Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Sat, May 12, 2001 at 19:40:58 (GMT)
From: Apr 27, 2001 To: May 10, 2001 Page: 4 Of: 5


jaan -:- Malibu Premie -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:14:53 (GMT)

TD -:- Article in newspaper referring to Maharaji -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:28:15 (GMT)
__ suchabanana -:- 2001 media interview: ... -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:02:12 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- Now not so much of that Boboti, Swami Ji -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:31:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ such -:- righto,cheerio! havin' tea with 'crumpet'. ciao(nt -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:44:21 (GMT)
__ Tonette -:- Facts reversed -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:44:54 (GMT)
__ bill -:- Wait till those 'local scouts and S.E.S. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:48:30 (GMT)
__ __ TD -:- Bill, it's The Courier Mail www.couriermail.com.au -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:28:56 (GMT)
__ __ CD -:- Wait till those 'locals -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:26:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ bill-reconsider the issue -:- I just spent the weekend camping with the scouts.. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:18:21 (GMT)
__ __ bill -:- Janet, your help please. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:07:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ bill -:- Janet, your help please.also, -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:25:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ janet -:- didnt get on till just now. yesterday i found some -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:49:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ bill -:- thanks Janet, I manged to track down a key one -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 23:12:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- Ipswich links -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:38:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ bill -:- Thanks G! Love your dog in crown site.,,nt -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 23:14:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- dog in crown?...nt -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 03:50:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ janet -:- dog in crown was pat conlon's site. -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 10:12:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- inspiration for ... -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 15:39:01 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- Each PWK spent 500 bucks a day? No way! -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:02:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ janet -:- more likely the whole festival spent that much. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:53:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ janet -:- and now miami in two weeks: for those who didnt go -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 14:34:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ CD -:- Each PWK (OT) -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:52:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- That Hyatt program was a sore spot for the locals -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 16:24:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ CD -:- Each PWK calculations -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:40:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- Hi Chris, your calculations are right -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:25:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ CD -:- calculations -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 17:17:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Yes, Chris, I agree - there is a lot of suffering -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 17:32:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ bill -:- No they are not. Not by a long shot. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:30:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ CD -:- long shots -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 16:59:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- a waste of 7,000,000. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:20:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Did you kiss the yacht owner's feet? (nt) -:- Wed, May 02, 2001 at 16:07:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Bob -:- No they are not. Not by a long shot. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:03:26 (GMT)
__ __ G -:- there's a recent post re the local newspaper (nt) -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:55:14 (GMT)
__ PatC -:- Having seen first hand how publicity works -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:39:33 (GMT)
__ __ janet -:- then we'll just have to issue counter releases -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 10:35:19 (GMT)

Curious -:- God Maharaji is a Bad Dancer... -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:06:05 (GMT)
__ G -:- he would step on someone's toes... -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:47:21 (GMT)
__ __ Brian Smith -:- M makes Steve Martin in the Jerk look good -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 06:49:27 (GMT)
__ __ Francesca -:- sing along with M -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:16:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- sing along with M -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 04:00:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Well ... -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 16:35:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ PatC -:- He sang with Daya at Hans Jayanti in Delhi -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 19:24:41 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- he would step on toes...don't waltz with him -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:56:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- drunk -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:05:59 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave -:- God Maharaji is a Bad Dancer... -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:28:25 (GMT)
__ Joy -:- Maharaji's Dancing -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:26:18 (GMT)
__ __ G -:- a penguin doing the Hindu Wobble dance -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:59:10 (GMT)
__ __ Francesca -:- dunce, dunce, dunce -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:51:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ Francesca -:- The get high part -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:50:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Not enuf space -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:25:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Peter Howie -:- Rich Neel's songs -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:08:05 (GMT)
__ PatC -:- Maharaji is a Bad Dancer...No sense of rhythm NT -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:10:44 (GMT)

la-ex -:- arti at amaroo-a pattern we have seen before? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:28:44 (GMT)
__ Mr. Williams -:- arti at amaroo-a pattern we have seen before? -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 08:41:09 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- M's hit and run incident alone... -:- Thurs, May 03, 2001 at 16:09:28 (GMT)
__ __ Mr. Smarty Pants -:- arti at amaroo-a pattern we have seen before? -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 23:39:01 (GMT)
__ __ Way -:- To Mr. Williams, on love -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 14:51:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ suchabanana -:- Way to go! Tell it like is, brother. Right on! (nt -:- Fri, May 04, 2001 at 06:00:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ la-ex -:- Beautiful,Way.Your insight countered the digital.. -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 22:26:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ la-ex -:- FA,I think this should be preserved on epo (nt) -:- Wed, May 02, 2001 at 04:12:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ SB -:- Good post!! Nt -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 22:10:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ Francesca -:- --KUDOS Way! GREAT post **best of***(OT) -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 18:54:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ Tonette -:- WOW! A must read!!!!!!! I nonimate for 'Best Of' -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 18:27:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ PatC -:- Way, a MUST READ. Hope it doesn't get lost -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 17:47:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Chuck Sprague -:- A beautiful post, Way, ''Best of Forum'' YES... -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 19:25:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Thanks, guys, but Mr. Williams... -:- Wed, May 02, 2001 at 14:18:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Lest you feel too sorry -:- Wed, May 02, 2001 at 18:11:30 (GMT)
__ __ la-ex -:- Mr Williams,the love is now digital?Please explain -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 14:41:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ Bob -:- love now digital?Please explain -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 20:00:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- love now digital? Softer than a vibrator, Bob NT -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 21:47:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Vid yo -:- love now digital? Yeah, what's the matter haven't -:- Wed, May 02, 2001 at 01:20:34 (GMT)
__ Gregg -:- Yes. A word about the late Seventies: -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:23:27 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Bring on the dancing girls -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:43:26 (GMT)
__ __ janet -:- it reminds me of nothing so much as a guilty sin -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:15:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ PatC -:- Did you go to the gay orgy in drag? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:38:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ janet -:- not the orgy, no. but the formal dnace i did. -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 11:07:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- He oiled his way across the floor, oozing charm -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 17:57:06 (GMT)

JHB -:- How many went to Amaroo? -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 22:30:42 (GMT)
__ janet -:- how many went to St Ives?... -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 11:17:50 (GMT)
__ Will -:- What will be his next stunt? -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 23:14:55 (GMT)
__ __ Bin Liner -:- What will be his next stunt? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:22:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ bill-hmm, crown, mala, -:- dancing with that slut monica lewis, -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:15:44 (GMT)

Francesca -:- I have something to confess -- it's embarassing -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 21:27:38 (GMT)
__ Mr. Mind -:- For Your Penance and My Confession -:- Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:30:25 (GMT)
__ salam -:- We forgive you my child -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 11:54:18 (GMT)
__ __ salam -:- said like a true child -:- Thurs, May 03, 2001 at 11:58:34 (GMT)
__ __ Francesca -:- I can always count on you to show me the way n/t -:- Wed, May 02, 2001 at 03:27:13 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- through United Way? confused -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 22:08:11 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- I have the same question... -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:09:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ Francesca -:- Yesiree -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:30:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Question.... -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:00:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ bill -:- Question....Joe. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:36:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Question....Joe. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:58:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Chuck Sprague -:- Frannie, I couldn't find Elan Vital Inc. .... -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 01:05:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Found them - Secretary of State's corporate filing -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 03:47:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- No, never -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:55:01 (GMT)
__ __ JHB -:- I assumed that United Way were her employers... -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 22:24:08 (GMT)
__ Mercedes -:- Francesca I don't understand... -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 22:06:14 (GMT)

