the subject agrees, - says, 'That's right', or 'That describes me all right', or similar - leave it immediately. You have impinged. If he argues or protests, don't insist. You simply are not talking on his reality level. Re-phrase your statement until it is real to him. Stop as soon as you get through. As soon as you get an impingement, look subject in the face and say, with intention, 'Scientology can help you with that', or 'That can be changed with Scientology', or some similar positive statement.
NEVER say it half heartedly, or apologetically!

Don't bother much with the high points. If he queries them tell him it is the low ones that are the cause of his troubles - and that these can be changed. If several are high you can add that because of these it will be easier for him than for most people, to use Scientology to improve with.

In other words, it doesn't matter what is right about you; the only important thing is what the OCA, a test with no scientific validity, says is wrong with you. Of course, the latter is what provides the snare with which to bring a person into Scientology.
[...]
'With these low points on your personality graph, you are going to ------'
(Here, you use what you know of Scientology and assess this)

'Not a very bright prospect is it? Unless you care to change it.'

At this point the evaluator leans back in his chair, puts down his pencil on the chart, smiles and says:

'Well, Mr, (Mrs, Miss) - That's what your tests show!

'Thank you very much.'

The Evaluator does not reach or try to sell any more than this. If the job has been done well, the person should be worried and will probably ask a question as to what he can do about it all.

This makes explicitly clear - though it probably was that already - that the whole aim of the Personality Test is to so unsettle the person on the receiving end that they feel compelled to buy a Scientology course. 'The person should be worried ...'
If so, the evaluator says:
'That is very commendable, wanting to do something about it. A point in your favour'.
'There are many things you can do. There are all sorts of things that people go in for. In the past they tried psychology, psycho- analysis, Dale Carnegie, Confidence Courses, Mental Exercises, read books, but these things had a very limited application and you could get yourself terribly involved in mysteries, expenses and wasted time, before you found any solutions to your difficulties. All across the world today, people are coming to us, to find simpler, more straight forward [sic] answers.'

(Here the evaluator grows confidential) ......

'Look, I'm technical staff here. I don't have anything to do with sales or courses, but if you'd like a confidential tip, there are all sorts of courses and services going on here all the time, but your best bet is to spend £1 (or cost of PE) on a Personal Efficiency Course and discover what Scientology can offer you. That will save you from getting involved. Go and see that lady over there and tell her you only want the Personal Efficiency Course, so that you can find out what Scientology is about.'

Then route the person to P.E. Registrar.

[...]

The P.E. Registrar should realise that if the person walks over from the evaluator's table to Reg., he, or she, is SOLD already.

Note how Hubbard tells the evaluator to lie - 'I don't have anything to do with sales or courses' - when, as he makes clear, the whole purpose of the evaluator is to sell to the person the need for courses!
I can confirm the above as still being in use; it is precisely the approach that was used on me. The only differences were that the courses offered cost 50 times more than in 1961 and that the evaluator herself tried to sell the courses to me, rather than send me to the registrar. I don't know whether this is standard practice or just a local peculiarity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:44:55 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: all
Subject: Cult Recruiting at its Finest/interpretation
Message:
Yes, indeed, there are many roads leading to the same goal. While the DLM/EV cult uses the SPEAKER as its recruiting tool,improvement of self is offered. Scientology appears to use recruiting on a constant basis as its primary income source while DLM/EV has been forced to seek its income from current members as its ability to recruit new membership (since roughly 1980)has obviously failed, i.e. The Greying of the Maharaji cult.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:45:47 (GMT)
From: enemy
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: Cult Recruiting at its Finest/interpretation
Message:
Thanks angry for that printout.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:20:21 (GMT)
From: Mu
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: HAHAHAHAH and HOHOHOHO
Message:
The Real Meaning Of Life or Just Another View

Have a good laugh for free!
Think, but not too deeply!
You're life's expression
Avoiding depression
Life's light looks out of you!
Got nothing better to do!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:34:32 (GMT)
From: mantis
Email: None
To: Mu
Subject: HAHAHAHAH and HOHOHOHO - the REAL laugh!
Message:
Here it is folks - the real answer!

The Real Answer

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:15:40 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: 'The Rapture'
Message:
If anyone gets a chance to see this '91 indie film, I really recommend it. It's about a woman and her dwindling relationship with her family and reality as she joins a cult and decides to act on her 'realisations'. The movie has a small part played by David Duchovny (X-files) and the lead is played by Mimi Rogers (from the second string of X-files regulars.

I haven't been interested in some of the recommended readings I've seen online here but this is gut-wrenching and really hits the nail on cultist self-degradation.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:55:25 (GMT)
From: michael
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: 'The Rapture'
Message:
I did see it. A bit dark don't you think?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 06:13:34 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: michael
Subject: Is 'The Rapture' for sensitive types?
Message:
Most of us, luckily, didn't do as much damage to others as the central character. But, it is really what it's about for the PAM's and Gurus of the world. If some lives are ruined, so what?

But yeah, it hurt to watch it at times. I cringed remembering stuff from my premie heyday. I guess, for people who wouldn't want to see a Scoresese flick, even though it isn't filled with red-blooded violence, they might skip this film, or go with someone whose hand they can hold.

Personally, I like 'dark' art. But then, people think I'm too serious or something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 20:31:01 (GMT)
From: selene
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Is 'The Rapture' for sensitive types?
Message:
I liked it. So all you lightheated types take
note of that one.

selene - not supposed to be on forum

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 16:18:14 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Is 'The Rapture' for sensitive types?
Message:
I saw the movie and didn't think it was dark at all. Its portrayal of cult think and apocalyptic think were quite accurate. I think Y2Kers should have watched it before New Years and they may have been a little less worked up. I thought that the film had a different take on Christian apocalyptic thinking; this is a subject with which I am very interested as it seems to drive so many evangelical and pentacostal Christian groups.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 17:20:56 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Christianity and Cultism
Message:
I guess it shows a cultism among Christians, but the apocalyptic beliefs seemed to take the group depicted in the film a bit farther than most fundamental groups.

I thought you described it as dark, originally. This film is probably responsible for the rumors I had heard of Duchovny having done porn. It's not porn but the sex shots are explicit.

I get IFC (independent film channel) on cable and see a lot of interesting film that way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:13:19 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Christianity and Cultism
Message:
No, I didn't describe it as dark, michael from Oregon did; I knew that it would be confusing with Michael and michael posting. I am the former Mickey the Pharisee and he is the former premie from Oregon.

There are fundamentalist groups which go to Jerusalem trying to start Armegeddon and all manner of crazy apocalyptic thinking out there; I've been studying it for years (the Dog probably thinks I should experience it rather than study it, but I have already spent time in a crazy cult).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 23:23:58 (GMT)
From: Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Duchovny and Porn
Message:
Check out the Red Shoe Diaries if you want to see Duchovny in porn flix. Red Shoe Diaries are part of the Zalman King film/TV empire, which consists mostly of soft porn. You can usually catch these on cable.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 23:27:50 (GMT)
From: selene
Email: None
To: Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down
Subject: Duchovny and Porn
Message:
yeah but....
plotwise David is still sexy in Rapture and the
plot is better. Red shoes is soft porn and boring.
Or I might have a higher tolerance. or something.
ok nevermind.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 00:16:54 (GMT)
From: Tie Me Up
Email: None
To: selene
Subject: Duchovny and Porn
Message:
You're absolutely correct--Red Shoe Diaries are tres boring.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 23:37:02 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: selene
Subject: ps the plot in Rapture was relevant to..
Message:
the forum is what I meant.

ok gone...
for now

Return to Index -:- Top of Index