PatC -:- Atheistic evolutionism vs theistic creationism -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 20:14:45 (GMT)
__ Peter Howie -:- Asking THOSE questions -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 00:41:21 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Asking THOSE questions -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 23:52:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ Peter Howie -:- Asking THOSE questions -:- Wed, May 02, 2001 at 00:20:26 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- You said: ''I'm still answering them.'' Me too. -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 09:00:22 (GMT)
__ suchabanana -:- 1.Hawking: 'A Brief History of Time' -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 22:42:10 (GMT)
__ __ such -:- Q.and A.s: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/as -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 23:13:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ such -:- correction: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/ -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 05:42:42 (GMT)
__ __ such -:- 2. Big Bang Theory -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 22:44:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ such -:- The Music of Creation:Read Gary and Such below!(nt -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 03:51:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ Gary Epton -:- This Just In: Astronomers Hear Echoes of the Big -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 00:33:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- 5/1Just In:Astrophysicists hear Big Bang HARMONICS -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 03:29:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ janet -:- so my astrology theory is right. and as usual -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 11:34:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Do you always live in a fantasy world Janet? -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 20:48:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- (nt) Above post (nt) -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 21:09:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ such -:- 3. The Symmetric Theory -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 22:49:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- Hey, Professor, enough with the science already -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 00:36:22 (GMT)
__ suchabanana -:- http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~boomerang/ -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 21:38:06 (GMT)
__ __ Gary Epton -:- http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~boomerang/ -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 05:47:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ suchabanana -:- Apply certain harmonic physics principles in music -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 16:13:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Gary -:- Apply certain harmonic physics principles in music -:- Wed, May 02, 2001 at 01:52:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- MP3s, CDs to be released later this year! TBA + -:- Wed, May 02, 2001 at 04:26:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ such -:- also Bach's 3rd Brandenburg Concerto -:- Wed, May 02, 2001 at 15:47:29 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- Fabulous site. See Dobson link above too NT -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 21:53:54 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- Atheistic evolutionism vs theistic creationism -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:13:31 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- Thomas Huxley vs Aldous Huxley -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 17:40:58 (GMT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- Hmmm -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:59:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- You're not really disagreeing, I don't think... -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 22:02:37 (GMT)
__ Gary Epton -:- Atheistic evolutionism vs theistic creationism -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 09:59:31 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- Gary it was this post of yours which prompted -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 17:59:26 (GMT)
__ zippy -:- ancient, archetypal bang quote -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:26:53 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- Hi, Zippy - so it all started with a pinhead? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:45:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- But read the website -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:16:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- Do I have to? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:03:37 (GMT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- ancient, archetypal bang quote -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:05:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ Bob -:- Excuse me: Big Bang did have warpspeed -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:34:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Bob -:- PS Excuse me: Big Bang did have warpspeed -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:41:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ such -:- actually 186,000miles/sec is initial light speed -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:56:04 (GMT)
__ suchabanana -:- Big Bang:+ The Unanswerable Question/futile debate -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:00:46 (GMT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- This was on AG forum -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:34:54 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- WHAT WAS THE UNIVERSE LIKE BEFORE THE BANG? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:10:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ F arti -:- We're all little farts in the great arsole of the -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 09:17:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- We're talking eschatology here not scatology -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:12:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ F arti -:- I'll root for the latter. (NT). -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 09:32:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ Bin Liner -:- Absolutely , what set off the fucking BANG . -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:45:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- The Shagadelic BANG vs the old in/out -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:49:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ Bob -:- WHAT WAS THE UNIVERSE LIKE BEFORE THE BANG? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:35:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- It wasn't -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:24:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- a boundary? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:09:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- I'm just a hedonist, Sir Dave. You're koan blew me -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:35:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Oh, yeah? well I want to be an ex-nun -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:33:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- an ex-nun with hair dyed blonde named Tami? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:45:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- an ex-nun with hair dyed blonde named Tami? -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 01:58:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- So, of course now I want to see for myself NT -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 09:05:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Think of it this way, Pat -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:16:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Yes, me too, Jerry -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:31:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- This is how wthe universe started... -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:09:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- I thought it was Vishnu's Brain Fart -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:14:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- No, God jerked off. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:12:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Shiva jerked off and spilled his semen -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:27:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- Is that Creationist Onanism? (NT) -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:38:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- No, Rawat's auto (fellatio) Knowledge of God - NT -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:46:24 (GMT)
__ Joe -:- Atheistic evolutionism vs theistic creationism -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:02:57 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- I'm tired of being an atheist -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 23:38:35 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Right. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:29:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- What about the mystical experience? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:36:06 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- I used to think I was an atheist -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 23:52:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- The best thing we have going. -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:58:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- But where did the cosmos come from? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:06:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ zippy -:- But where did the cosmos come from? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 15:49:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Ahem - there WAS no beginning -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 16:04:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Thanks Sir Dave for answering Zippy for me -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:09:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- I also play the recorder -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 20:01:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- I also play the recorder - so do I! -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 20:59:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- As do I! Well boys, we have a trio... -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 22:26:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Latvian Nights in Amaroo 2025 Trio -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 00:20:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- Latvian Nights in Amaroo 2025 Trio -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 03:28:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Not another rocker. Who would have thunk it? NT -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 09:09:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- the boundary condition -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:45:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ bill -:- hawkins is overstating the evidence. dawkins does -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:41:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- perhaps -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:13:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- If they would rephrase thier presentations, it -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 23:10:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- the quote -:- Tues, May 01, 2001 at 04:20:54 (GMT)
__ Dermot -:- Two camps only? -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 21:05:07 (GMT)
__ __ Helen -:- it makes a difference to my own well being -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:13:39 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- Two camps only? No, what about us Know Nothings? -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 23:57:05 (GMT)
__ Joy -:- I don't see why they have to be incompatible -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 20:57:52 (GMT)
__ __ PatC -:- joy, my main point was that I don't know -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:36:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- When will you know if you know, Pat -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:48:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- I may never know, Joe -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:04:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Pass me a beer, Pat, I'll drink to that -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:31:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Cheers, Helen but could I offer a glass of wine? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:39:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Cheers, Helen but could I offer a glass of wine? -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:24:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- I cheat, Helen. I'm in the business and get them -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:52:00 (GMT)
__ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- I don't see why they have to be incompatible -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 22:32:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ PatC -:- When I say that I am an agnostic Anglican I mean -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:30:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- Agnostic Anglicans -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:37:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Agnostic Anglicans - and did those Feet in ancient -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:44:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- I don't see why they have to be incompatible -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 23:13:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- I don't see why they have to be incompatible -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:29:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Um, Jerry -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:19:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Joe, Michael -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:58:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Sheesh -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:11:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Sheesh -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:02:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Furthermore -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 13:21:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Furthermore -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 14:10:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Furthermore -:- Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 15:22:04 (GMT)
__ __ Joy -:- P.S. One Thing's For Certain, Though -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 21:06:12 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Atheistic evolutionism vs theistic creationism -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 20:36:55 (GMT)
__ mercedes -:- Good question Pat - NT - -:- Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 20:18:40 (GMT)


Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:14:53 (GMT)
From: jaan
Email: nowbeopen@yahoo.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Malibu Premie
Message:
Greetings. I am looking for an old premie friend who used to live in Malibu and moved to Sweden. His name is Julio Liebsch, does anyone have his email address or phone number. If you know it, perhaps you could email it to me at the address above.

Thanx

Jaan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:28:15 (GMT)
From: TD
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Article in newspaper referring to Maharaji
Message:
Transport hoodoo guru's only problem
Catriona Mathewson and Tony Keim
27apr01 - The Courier Mail

SHE may be able to turn milk to jam but even Hindu 'hugging saint' Ammachi couldn't bring Qantas flight 522 into Brisbane on time yesterday.

The woman known to millions of worshippers as 'mother' kept a crowd of followers waiting for 45 minutes after she fell victim to the vagaries of modern transport.

When she did arrive Ammachi was swamped by followers, leaving dozens of bemused travellers in their wake.

It is the Indian saint's ninth visit to Australia and, although she doesn't speak a word of English, she blesses followers with hugs and is said to have once turned a jug of milk into jam.

Ammachi claims to have wrapped her arms around more than 15 million followers and added a few more to the list in Brisbane last night, before heading to the Gold Coast.

But what is so special about a hug from Ammachi?

'You would have to ask them,' she said, through an interpreter.

And why does she hug? 'That would be like asking the river why it flows.'

More enlightening was a young follower who raved about the power of the hugs. 'You can feel her energy flowing to you,' he enthused.

And it is an energy which he said could conquer the age-old western problem of 'thinking with our brains all the time – she helps people to start thinking with their hearts'.

University of Queensland associate professor of religious studies Richard Hutch said the phenomenon was not hard to understand and could actually produce tangible benefits.

'Psychologically it's useful and everybody enjoys being hugged,' Dr Hatch said. 'It's the mother-child bond that a lot of people are in need of.

'Who knows what kind of psychological state is being created that might make someone feel happier and bolster the immune system.

'That's why the hugging saint is a very practical possibly beneficial thing to have in the community.'

Ammachi will hold a free program from 6.30pm on Sunday at the Tallebudgera Recreational Centre, Gold Coast.

Another Indian spiritual 'guru' has led more than 4000 people on a journey of 'knowledge' during a four-day convention, which ends today, on a property south of Ipswich.

The Maharaji taught 'delegates' from 60 countries the four secrets of his non-religious way to enlightenment.

Organisers of the Elan Vital conference housed delegates in a massive tent city set-up by local scouts and State Emergency Service volunteers on the Ivory's Rock convention centre grounds.

Elan Vital national director Kaye McKinnon said the conference was expected to pump more than $2 million into the local Ipswich economy.

For more than 30 years the 44-year-old Maharaji has been teaching followers, but has refused to give media interviews for the past 17 years.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:02:12 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: TD
Subject: 2001 media interview: ...
Message:
Yo, Mr. Miragey, dude:

Sample Questions:

1. Like, is it true you claim you are giving this so-called Knowledge free, while amassing tens of millions of dollars accruing in various diverted ways to you?

2. Is it true that you are married but maintain a mistress in Californica?

3. It is a fact that you have denounced the use of drugs. Have you ever used illegal drugs yourself?

4. You have publicly issued a mantra of 'no cheat, no deceit.' However, did you ever run over and kill a human being with your car in India and then let someone else falsely take the blame [il]legally?

5. You allegedly espouse peace; yet, did you not directly order your subordinates to aid and abet those criminal assailants who tried to assassinate Patrick Halley in 1973?

Ah, pardon me, but, where are you going, mister? Interview has only just begun...

Peas and lentil curry boboti,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:31:11 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Now not so much of that Boboti, Swami Ji
Message:
Traditional Boboti is made with meat usually ground mutton or beef and served with geelrys and piesang blatjang but I make it with brown lentils and lots of peace - listening to classical music and being meditative - good for the digestion.

Nice post. I'm just sorry peace-loving guys have to be so strident in our insistence on honesty. Makes Miss Manner's job look like a piece of cake.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:44:21 (GMT)
From: such
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: righto,cheerio! havin' tea with 'crumpet'. ciao(nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:44:54 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: TD
Subject: Facts reversed
Message:
More like Two Million into M's pocket rather than the 'local' economy!

And boy, did he ever need it!

Reporting? What a joke.

Do we have a mole here? Are there really 4,500 lost souls at Amaroo?

Curious and wondering when and if this will end- the ultimate soul fuck____Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:48:30 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: TD
Subject: Wait till those 'local scouts and S.E.S.
Message:
volunteers' hear from me. They wont repeat thier involvement.

There is no way 2 million gets into the local economy.
Total lie.

Non religious? arti? feet kissing?
Anyone know the local paper name? Address?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:28:56 (GMT)
From: TD
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Bill, it's The Courier Mail www.couriermail.com.au
Message:
dfd
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:26:41 (GMT)
From: CD
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Wait till those 'locals
Message:
>volunteers' hear from me. They wont repeat thier involvement.

Yeah, yeah, yeah

How do you know the Amaroo event didn't help the local Ipswich economy?
The Miami Beach events certainly were valued by the city at the time for the money spent on hotels, food and entertainment by the premies.

You've known about the Amaroo event for a long time.
And now once again you moan and groan after the fact.
I know well and true that you really don't give a damn about the Ipswich volunteers.
Once again, nothing new under the sun.
If you use your great 'mind' you will realize that this was not the first Amaroo event held by Maharaji and Elan Vital by a long shot. I'll bet you the local people were happy to have the Amaroo 2001 event visitors in their city. Make a few phone calls to Ipswich hotels and find out for yourself.
Most premies are decent fun loving people.

CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:18:21 (GMT)
From: bill-reconsider the issue
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: I just spent the weekend camping with the scouts..
Message:
and they do volunteer for good causes.
It is one thing to be straight about what it is you do when you want to involve others, and quite another to present yourself
falsely. Not fair.

And the SES volunteers are guys who probably have jobs and family and chores of thier own and only donate thier time
as a sacrifice to others and it is not fair to tell them that
they are doing one thing when in reality the story is very different.

As Pat Conlon mentioned, the 2 million figure is also not
an honest figure and it is not my fault that the executive
friend's press spokesman cant find a way to talk about the
program in a way that communicates something true.

Scouts will even do volunteer work for churches if a
reasonable need arises. There is no need to abuse thier trust
by falsely saying 'nonreligious' org. when there are numerous
things I could mention that prove it is not what glen whittiker
says. Just one would be the qualifications you must have to
get knowledge from the executive friends staff member belkis.

How did you like the event? I bet you had fun:)

By the way, application center server looks like a giant killer.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:07:28 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Janet, your help please.
Message:
Hi Janet, my email is not working, would you email to your
Australian reporter Paul, Arti from the EPO site.
And also the posts here that qoute rawat from the program.
Also the info about feet kissing at the mahaparty.

Also, since you are so quick and good at tracking down
things, is it hard for you to track down the local scouts and the State emergency service volunteers and either post thier addresses or email them also Arti and the rest of the info.

Local scout leaders obviously were lied to in a very big way.
And the ESES volunteers also were lied to in a very big way.
They are free to do business with whomever they please, but clearly they are the victims of a big rawat (executive freind)
org elan vital lie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:25:52 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Janet, your help please.also,
Message:
Is it easy for you to find the local chamber of commerce there?
Or some such business roundtable org.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:49:13 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: didnt get on till just now. yesterday i found some
Message:
newpaper links in Brisbane and their town council. I posted some here below. not far from that thread, salam posted a link about the Mogill creek water dragons. find that post and the brisbane council is at the site he gives the link to.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 23:12:46 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: thanks Janet, I manged to track down a key one
Message:
and will snail mail to them. Maybe you can reemail to your reporter contact you emailed, Paul.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:38:20 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Ipswich links
Message:
http://www.ipswichfirst.gil.com.au/index.html

http://www.ipswichfirst.gil.com.au/easylink.html

http://icc.ipswich.qld.gov.au/icc/documents/tenders/

(last one is the city council)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 23:14:02 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Thanks G! Love your dog in crown site.,,nt
Message:
asdsgga
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 03:50:32 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: dog in crown?...nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 10:12:44 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: G
Subject: dog in crown was pat conlon's site.
Message:
he put all his dogs in crowns.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 15:39:01 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: inspiration for ...
Message:
Ah yes, that was the inspiration for

. Shri Hams Ji in crown

and Maha the Butt and Jabba the Hutt in crown

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:02:55 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Each PWK spent 500 bucks a day? No way!
Message:
$2,000,000 spent by 4,000 premies in three days means they each spent $500 a day.

Did they each hire a local whore, get a beauty treatment at Flossie's Foot and Finger Parlor and have Chateau Lafitte with dinner every night at the local barbecue joint?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:53:08 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: more likely the whole festival spent that much.
Message:
think about all the pre festival preparations they were doing, long before the gates opened. they had to feed their workers, buy materials, dont forget gas/petrol and a the contingent expenses per person before the event opened.
maharaji's tastes personally alone could have easily accounted for the sum.
'money is like a toilet: you have to keep it flushed or it begins to stink'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 14:34:58 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: and now miami in two weeks: for those who didnt go
Message:
how merciful he is! how cynically opportunistic! now that amaroo is over and they saw how few made it, he holds a miami beach convention center event, for all those who couldnt afford amaroo, but can drive or fly to miami over a weekend, and stand lined up to go thru the famous blue tunnel, and drop another 250,000 in his pocket in untraceable cash gifts.

'hey, I was wondering if you could help me out? I gotta meet some bills and I haven't seen you in a while, and you didn't make it to my bash in australia, so I thought if you could front me what I need, I could just come out your way and pick it up.
listen-- don't trouble yourself to come to my place with the money. I'll come to you. I don't want to make it any harder for you then it needs to be. Can you meet me in Miami in two weeks? You can? Greaat. I'l look for you there. You know the place. Our old rendezvous spot.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:52:37 (GMT)
From: CD
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Each PWK (OT)
Message:
FYI,
When I was at the San Fransico event at the Hyatt many years back, I got off cheap by taking the crew to Little Joes but dropped some money at The Saloon on the end of Grant street.
The girls from Spain were skeptical of North Beach when the cab first let us out and we walked by a few red lighted doors. But after the good Italian food and some Saloon blues music and dancing everybody was doing really excellent. A great inspired night after a great event.

Cheers,
CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 16:24:13 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: That Hyatt program was a sore spot for the locals
Message:
I got in but had to spend the entire program standing in the back, but people from all over the world were there. About one-third of the women in line in the restroom didn't speak English. Many of the locals, the premies that actually lived in San Francisco, didn't even get in. I was not practicing K anymore (doing other meditations) but still cared enough to at least go to the program, and lived a few hours from SF, so that was my closest local program on the tour.

Because it was the last stop on a multi city tour, some people had followed the whole thing like Deadheads (fans of the Grateful Dead). For premies who actually felt they were devoting themselves to M, however, it was a real slap in the face. M hardly ever went to SF, and many of the SF community premies I knew ended up waiting outside, and were eventually given a video feed.

It was definitely one of my 'drips,' or last straws, to see how addicted people were to physically seeing M. It had always bothered me, that I needed that much external support for something that was supposed to be about meditation.

==f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:40:20 (GMT)
From: CD
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Each PWK calculations
Message:
>$2,000,000 spent by 4,000 premies in three days means they each spent $500 a day.

The city might get some royalty money of some sort from the Amaroo site having a 'convention'.

A 3 day event would probably mean a 4 day hotel stay. That is what I would do.

4000 * $500 = $2M

That seems to be $500 for 3 or 4 days or $166 or $125 a day.
I could certainly burn up at least $150 a day on a trip like that where you are staying in a hotel and out eating and drinking with old friends and new friends.

I remember pumping some decent money into the Long Beach and Miami Beach economies. I had a good time.

CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:25:07 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Hi Chris, your calculations are right
Message:
After I posted that I realized I had not thought it out correctly. I guess I was just being smart alecky which I sometimes do here - you know join in the gangbanging. My apologies.

And also you were absolutely right about the Ipswichians being glad for the premies' business and enjoying it too because, as you rightly point out, most PWKs are nice fun-loving people. I know because some of my dearest friend are still into You Know Who.

I just need to say this to you because I have been rude to you in the past: I really am not here to criticize you or any other premies. I've simply decided it's not for me but I do realize that other people enjoy it. I am sorry if I have insulted you before because that is not my intention.

My only excuse is that I get carried away here and join in the irreverence a bit too thoughtlessly. It's such fun to make fun of You Know Who just like he had fun making fun of Elan Vital and the PWK stereotypes who have sincerely served him.

My beef isn't with premies. I was one for 28 years and most of my friends still are. My beef is with You Know Who and then it isn't as much of a beef as some of the guys here who were shafted in the ashram. It's mostly that I didn't like the idea of having a master and the whole scene is so sterile now.

I guess that's why so many people went to Amaroo and had such fun because life back in the non-existent boring communities is so drab and no exciting propagation is happening. I've said this before, I left mostly because I enjoyed K so much and felt that I would like to share it with others but I was embarassed by You Know Who putting himself ahead of it and making himself into a personality cult.

So my beef is with Mr Rawat and not Premies. I know you're a nice man and I am sorry if I have been cold to you before.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 17:17:47 (GMT)
From: CD
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: calculations
Message:
Money calcs are easy.
Calculating our fate isn't.
No need to apologize.
Any insults you have thrown my way have bounced off thanks to the coat of oil built up after a few years dipping into the forum.
If you have a beef with 'you know who' , hey OK.
My take is that the 'plight' of todays premies is overrated.
Premie or not we all have a truely unknown future with a world teeming with some pretty mean spirits. And we living in the US are the lucky ones out of the billions barely surviving around the globe.
Yet there are the images of great things even as stated in that old little drops of mercy talk so many years back.
I truely believe that the good stuff is still where to aim even though we might wander around in the muck a bit ourselves and not always feel as generous as we might be.
The important lesson of knowledge is that a true source of inspiration does exist at our core. Some attention given to that can make a difference. Yeah, it sounds dumb, but feeling love can make anyone a better person.

Cheers,
CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 17:32:33 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Yes, Chris, I agree - there is a lot of suffering
Message:
in this world and love is also my way. I just think that $2,000,000 could have been better spent to spread Knowledge. Not to mention the $7,000,000 for the yacht. Premies are loving people and we could have done so much more in this world than just chase after guru-bliss. Why spend all that money to go to Amaroo when it's all inside us anyway?

It's been over 30 years now and we have not brought peace to this world as we once dreamed that we would. I still enjoy Knowledge and feel that it could have benefitted a lot of people but it is impossible to tell anyone in the west about it anymore. M is the obstacle to propagation in the west.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:30:57 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: No they are not. Not by a long shot.
Message:
Think about it, at least 800 stayed on site,
hotels were rented at a group discount, meals were provided
on the site, premies do not all rent $150 per night rooms and
sleep alone in them, and if any money was spent, it went to
lord of the universe trinkets and photos and donations to
the darshan line and paying $100 PER MEAL at the premlata
restaurant on site.

Also, this is Australia, the currency difference, the hotel rate
difference, the fact that by the time premies get back from
the mahaparty they are not wandering the shopping district
in mayaville.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 16:59:03 (GMT)
From: CD
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: long shots
Message:
Bill,
I admire your camping enthusiasm, yet it is doubtful that the volunteers suffered or were taken advantage of in some odd way. Surely the locals are pretty familiar with the Amaroo goings on. Nothing new to them these days. Just, 'Oh those people are coming again'.
I don't think $500 is a huge amount to spend over a 4 day period on a journey in another country when you are having a good time.
I will certainly be outdoing that when I am in Boston yet will be spending much of the time studying. Have you checked out the convention center hotel prices lately?
I'll see you there. Send me an email for hotel directions.
No, I'm not rich enough to have bought one of the new $50K Martin D50s. Now wouldn't that be a waste of $50K - yeah.

CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:20:31 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: a waste of 7,000,000.
Message:
'No, I'm not rich enough to have bought one of the new $50K Martin D50s. Now wouldn't that be a waste of $50K - yeah.'

Rawat's 106 foot luxory megayacht is a total waste of $7,000,000 of premies' money.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 02, 2001 at 16:07:02 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Did you kiss the yacht owner's feet? (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:03:26 (GMT)
From: Bob
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: No they are not. Not by a long shot.
Message:
Which shows how well the accountancy dept. of m. has done cost cutting: 4500 folks and still a huge profit
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:55:14 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: there's a recent post re the local newspaper (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:39:33 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: TD
Subject: Having seen first hand how publicity works
Message:
in my business I know that most newspaper articles are generated by press releases (letters or phone calls) to the socalled reporters. They will publish almost verbatim anything that you tell them. It is easier than doing any investigative reporting.

Elan Vital took a proactive stance here and, through national director Kaye McKinnon, issued a press release which was like a pre-emptive strike to give the press something before it got too nosy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 10:35:19 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: then we'll just have to issue counter releases
Message:
won't we?
Miami would be a good place to strike next.
oh, bazza.....?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:06:05 (GMT)
From: Curious
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: God Maharaji is a Bad Dancer...
Message:
Did he danced in Amaroo? A premie told me today that he is 'dying to see mahalard dance. In my way home I remebered the old days. Oh yeah baby! Yuck

I remember while a premie noticing the out of beat movements mahalard did while dancing...I had many funny thoughts... and felt guilty aftherwards. LOL. If he was god he should know how to dance!

You can't deny the guy has no readom!

My question is: What did you think of maharaji dancing when you were a premie?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:47:21 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Curious
Subject: he would step on someone's toes...
Message:
...with his 'lotus' feet, that is, if he were to dance with someone.

I noticed that he was clumsy and out of synchronization with the music. Yes, he was not synchronized, and in a bad way, we're not talking syncopaption here. I think he needs to learn what synchronization means, it doesn't mean grovelling subservience to a fraud.

I noticed this, but rationalized it by thinking 'Oh, but he's dancing from the heart.' I neglected to think about the implications, like, if he knows everything, how come he can't even keep time? Not only did the supposed creator of rhythm have no rhythm, but his body movements were that of a blob of jello waddling. I'm not picking on him for being fat, I know some people fatter than him who are pretty good dancers, it's just not an excuse. And please Rawat, at least don't subject other people to such a sight.

AND he had the gall to complain 'I'm the only one dancing.' I suppose he had his own definition of 'dancing'.

These factual observations were made out to be part of 'the mind', the monster that had to be kept in a little closet.

I did the same rationalization years ago when hearing charnanand sing, 'Oh, he sounds awful, but he's singing from the heart, he's got a smile on his face after all.'

But when I heard Rawat sound like a donkey, I just couldn't do it anymore. I wouldn't do it anymore. Not only was he as off-key as possible, he kept repeating the same thing ('night and day') over and over and over and over ...

The horror.

AND he complained 'I can't hear you', it was a 'repeat after me' religious thing. Well, a true confession, I did repeat 'night and day' a couple of times, but then thought 'No, I won't do this. This is shameful idolatry to a guy who sounds like a cross between a donkey and a duck.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 06:49:27 (GMT)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: G
Subject: M makes Steve Martin in the Jerk look good
Message:
in the scene where Steve was on the porch with his Family, gettin down, and poor Steve the only white person in the bunch terribly out of time and unco-ordinated.

M was horribly off the beat with no sense of time or rythym at every event that I witnessed him dance. I was embarrassed for him and myself for finding some perverse attachment to the spectacle of watching him flop around up there like a fish out of water.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:16:46 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: G and Pat and all
Subject: sing along with M
Message:
G:

I exited after the lousy dancing, and went to a few programs dring the Master in a suit and the smug we-all-know-what's-really-going-on sniff sniff ain't it beautiful days.

Did he actually sing/bray? And did he actually want everyone to sing along with him? How often did this happen and in what context. Was there still dancing then, or was the singing a new thing?

Wowsa, sounds pretty funny. Were any vids made where there was singing? Love to hear it.

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 04:00:59 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: sing along with M
Message:
Francesca,

I'm referring to the same program that PatC writes about in the post below. This was the only time I know of that he sang. Maybe an advisor set him straight later 'You were right before when you said 'You don't want to hear me sing.''

Yes, he wanted everyone to sing along with him. If I remember correctly, he had one half of the audience sing, then the other joined in later, like 'Row row row your boat', a simplistic fugue. I don't remember dancing happening.

I saw this via a video, I don't know if it is available.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 16:35:39 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: G and all
Subject: Well ...
Message:
since I just sent a curt note to EV telling them to take my husband and I off their mailing list, and that I thought M was a fraud, they won't want to be sending me that vid anytime soon.

I kept on the list for years, kind of cackling or sneering at the mailings, but I felt like I didn't need to waste my time.

Seriously though, anyone got the soundtrack? It would be great to sample it and make a hip-hop tune. Of course, he'd trot out his IP lawyers on that one! LOL. They could play it in court. Turn the court case into a media circus. No 1 on the dance charts.

==f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 19:24:41 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: He sang with Daya at Hans Jayanti in Delhi
Message:
in 1999. It was horrendous. He is completely tone-deaf and has an ugly raspy voice. But of course the flock loved it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:56:49 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: G
Subject: he would step on toes...don't waltz with him
Message:
I imagine dancing WITH him a la ballroom dancing would be a nightmare of flailing arms and crushed toes.

God, G, that donkey bray singing of his really was the last straw. I am convinced that he must have been drunk. I also now think that he was drunk when he did his wobble dance. Notice how he would always nip out after his sermon first and then come back and do the wobble?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:05:59 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: drunk
Message:
He very well could have been drunk, I remember a film where he was going down the steps after 'dancing' and he bumped into the wall. I thought 'Oh, he's drunk with the love of us premies.' Now, given the reports from many reliable sources of his drinking problem, I think it's more likely he was just drunk. Come to think of it, while 'doing service' I saw him bump into a door. Hmmm.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:28:25 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Curious
Subject: God Maharaji is a Bad Dancer...
Message:
I was unmoved at best and at worst repulsed. Those late nights with the Lord dancing were Hell for me and I thought it was because I was so 'in my mind'.

The worst time was in that field near Orlando. I elbowed my way to the front of the crowd and then was tortured by over an hour of his 'satsang' and then he came out dressed in his flowery mala and sat quivering on his throne as all the premies around me went wild.

Then to their delight he stood up and danced and after about two minutes of this I couldn't take it, so I went into one of those portable toilets at the back and had a cigarette. I felt like I was an alien there. What the hell was it all about? God, it was horrible!

But everywhere there were grinning premies and I just wanted to crawl into a hole somewhere and let it be all a bad dream.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:26:18 (GMT)
From: Joy
Email: None
To: Curious
Subject: Maharaji's Dancing
Message:
Yes, he is a lousy dancer. He doesn't so much dance as just wave his arms about in the air and do a little two-step and before you know it he's high-tailed it offstage in a self-conscious manner.

I don't know what this fascination with his dancing is. More projection of supposed divinity onto him by association with the Krishna myth, which he has fostered (part of his act inherited from his father, who used to do the same thing and pose with the Krishna crown and flute).

I think it was the music which used to whip us up into a frenzy, all that One Foundation singing and building up the atmosphere and everybody just getting all over-excited in the anticipation. The whole thing does not work if you don't believe Maharaji's God. If you do, all he has to do is glance sideways and everybody goes into raptures. I think it was just mass hysteria. I, personally, used to get totally blissed out, but that was because of the mass hysteria thing, certainly not from his dancing skills. John Travolta he ain't, but that isn't the point. I think what the mass hysteria thing was saying was 'Maharaji come play with us, don't just sit there and preach, interact in some way' and the fact that it could appear that we could coerce him into doing this was what gave us what we felt as power and drove us insane with wild glee.

It was all carefully stage-managed, too. I used to work with the song lists and guys coordinating the music at programs during the late 70s, and Maharaji directed it and had it all planned down to the last note.

In retrospect it was all so completely nuts. I can't believe he's doing this again. Does the guy have no shame?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:59:10 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: a penguin doing the Hindu Wobble dance
Message:
Someone else posted before about the 'Hindu Wobble' dance, but it bears repeating.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:51:47 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: dunce, dunce, dunce
Message:
Thanks for the backscene and personal view. It was like a revival meeting. You just kind of talked yourself into how divine it was, and the music and the mood and the mob got you going. Oh, this rugged individualist had to turn it off for a few years and give her brain a rest, I guess.

I remember grinning from ear to ear during the music while I was off some service shift or other, in the back of the hall, dancing and swaying and grinning and freaking out the poor security guy that had his beat in the back of the hall.

But I used to get high on other stuff. Dance and party. Get wild, get wound up, let it all hang out. I found I didn't need drugs. Now I don't need Maha either. Yeah, baby!

Love, f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:50:22 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: The get high part
Message:
was before K. So then I found I could get high on K and M. But then I can get high without them, and no guilt hangover either.

Yee haa.

But that 'dancing.' Yikes. Good work if you can get it, I guess. I too have seen some large people that are incredible dancers, so size and flab has nothing to do with it.

As that funky blues song goes, 'it's not the meat, it's the motion.' He had the meat, and some strange motion. And it didn't go with the music. Does anyone have the words to that Rich Neel song, 'Won't you Dance, Dance, Dance'?? That would be a hoot.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:25:33 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Not enuf space
Message:
You'd need a bigger forum to get all the words down from one of Rich Neal's songs. You'd soon run out of space.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:08:05 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Rich Neel's songs
Message:
And there was the other one - 'In the downpour of the Holy Name'.

These songs helped to get us all going. There was a great frenzy going on. We were all singing 'Wont you dance, dance, dance....' and at the same time praying/hoping/dreaming that he would actually do it.

There were times I enjoyed it (back in 1979 etc), times I faked it and times I hated it. Mostly I felt sorry for the short-arsed people and aggro to people who were taller than me and were in front of me or on someone else's shoulders. It was a pretty mass type experience.

Similar technique that any decent rock group uses or DJ uses. Start slow and build it up. Rock groups with hits leave the hits for last when everyone can get really worked up. Crescendo and all that stuff.

Cheers

Peter

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:10:44 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Curious
Subject: Maharaji is a Bad Dancer...No sense of rhythm NT
Message:
m
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:28:44 (GMT)
From: la-ex
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: arti at amaroo-a pattern we have seen before?
Message:
It seems that this super devotional occurrence is something that has gone on before.

In 1976,with glasnost and perstroika taking hold within the cult, m came roaring back with the 'surrender' phase...ashrams re-opened, devotion was back in, and that nasty little trend towards 'world humanitarian leader' was relegated to the dust bins of DLM.

Then the personal confrontations in the 1980's, where m was once again confronted and asked to be a mere mortal by those around him. Heads rolled,and that blasphemy was quickly swept out as well.

In the late 1990's something unique: former premies, now ex-premies, are openly challenging m and proving him to be a liar and fraud on the new found technology of the internet.
(It's interesting to note that at the last Long Beach program in the late 90's, m arrogantly taunted the people on the EPO site, stating that there were about 25 people in the entire world who didn't like him or what he did, and challenged them. He also said that premies could get confused on the internet, so he also saw the potential at that time as well. This was before he had his sites out there.)

And now, to counter the recent challenges and personal revelations, he brings out the old reliables, arti and darshan, to bring the true believers in even tighter.
Stuff like, 'maharaji is maharaji'(a totally meaningless statement, but which can be used in all sorts of ways to allow premies to keep maharaji in his own category, where he is not judged) and 'knowledge is beyond the mind'(so are many profound things, but we also use the rational mind to evaluate their effect on and in our lives) are also thrown around,to help with the denial process.
Also, statements like 'you know the rules-I don't judge you, and you don't judge me' are helpful in avoiding the difficult questions.
And the mystical/prophetic 'And there will be wars where there was peace, and peace where there was war'....again, total horseshit that means absolutely nothing, but to the true believer, another profound revelation.

It's interesting to watch maharaji try and outmaneuver the critics by inoculating himself with statements such as these.

Most premies do not see this...they don't even remember what he said 5 minutes after he said it.

I think he sees the trouble that just won't go away....
Worship and devotion are 'beyond the mind' and are his last refuge from the ever accumulating disturbing questions that are infiltrating the premie world.

Only the truly blind will remain.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 08:41:09 (GMT)
From: Mr. Williams
Email: None
To: la-ex
Subject: arti at amaroo-a pattern we have seen before?
Message:
You guys are incredibly devoted to constantly and obsessively telling yourselves that Maharaji is a liar and a fake----negative affirmations that apparently work like a charm in your own lives.

'I'm the one that's got to die when it's my time to die; so let me live my life the way I want to.'
Jimi Hendrix

Love is love; I don't apply my rational mind to the love I have for my children, or for M---it's a feel thing, and it's digital:
yes or no, black or white. If that seems simplistic or pathetic or robotic to you----well, tough. As my Dad used to say,smiling,
'well, then, you can kiss my ass...'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 03, 2001 at 16:09:28 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Mr. Williams
Subject: M's hit and run incident alone...
Message:
..makes him BOTH liar and a fake.

Omni-nothing, without even the guts to face up to what he had done. If you can love M in spite of such endearing personal qualities, then - as you say - you are not using your rational mind, nor even basic human empathy. Shame.

BTW: there is nothing obsessive about making such information public and repeating it until premies everywhere might use it to reeavaluate M's worth as a human being - never mind humanitarian leader, or whatever. You might not care overmuch for your rational mind, but others certainly do - hence the dwindling donations to EV. Many here devoted the best years of their early adult lives (or longer) to serving M - all on the strength of his claims to being the Greatest, Most Powerful Ever Living Incarnation of God since the Big Bang. We have earned the right to express our opinions of the fraudulent piece of shit you hold so dear. If you don't like it, suggest you go forth and multiply.

And why even post if you are allergic to rationality? Who do you think you going to persuade - and of what?

Glad you love your kids. So how do they feel about the hit and run thing?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 23:39:01 (GMT)
From: Mr. Smarty Pants
Email: None
To: Mr. Williams
Subject: arti at amaroo-a pattern we have seen before?
Message:
I bet your dad said 'kiss my ass' while smiling . . .
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 14:51:54 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Mr. Williams
Subject: To Mr. Williams, on love
Message:
Mr. Williams,

I probably never would say that love is digital, although I do understand your meaning: it either is or it isn't. I, rather, would say that love is pure and absolute. We love truth, we love beauty, we love harmony, we love love. Yes? Whenever and however we experience harmony, we are so madly in love with it that it soothes us and enlivens us and finally makes us who we really are.

Unfortunately, although love is both true and simple, it can be misdirected. Whenever it becomes misdirected, it fails sooner or later. In Amaroo, Maharaji said that the experience of Knowledge is very easy to forget. He said he didn't know why it is easy to forget, because when it is remembered, it feels so right. I would say that the experience that Maharaji was talking about, that is so easy to forget, is not the true experience of simple love, it is the experience of love misdirected. That is why it is so easy to forget. And it is in fact forgotten whenever its object is absent and its particular conditions have diminished.

For our love to last we must get it from the right place and send it in the right direction - from the source which is the true source to ourselves and to all beings. It is a grand mistake to direct our love to a human being who claims to be our source of love but who in fact is not. Such a love is deeply perverted and will not stand up to the rational mind. Therefore, you conveniently abandon your rational mind in order to falsely sustain that imperfect love.

Truth is not afraid of rationality. Beauty and love exist easily in this world, even within the duality. But it must be the love that conquers the duality. That is the joy of this life. Once Maharaji said, 'You are receiving Knowledge, not me. If you were receiving me, you would be receiving duality.' When Maharaji said that, he was quite young, and he was altogether correct. Unfortunately, he has not continued to lead his premies in that proper direction. Rather than pointing them toward their own empowerment, he has put himself on that central throne while insisting that his students accept him as their source of that experience. He has trapped them in the very duality that he earlier warned against.

This is the big lie of all gurus. And it is the big loss of all devotees. It is a belief system that the human guru is the source of love. Such a belief system does not bring full harmony to a person's life. Instead, it alienates that person into a group-think which he can share with only his fellow cult members. The love that should be shared equally among all is hidden by the love that is conditional to the guru.

And therein lies the harm. The devotee is separated from his own inherent love of truth and beauty, and instead sees only a false image. Love is in every person and all it takes to know this love is to live life and learn its leasons. As we mature into our fullest potential, we accept life as it is. We no longer need the outside support of a guru or a cult or a belief system. All we need is our self and the life that we have been given. All persons need to attain this kind of maturity and they can easily do so.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 04, 2001 at 06:00:03 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Way to go! Tell it like is, brother. Right on! (nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 22:26:28 (GMT)
From: la-ex
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Beautiful,Way.Your insight countered the digital..
Message:
argument far better than I did a few lines below.

I guess I allowed his attitude to piss me off...just wanted to let you know that your wonderful and insightful post was a great response to Mr. Williams, and should be kept somewhere on EPO.

I'd like to see his response, if any.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 02, 2001 at 04:12:52 (GMT)
From: la-ex
Email: None
To: FA/Way
Subject: FA,I think this should be preserved on epo (nt)
Message:
bb
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 22:10:29 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Good post!! Nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 18:54:55 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: --KUDOS Way! GREAT post **best of***(OT)
Message:
I would also add that even in systems that are a bit more subtle than blatant Bhakti, like Tibetan Buddhism where the guru is not the 'source' per se, but becomes almost the 'path' to Buddhahood (which merely means enlightenment according to the PR) in guru yoga, we are losing out on the whole perceived (and to be perceived) universe, including of course, ourselves, being the path.

There is even a prayer to the teacher where you basically see everything in the universe (sound, perception, nature, etc.) to be a manifestation of your teacher, or guru. But theeeen, wait a minute! Why aren't THOSE THINGS all teachers, then? Why does it have to go back to this one (usually) guru/teacher guy? Why do we need this middle man? Guide I can accept, help I can accept, but not having to go through someone else to 'get it.'

The dark alley to enlightenment, where you might study with someone sincere, or get held up for all your money.

And yes Way, I agree that unconditional love, and the true source of love, is always a great smell test. Why do we need the Master, when the love is inside, is everywhere. Well, he can tell us about it, fine. And if you want to pay him to tell you about it, fine. But so what????

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 18:27:03 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: WOW! A must read!!!!!!! I nonimate for 'Best Of'
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 17:47:39 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Way, a MUST READ. Hope it doesn't get lost
Message:
You said: ''In Amaroo, Maharaji said that the experience of Knowledge is very easy to forget. He said he didn't know why it is easy to forget, because when it is remembered, it feels so right. I would say that the experience that Maharaji was talking about, that is so easy to forget, is not the true experience of simple love, it is the experience of love misdirected. That is why it is so easy to forget. And it is in fact forgotten whenever its object is absent and its particular conditions have diminished.''

To me that sums up the fallacy of guruism. True love is never forgotten and we do not have to be reminded and nagged again and again to remember it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 19:25:34 (GMT)
From: Chuck Sprague
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: A beautiful post, Way, ''Best of Forum'' YES...
Message:
Love for M. is so easy to forget, because it is so unreal. Most of us never even knew the man, and he dosen't know us, or even WANT to know us, as he has said himself. You have to 'Keep in Touch' to have the brainwashing renewed and reinforced. Some of the diehards seem to be auto-brainwashing themselves now, but even they go scrambling for their 'guru-fix', from programs, videos or broadcasts. To me, real love isn't hard to remember, and it doesn't have to hide or be secretive, or have to worry about holding up to scrutiny. That's what shame does. Real love wants the whole world to know.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 02, 2001 at 14:18:55 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: everyone
Subject: Thanks, guys, but Mr. Williams...
Message:
...didn't seem to like it. I admit I feel I bit sheepish about trying to talk somebody out of their love affair, especially since he quotes Jimi Hendricks about 'live and let live'. Normally, I allow people to have their illusions, I'm certainly in no position to correct people. But I guess he asked for it by posting here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 02, 2001 at 18:11:30 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Lest you feel too sorry
Message:
Someone who comes on here trying to preach to us about the goodness of M, and asks us to 'live and let live' re their beliefs is talking out of two sides of their mouth.

If they want such beliefs tolerated, why come here? No one will try to talk him out of his views if he never posts. So if he does, I'm afraid he asked for it, in a MAJOR way.

Why would you go to a pie shop and say, I don't want any pie please? Why would you come to an ex-premie forum and say, 'please don't disabuse me of my views of the master.' You've got to be crazy. Or expecting something you'll never get here. Compassion, yeah. But no one here is going to coddle such views. All of us had to suck it up and tolerate this crap when we were in the cult, and bite out tongues, and many of us continue to tolerate it from the premies in our circle of friends, and keep our views to ourselves and bite our tongues. I cannot tell them what I think.

If you come to this forum, I'll tell you. That's what this forum is for.

I'm so sick of premies who come here and quote the stuff about how they're welcome to post here. Yes they are, but that doesn't mean this forum's for them. And they conveniently forget the parts of the statement that remind them what the forum is for, like this part:

If you are a current premie, be aware that most of the people who post on the Forum are ex-premies, and that some ex's will be expressing negative feelings towards Maharaji and his organization. If you post pro-Maharaji messages, you may be met with anger or ridicule. Be prepared for this, but don't let it deter you from expressing your own views and feelings here.

It's called the ex-premie forum. What part of that don't they understand? The part they don't want to understand. Same as the parts of life they don't want to understand that don't harmonize with the Master's cheezy view of the world. Sheesh.

But you started a great thread, and raised some really great points. ;-)
In spite of trying to talk to someone jumping in a pool and asking that there not be water in there.

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 14:41:26 (GMT)
From: la-ex
Email: None
To: Mr. Williams
Subject: Mr Williams,the love is now digital?Please explain
Message:
Can you explain how the love is now digital?
That certainly is a new one to me.
Perhaps I would have stayed longer if I knew it was digital these days...it sounds so,I don't know...like so much horseshit, actually...

Also,as you are such a black and white, or digital type of guy...
how does m's lying and immoral behavior strike you?
If it's black and white, are you willing to admit that he's a proven liar and manipulator...one look at his old satsangs will dispel any doubts there...

And once you see the lies, in black and white (or digital), how does that make you feel?
And how do you explain the lies to the new people?
And how does it make you feel, once you lie to the new people, by deleting and distorting this information?

I'm not asking you to kiss my ass, like your dad did, just tell me the truth.
You can save the ass kissing for m...he needs it, and you like to give it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 20:00:45 (GMT)
From: Bob
Email: None
To: la-ex
Subject: love now digital?Please explain
Message:
Like in Digital examination in the doc's office?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 21:47:04 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Bob
Subject: love now digital? Softer than a vibrator, Bob NT
Message:
k
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 02, 2001 at 01:20:34 (GMT)
From: Vid yo
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: love now digital? Yeah, what's the matter haven't
Message:
you people hoid of sat-allah-lite transmissions?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:23:27 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: la-ex
Subject: Yes. A word about the late Seventies:
Message:
Nice post about the cyclical nature of Maharajism, whose cycles occur a little bit more rapidly than in more traditional Hinduism, where a bird with a scarf gradually wears down a mountain and then the next age begins once again.

I became a Satguru cultist in January of 1975, right after the Holy Family split. Kissed his right foot (and supposedly received Holy Breath, although it seemed to me he was talking to someone on his left at the time) at Hans Jayanti in the fall of that year.

Then it was 1976. No foot-kissing in Indianapolis! This is the interesting part of the story, I think. Because this is what I am sure we all believed: He was still our Lord and Savior, but we were cooling it for the purposes of propagation. And I am pretty sure that's what 21st century premies believe, too, even though I only know one premie personally. And I know that M is still Lord in her book.

So, anyway, when Rawat became Krishna again in 1977, I couldn't have been happier. That's what premies dig, of course. Bhakti hoodoo. Maybe it's happening again, huh?

In a year or two I was gone, and into Denver's alternative art and music scene and happy as a pig in shit. I could once again think and laugh and joke around and be as free as a bird (I liked that faux Beatles hit, didn't you?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:43:26 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: la-ex
Subject: Bring on the dancing girls
Message:
And remain they sure will but only 4,500 out of billions. It's hardly a cult even, more like an exclusive club. I think Maharaji will now just let rip and go full scale hard-core. Maybe get the old Krishna crown dusted off and take dancing lessons.

Your post is very perceptive.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:15:06 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Sir Dave and all
Subject: it reminds me of nothing so much as a guilty sin
Message:
--they finally get a place out in the remote outback where they can control the perimeter and the guests entering, and once gathered and alone together, they can finally indulge in their strange, warped, sinful pleasures without the prying eyes of the disapproving world upon them.
reminds me of S and M clubs, Vampire blood-drinking clubs, nudist colonies, Gay bath-houses, covens, satanists...you name it. their greatest dream is to have someplace away from the world where they can have complete freedom to be their full on weird self and be with others of like mind.

lest i set anyone on edge, here, allow me to add that I myself have been to vampire clubs, have been a nudist, have been to gay clubs tho not bath houses, have been to coven gatherings and sabbats and one gay orgy. so I'm not judgemental. Just observant about the parallels.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:38:53 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Did you go to the gay orgy in drag?
Message:
I can see you now taking notes: ''Ralph started by inserting his Rawat into Michael's Prempal but Gary pushed him out of the way and stuck a large baragon into Michael's quivering Balyogeshwar before you could say Monica Lewis and a hush fell over the crowd of aroused men. It was so quiet you could have heard a rat pissing on cotton.''
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 11:07:39 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: not the orgy, no. but the formal dnace i did.
Message:
funny you should ask that. in my freshman semester at college I fell in with the gay lib radical students. they were the only intelligent friends i could find. i don't do 'normal'.
when they held their coming out formal dance on campus in the castle-like student union, one cynical queen commented that i didnt have the balls to coto it in drag. so i did. I borrowed a tailcoat from a music school keyboard major, patent leather band shoes from another, flattened my chest with an old crotchless girdle, and spent a careful hour tanning my face, mascara fluffing out my eyebrows, created a fice oclock shadow with a carpenter pencil rubbed acrss sandpaper and gently blotting the paper to my chin, jaw and upper lip to glint in the low lights, and oiled my hair into a ronald reagan pompadour. a cummerbun of paisley silk scarf, a bow tie,, tuxedo pants, and a grand floor length , hooded wool cape unfurling in the breeze as i strode across campus stopped traffic and left bystanders staring.i made the Entrance of the Evening. I threw the huge oaken doors wide so they boomed against the walls, and swept the crowd with my penetrating gaze from the top of the stairs. No one knew who i was. I descended slowly, taking in every face, cruising each one shamelessly as i passed or approached.
I moved thru the foyer silently, bristling with mystery and charisma, hunting, searching, intent.
at the end of the hall i found the Queen of the community--holding court on a bench, surrounded by fawning onlookers, was the one I wanted to upstage. He/she was gowned in red velvet like queen elizabeth herself, with a ruff and a headdress and opera makeup. Sweeping up to her in best european style, bowing, taking her gloved hand and kissing it, raising one intriguing eyebrow and turning smartly on my heel, I offered her my arm and gestured to the grand ballroom. She rose and fanned her bosom, thrilled but perplexed, and accepted my elbow. I threw my cape back behind my shoulders arrogantly and proceeded to begin the processional that formally opened the festivities. Everyone milling about the lobby and vestibule fell in step behind us in pairs and we all marched gracefuly in measured pace, once around the ballroom, until everyone was in. At the conclusion of the grand processional, everyone turned to the center and bowed, and then broke into uproarious applause. I turned tomy grand madame and bowed again and just as mysteriously as i had entered, I winked and slipped away out to the entry again.
there i found my dorm friends who had issued the dare. their jaws hit the floor when they realized it was me. I completely broke the spell when i spoke, at long last. the one who had dared me, raised his voice so as to be heard by all and announced 'why JANET--i DIDN'T THINK YOU'D MAKE IT' . several men behind him gasped and pressed closer to be sure, then exclaimed to each other 'oh my god--it's a woman! and i was cruising, hoping to take him home! oh!'

I turned around to meet my double--a violin pretege i had heard about from my friends--dressed exxactly like me. we broke out laughing, did a mirror mime for fun, and promptly joined arms and decided we were each other's date for the nonce. It was safer than getting rejected all night by people we didnt know!

i shoulda bet money. I coulda cleaned up.

but the orgy was a different night, a different party, and I was simply wandering thru the house. it was a coed party, so i'd mill around with the lesbians i knew in the kitchen awhile, then go into the livingroom and dance with the guys, then outside on the patio, then stand in the doorway of the orgy room awhile and take it all in.

i knew justabout everyone there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 17:57:06 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: He oiled his way across the floor, oozing charm
Message:
from every pore...

And announced to the host that she was a fraud.

I once went to a lesbian club with some dyke pals in London with make-up on (no drag) when I was 21 and still pretty and had the girls swooning until they realized I was a fegelah.

Those were the days my friend...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 22:30:42 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: How many went to Amaroo?
Message:
EV say 4500. So from registration alone if this figure is correct they got 1.8 million USD. Assuming 500 stayed on site and paid the 800 USD mandatory voluntary donation, that adds another 400,000 USD. Even adding the profit on camping and food, that's still well short of the next payment on the new yacht with helicopter landing site. The darshan line expressions of gratitude would need to be generous!:-)

John the makes up the numbers as he goes along.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 11:17:50 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: how many went to St Ives?...
Message:
'while I was going to Saint Ives
I met a man with seven wives.
every wife had seven sacks;
every sack had seven cats;
every cat had seven lives:
lives, cats, sacks, wives--

How many were going to saint Ives?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 23:14:55 (GMT)
From: Will
Email: None
To: All
Subject: What will be his next stunt?
Message:
In the Amaroo Circus there were standup comics, lard playing live music, and a foot kissing ritual. I wonder what mister freak show will come up with next to keep his dwindling flock interested.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:22:57 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Will
Subject: What will be his next stunt?
Message:

All that stuff has been done before , & is one of the things that the flock dreams of .

He's just replaying the old LP .

It might be a bit scratched , but with the digital remastering it's still that old time tune that's so good to remember .

I really wouldn't underestimate the guy , he has a tenacious grip , a whole pile of dough , smart lawyers & he's gonna die with his boots on .

He may not be the brightest lightbulb in the chandelier , but I reckon he's got a low cunning streak that more than makes up .

It's back to the future.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:15:44 (GMT)
From: bill-hmm, crown, mala,
Email: None
To: Bin Liner
Subject: dancing with that slut monica lewis,
Message:
daughter premloada singing along with dad on piano,
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 21:27:38 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: I have something to confess -- it's embarassing
Message:
Dear folks,

My ego deserves to be publicly flogged for this. But if it 'twas just for the purpose of self-flagellation, I wouldn't have bothered. I think my tale is kind of scary.

The confession? I was going through my backup income tax return information yesterday and found a thank you letter from Elvan Vital, signed by Katie Thomas, dated October, 1994, for my contribution to them through United Way. Why is this shocking?

Because in 1982 before I moved out of the 'shram, I had a strong epiphany that M wasn't the Lord, while I was jogging back to the ashram. Kind of like a lightning bolt. I attributed the feeling of love that flooded into my heart immediately after that to Maharaji, though. (This is truly sick.)

After my husband and I moved from SF in 1984, around 1985 or 1986, we were so disillusioned by the tightly controlled satsang (only instructors or specially authorized speakers that had taken some sort of training, I think), boring presentation geared toward new recruits, we quit being involved, for the most part. We went to two local events when premies were in our area visiting, and 3 programs in the Bay Area. between 1984 and 1991 or 1992. My husband said the only reason he went was to see friends. (He never was too devoted to M.)

Many of my friends and some family members, you understand, were still very involved in this. So I never really allowed myself to look at this whole thing head on. Never saw it for what it was totally. Drip, drip, drip. Who wants to think that one has been a total gullible fool and that loved ones and family still are?

Went on with my life, wasn't practicing K, and we went to a program in the early 90's (perhaps 92?) in Oakland. I was already doing other spiritual practices. That was what I thought to be the final drip. I hated his speaking style. The tacky presentation, complete with 'adore me, the Master' videos. After listening to Tibetan Buddhists and teachers from other traditions, he sounded like a cheezy fake used-car-salesman of spirituality on a 3rd rate TV channel late at night. Doing a home made ad. I couldn't wait for him to shut up. The premies' reactions sickened me (soft sobbing and, oh hurl, bliss)! Still with so many premie friends (including the people that went with us and had dinner with us afterwards) so enamored of the hamster, I told very few people how disgusting he was. I even had a darshan dream to kind of 'make things up.' But it didn't really. The proof was in what I saw.

And I thought I'd had no involvement after that until I saw that letter yesterday. I went running into the house with it to show my husband, saying, 'I am such an idiot!'

Mind you, it wasn't for much money, but that isn't the point. What the hell was I doing donating money to this guy, what short of guilt trip, what sort of hooks get into people who are members of cults? People who walked away and left all their premie contacts behind maybe got a clean break, I don't know.

This is scary. And to those people who come on here and tell us to 'get a life,' I'll bet they don't have theirs back yet. Really. Otherwise they'd be glad this site was here, even if they felt they didn't need if for themselves. But I'll bet many of them are in denial about how far away they've really gotten. Take it from one who knows. God only knows what else I'll find when I clean up this place.

love, f
;O

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:30:25 (GMT)
From: Mr. Mind
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: For Your Penance and My Confession
Message:
find one of those old psychedelic M buttons (you know the one where he looks to be a fat middle-aged man). Then, go to the business center of your city and sing Arti and give satsang about the LOTU. Do this at the noon hour.

Sadly enough, if one where actually to do this, a few susceptibles would come forward. Probably in larger numbers than the current cult recruiting efforts.

5 years after I have left the cult, I still find myself looking for someone to be grateful too when things seem to be 'going right for me' and look within when they seem to be 'going wrong'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 11:54:18 (GMT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: We forgive you my child
Message:
Can you make your next check payable to my charity,

Salam Rippoff Merchant Charity (SROMCH),

Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 03, 2001 at 11:58:34 (GMT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: said like a true child
Message:
amien
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 02, 2001 at 03:27:13 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: I can always count on you to show me the way n/t
Message:
salam da man
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 22:08:11 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: through United Way? confused
Message:
Join the club in embarrassing... uck need an editor around here.

But, how was United Way involved with EV do you know? They (United Way)are all over us every year for donations to various charities but I certainly didn't see EV listed, yuck!!!! Does United Way facilitate donations somehow?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:09:39 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: I have the same question...
Message:
I believe it is possible to designate a 'charity' for United Way donations, but I thought the 'charity' had to be approved by United Way.

Every year when I make my contributions to the United Way, I select certain charities that I want my donations to go to. I have never seen Elan Vital listed, but it might be possible to make a special selection through the United Way.

But I have NEVER heard of the United Way funding cults, and I think if they knew what Elan Vital was about, they wouldn't give them a dime.

So, Francesca, is it really true that you made donations to Elan Vital through United Way?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:30:33 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Yesiree
Message:
My employer twists arms to donate to United Way. So in the early 90s I finally capitulated for several years and gave about $10 or $15 a month split among several charities. They don't have to be in the book. You can designate whoever you want. One other employee who was sick of the pressure donated to her local church that way. That's where I got the idea. I donated to Convenant House (a national Catholic charity for runaways), or local soup kitchen Loaves & Fishes, our local Salvation Army, and several others over the years, including Elan Vital.

Then I stopped donating for several years. I donate again, but I don't bother designating, I just stipulate that the money goes to the local mix of charities United Way funds.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:00:25 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Question....
Message:
Francesca, did you ever hear Elan Vital suggest that people donate to them using the United Way?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:36:38 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Question....Joe.
Message:
Hi Joe,
Wasnt there some improper behaviour or issues around the
charitable status that was uncovered here previously?
Has whatever that has been uncovered over time made its way to the proper authorities like I have always assumed?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:58:18 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Question....Joe.
Message:
I believe the last time I checked the California state AG's database they were in good order. I believe Mike Dettmers (who left in the 80s) has posted here about their problems with the IRS, which he helped solve while he worked for M.

Here's the AG's site, it's pretty handy for looking up charities. AG's charities pages

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 01:05:46 (GMT)
From: Chuck Sprague
Email: bctanda@hotmail.com
To: Francesca and All.
Subject: Frannie, I couldn't find Elan Vital Inc. ....
Message:
... via the link to AG's charities pages. I did find a link to the Better Business Bureau on their site, and www.bbb.org has a page for registering complaints about charities at:

http://www.bbb.org/bbbcomplaints/pasform.asp

I couldn't find Elan Vital in the BBB database, either. Can anyone confirm for me, that Elan Vital's current address is still:

Elan Vital Inc.
2730 Wishire Blvd. Ste 220
Santa Monica, CA 90403

Mailing address:

Elan Vital Inc.
P.O. Box 6130
Malibu, CA 90264

The BBB complaint form also asked for their phone number, but I have never seen a phone number for Elan Vital, so I filed a complaint without it. You can complain anonymously if you want (I didn't), and you can also write to them via snail mail if you prefer:

Philanthropic Advisory Service
Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.
4200 Wilson Blvd.
Suite 800 Arlington, VA 22203

I'll let you know what I hear from them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 03:47:37 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Chuck Sprague
Subject: Found them - Secretary of State's corporate filing
Message:
Here's the site -- type in Elvan Vital into the search box. There's loads of them.

corporation search

Some of them are suspended. The only one I know for sure is the right one is the one whose agent for service of process is Linda Gross.

The info they have is:

Corporation
ELAN VITAL, INC.
Number: C0661537 Date Filed: 7/26/1972 Status: active
Jurisdiction: COLORADO
Mailing Address
PO BOX 6130
MALIBU, CA 90264
Agent for Service of Process
LINDA S GROSS
2730 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 220
SANTA MONICA, CA 90403

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:55:01 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: No, never
Message:
I was really out of the EV thing except for those mailings that I got, and they never mentioned it. Just sent envelopes to send my monthly donation, which I didn't do monthly.

The United Way thing was an idea someone cooked up at work to get our employer's United Way campaign off our back. If you were a registered nonprofit or church in good standing, United Way was probably more than happy to skim off their administration fees and send the money on.

I'm not sure whether I did it for one year or two. I eventually stopped entirely with individual designations.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 22:24:08 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: I assumed that United Way were her employers...
Message:
... and that she was making donations through the company's payroll. Of course I could be wrong:-)

John the gave far too fucking much for far too fucking long and still took about a fucking month to cancel my fucking standing order after discovering this site.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 22:06:14 (GMT)
From: Mercedes
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Francesca I don't understand...
Message:
...how a contribution to United Way goes to EV?
I thought contributions were direct to EV. I know I may be in la-la land around this area.
Francesca I agree with you that we don't know how deep the cult tentacles have affected our lives. I find myself calling daddy, yes embarrasing, when I call for my higher power and I catch myself everytime so I reprogram my brain, I say No, no daddy...so my god is a goddess now.
Anyway thank you for your post.
Take care,
Mercedes
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 20:14:45 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Atheistic evolutionism vs theistic creationism
Message:
The FV atheists argue that evolution disproves the existence of a god or prime cause. I think that is fallacious.

Yes, there is suffcient evidence that all current life forms evolved from simple one-celled organisms but evolution does not explain the existence or the creation of the cosmos before life began.

What caused the Big Bang and WHY?

Until I can answer that question I will call myself an agnostic.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 00:41:21 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Asking THOSE questions
Message:
Dear PatC

I've a partner who has absolutely no interest in asking or considering those types of questions. She appreciates that others do have that need but feels a bit like a non-footbal lover at a football match. She can see others enthusiasm, energy and can engage at times but the energy trails away for her.

From being with her I now ask myself quesions like - :What is it in me that wants to know? If I actually had THE answer how much of a different would it make to mine and other's lives? etc

And while I can't answer THE question I certainly can answer the ones above. They are important to ask because if I hadn't had those type of questions I would not have got involved/succoured/succered with MJ.

Cheers

Peter Howie

ps I'm still answering them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 23:52:03 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Peter Howie
Subject: Asking THOSE questions
Message:
Hi Pete,

Speaking as a former premie/new-ager but now a convinced and unashamed neodarwinian, I understand your partner's equating the big questions with trivial stuff like football.

But I SO wish people generally, would at least try to get a grasp of the full implications of Natural Selection. Evolutnary theory is no longer a BIG question. On the available evidence it is arguably as solid as gravitational theory.

Forget the big bang. Evolutionism vs. creationsism is NOT trivial. For one thing, our current biological understanding leaves not a spare molecule's worth of explanatory space for the possiblity of Perfect Masters or Divine Incarnations.

Tell your missus. She might even appreciate it as much as I did ;)

'The Blind Watchmaker' is always a good start.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 02, 2001 at 00:20:26 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Asking THOSE questions
Message:
Dear Nigel,

It is slightly different from what you are saying - though I agree with the largeness of those ideas.

The questions is 'why do I ask those questions - and why do I think that makes me any different from someone who doesn't?'

Cheers

Peter

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 09:00:22 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Peter Howie
Subject: You said: ''I'm still answering them.'' Me too.
Message:
I hardly ever take those questions seriously. I answer mine by making the most of what I've already got which is a lot and I don't need much more.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 22:42:10 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: 1.Hawking: 'A Brief History of Time'
Message:
The Real Issue
Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet the Author: Dr. Henry 'Fritz' Schaefer III
Dr. 'Fritz' Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. 'The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, `So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan.' -U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(This article is a transcript of a lecture Dr. Schaefer presented at the University of colorado in the spring of 1994. Over 500 students and professors were present.):

Stephen Hawking's bestseller A Brief History of Time is the most popular book about cosmology ever written. The questions cosmology addresses are scientifically and theologically profound. Hawking's book covers both of these implications.
Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole--it's structure, origin and development. I won't answer all the questions Hawking raises concerning cosmology, but I will try to make comments on many of them. I caution here that you should not confuse cosmology with cosmetology, the art of beautifying the hair, skin, and nails!
Here are some of the questions cosmology seeks to answer (As elsewhere in this lecture, I borrow heavily from astrophysicist Hugh Ross' excellent books The Fingerprint of God and The Creator and the Cosmos.):

1. Is the universe finite or infinite in extent and content?
2. Is it eternal or does it have a beginning?
3. Was it created? If not, how did it get here? If so, how was this creation accomplished and what can we learn about the agent and events of creation?
4. Who or what governs the laws and constants of physics? Are such laws the product of chance or have they been designed? How do they relate to the support and development of life?
5. Is there any knowable existence beyond the known dimensions of the universe?
6. Is the universe running down irreversibly or will it bounce back?

Let me begin with five traditional arguments for the existence of God. It may seem an unlikely starting point for this topic, but I think you'll see as time goes on that these arguments keep coming up. I'm not going to comment right away on whether these arguments are valid or not, but I will state them because throughout astrophysical literature these arguments are often referred to:

1. The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.
2. The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
3. The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.
4. The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
5. The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being.

The Big Bang

The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated a dozen years later: 'Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole.' He later said, 'We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started.'

Albert Einstein's reaction to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity appear to acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning. However, before publishing his cosmological inferences, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a 'fudge factor,' to yield a static model for the universe. Einstein later considered this to be the greatest blunder of his scientific career.

Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called 'the necessity for a beginning' and eventually to 'the presence of a superior reasoning power.' But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.

Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b) If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a cause. You can see the direction in which this argument is flowing--a direction of discomfort to some physicists.

In 1946, George Gamow, a Russian-born scientist, proposed that the primeval fireball, the 'big bang,' was an intense concentration of pure energy. It was the source of all the matter that now exists in the universe. The theory predicts that all the galaxies in the universe should be rushing away from each other at high speeds as a result of that initial big bang. A dictionary definition of the hot big bang theory is 'the entire physical universe, all the matter and energy and even the four dimensions of time and space, burst forth from a state of infinite or near infinite density, temperature, and pressure.'
The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from the Bell Telephone laboratories convinced most scientists of the validity of the big bang theory. Further observations reported in 1992 have moved the big bang theory from a consensus view to the nearly unanimous view among cosmologists: there was an origin to the universe approximately 15 billion years ago.

About the 1992 observations, which were from the COBE (the NASA satellite Cosmic Background Explorer), there was a story on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the world. The thing that the London Times, New York Times, etc. seemed to pick up on was a statement by George Smoot, the team leader from the Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory. He said, 'It's like looking at God.' Obviously, this captured the public's attention.

A somewhat more sober assessment of the findings was given by Frederick Burnham, a science-historian. He said, 'These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years.'

Not everyone was ecstatic about these observations that revealed the so-called 'big bang ripples.' Certainly, those who had argued so strongly and passionately for a steady-state model of the universe didn't like the interpretation of these results at all--primarily two persons, Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer, and Jeffrey Burbidge, a very distinguished astrophysicist at the University of California at San Diego.

We can begin to get into the philosophical implications of these observations when we assess Burbidge's statement (made during a radio discussion with Hugh Ross) on these things. Burbidge discounts the new experiment. He is a strong advocate still today, in the face of overwhelming evidence, of the steady-state theory. He says these new experiments come from 'the first church of Christ of the big bang.' I can tell you that my former colleague George Smoot, at the Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory, took strong exception to this statement. He absolutely insisted his observations were in no way colored by any religious presuppositions.

Burbidge does say something that is true, however. He favors the steady-state hypothesis and claims his view supports Hinduism and not Christianity. That is correct, because a steady-state theory of the universe, were it to be true, would provide some support for the endless cycles taught by Hinduism. The big bang theory is significant evidence against Hinduism.

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.
These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe (another popular view).
Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, 'the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics,' and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the 'instant of creation remains unexplained.'

I want to quote from a book that I don't recommend. It is by a brilliant physicist, Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner. It is called The God Particle and although the title sounds very appealing, the good information is all in the first paragraph. The rest of it is just a case for the building of the SSC, the Super Conducting-Super Collider, which we now know is not going to be built. Therefore the book is a bit of a Rip Van-Winkle sort of experience! But the first paragraph is wonderful; it's a great summary of what I have said so far:

In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.
That is about all that Lederman has to say about God--in the first paragraph--and that's the end of it. The thing that has made Hawking's book so popular is that he is talking about God from beginning to end.

Stephen Hawking

Hawking is probably the most famous living scientist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is available in paperback and I strongly recommend it. It has sold in excess of 10 million copies, and I think he sold about five million before the paperback version. For a book to sell so many copies is almost unheard of in the history of science writing.

There has been a film made about the book. The film is also good. There has even been a book made about the film. Hawking has a wonderful sense of humor. He writes in the introduction of the second book, 'This is the book of the film of the book. I don't know if they are planning a film of the book of the film of the book.'

I want to begin by saying something about Stephen Hawking's scientific research. Hawking has made his reputation by investigating, in great detail, one particular set of problems: the singularity and horizons around black holes and at the beginning of time. Now, everyone is sure if you encountered a black hole, it would be the last thing you ever encountered--and that is correct! A black hole is a massive system so centrally condensed that the force of gravity prevents everything within it, even light, from escaping.

Hawking's first major work was published with Roger Penrose, a physicist very famous in his own right, and George Ellis, during the period 1968-1970. They demonstrated that every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past. This is now known as the 'singularity theorem,' and is a tremendously important finding.

Later, working by himself, in 1974, he began to formulate ideas about the quantum evaporation of exploding black holes, the now famous 'Hawking radiation.' These are all tremendously important scientific works.

The work most referred to in A Brief History of Time is also the most speculative: the 1984 work with James Hartle, a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Using an elegant vacuum fluctuation model, they were able to provide a mathematical rationalization for the entire universe popping into existence at the beginning of time. This is also called the 'universe as a wave function.' I need to emphasize that they were using very simple models. Now, while such mathematical exercises are highly speculative, they may eventually lead us to a deeper understanding of this creation event.

Hawking is certainly the most famous physicist in history who has not won the Nobel Prize. This has puzzled people. They automatically assume he has won the Nobel Prize. He has not yet. This is because the Swedish Royal Academy demands that an award-winning discovery must be supported by verifiable experimental or observational evidence. Hawking's work, to date, remains unproved. The mathematics of his theory, however, are certainly beautiful and elegant. Science is just beginning to verify the existence of black holes, let alone verify 'Hawking radiation' or any of his more radical theoretical proposals.

My opinion is that within the next year or two we will have firm evidence for the existence of black holes. Unfortunately, I think the person who will get the Nobel Prize will be the observa-tionalist who comes up with its data. So I think Hawking may not get the Nobel Prize soon, even though he's the world's most famous scientist.
Even if some aspects of Hawking's research turn out to be wrong, he will have had a profound impact on the history of scientific thought. Einstein was wrong about all matter of things, especially quantum mechanics, and we still recognize him as one of the three great geniuses of physics.

And God

A Brief History of Time says a lot about God. God is mentioned in this book from beginning to end. So let us try to put Hawking's opinions about God in some sort of a context. The context is that Stephen Hawking made up his mind about God long before he became a cosmologist.

The principle influence in his early life was his mother, Isabel. Isabel Hawking was a member of the Communist Party in England in the 1930's, and her son has carried a good bit of that intellectual baggage right through his life.

By the time he was 13, Hawking's hero was the atheist philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. At the same age, two of Hawking's friends became Christians as a result of the 1955 Billy Graham London campaign. According to his 1992 biographers, Hawking stood apart from these encounters with 'a certain amused detachment.' There is nothing in A Brief History of Time that deviates in a significant way from the religious views of the 13-year old Stephen Hawking.

The most important event of his life occurred on December 31, 1962. He met his future wife, Jane Wilde, at a New Year's Eve party. One month later, he was diagnosed with a terrible disease, ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. He was given two years to live at that time. That was 32 years ago. I have had three friends die of this disease. It's a horrible disease. They lasted two, three, and five years, respectively. By anyone's estimation, Stephen Hawking is a medical miracle.
At this point in his life, 1962, Stephen was by all accounts an average-performing graduate student at Cambridge University. Let me quote from his biographers, White and Gribbon, on this point:

There is little doubt that Jane Wilde's appearance on the scene was a major turning-point in Stephen Hawking's life. The two of them began to see a lot more of one another and a strong relationship developed. It was finding Jane that enabled him to break out of his depression and regenerate some belief in his life and work. For Hawking, his engagement to Jane was probably the most important thing that ever happened to him. It changed his life, gave him something to live for and made him determined to live. Without the help that Jane gave him, he would almost certainly not have been able to carry on or had the will to do so.

They married in July of 1965. Hawking himself has said that 'what really made a difference was that I got engaged to a woman named Jane Wilde. This gave me something to live for.'
Jane Hawking is an interesting person in her own right. I think she decided early on to get into an academic discipline as far as possible from her husband. She has a doctorate in Medieval Portuguese Literature!

Jane Hawking is a Christian. She made the statement in 1986, 'Without my faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation;' namely, the deteriorating health of her husband. 'I would not have been able to marry Stephen in the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me through and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it.'

The reason the book has sold 10 million copies, i.e., the reason for Hawking's success as a popularizer of science, is that he addresses the problems of meaning and purpose that concern all thinking people. The book overlaps with Christian belief and it does so deliberately, but graciously and without rancor. It is an important book that needs to be treated with respect and attention.
There is no reason to agree with everything put forth in A Brief History of Time and you will see that I have some areas of disagreement. It has been said that this is the most widely unread book in the history of literature. I first prepared this material for a lecture in December 1992, because I was asked by a friend in Australia to come and speak on it. He told me, 'A great many people in Sydney have purchased this book. Some claim to have read it.' So I encourage you to be one of those who have actually read A Brief History of Time.
--------------------------------

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 23:13:53 (GMT)
From: such
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Q.and A.s: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/as
Message:
Questions and Answers regarding Cosmology and the Big Bang at:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/ask.html

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 05:42:42 (GMT)
From: such
Email: None
To: such
Subject: correction: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 22:44:57 (GMT)
From: such
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: 2. Big Bang Theory
Message:
The Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that the observable universe started from an instantaneously expanding point, roughly ten to twenty billion years ago.

Foundations of the Big Bang Theory

The hot Big Bang Theory is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It rests on two seeming sound pillars:

* The General Theory of Relativity: Over eighty years ago, Einstein proposed this theory that describes how the distribution of mass in the universe determines the geometry of the space. Originally, the theory was able to account for peculiarities in the orbit of Mercury and the bending of light by the Sun. In recent years, the theory has passed a series of rigorous tests.
* On the largest scales, the distribution of matter in the universe is nearly uniform. This assumption appears to confirmed both by galaxy surveys and by the low level of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation

In the hot Big Bang Theory, the observable universe began with an instantaneously expanding point, roughly ten to twenty billion years ago. Since then, the universe has continued to expand, gradually increasing the distance between our Galaxy and external galaxies. The expansion of the universe 'stretches' light rays converting blue light into red light and red light into infrared light. Thus, distant galaxies, which are rapidly moving away from us, appear redder. This expansion also cools the microwave background radiation. Thus, the cosmic microwave background radiation, which today has a temperature of 2.728 Kelvin, was hotter in the early universe. Gravity slows the expansion of the universe. If the universe is dense enough, the expansion of the universe will eventually reverse and the universe will collapse. If the density is not high enough, then the expansion will continue forever. Thus, the density of the universe will determine its ultimate fate.

Tests of the Big Bang Theory

The hot Big Bang Theory is consistent with a number of important observations:

* the observed expansion of the universe,
* the observed abundances of helium, deuterium and lithium, three elements thought to be synthesized primarily in the first three minutes of the universe,
* the thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation
* the cosmic microwave background radiation appears hotter in distant clouds of gas. Since light travels at a finite speed, we see these distant clouds at an early time in the history of the universe, when it was more dense and thus hotter.


Beyond the Big Bang Theory

In its current form, the big bang theory is not complete. It does not explain:

* the origin of galaxies and the observed large-scale clustering of galaxies
* the origin of the uniform distribution of matter on very large scales

Many cosmologists suspect that the Inflation Theory, an extension of the Big Bang Theory, may answer these questions.

Further Reading

* Peebles, P.J.E., Schramm, D.N., Turner, E.L. \& R.G. Kron 1991, 'The Case for the Relativistic Hot Big Bang Cosmology', Nature, 352, 769 -- 776.
* Peebles, P.J.E., Schramm, D.N., Turner, E.L. \& R.G. Kron 1994, 'The Evolution of the Universe'', Scientific American, 271, 29 -- 33.
* Will, Clifford, 'Was Einstein Right?'

-------------------------------------

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 03:51:26 (GMT)
From: such
Email: None
To: such
Subject: The Music of Creation:Read Gary and Such below!(nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 00:33:28 (GMT)
From: Gary Epton
Email: None
To: such
Subject: This Just In: Astronomers Hear Echoes of the Big
Message:
Bang. Remnants of explosive event back up theory that sound waves shaped birth of universe 12 to 14 billion years ago.

(From the Times of London, April, 2001, By Jonathan Leake and Roger Dobson (curiously the same surname as *John Dobson*)

Scientists have detected the sound of creation.

They have picked up echoes of the big bang, the explosive event thought to have signalled the birth of the universe 12 to 14 billion years ago. The echoes are the remnants of huge acoustic waves that surged through the white-hot plasma gases generated in the big bang.

Some physicists have suggested that such waves shaped the modern universe by concentrating matter in some areas and removing it from others - creating the structure we see today in which stars are concentrated into galaxies separated by huge voids. Until now there had been no real evidence of that theory.

The research was undertaken by an international team of scientists, including some from Britain, who surveyed the sky over Antarctica. They used a 1,575-kilogram telescope suspended from a balloon to measure fluctuations in the microwave radiation left behind by the acoustic waves.

The balloon circumnavigated the Antarctic for 10 days at a height of almost 37 kilometres before crash-landing on a remote ice shelf, forcing the astronomers to launch a hazardous rescue mission to collect their data.

'We have seen the ripples of the sounds of the big bang that nobody has seen before. It is the music of creation', said Phil Mauskopf from Cardiff University who led the British team involved in the project.

Cosmologists now believe that immediately after the big bang the early universe was so dense and hot that it underwent a massive and very rapid expansion known as inflation.

'These results are a tremendous confirmation of the inflammation theory. The noise was generated when inflation suddenly stopped. The resulting acoustic waves shaped the matter of the universe into what became galaxies and other structures', Mr. Mauskopf said.

Sir Martin Rees, the Queen's official astronomer said the research proved that sound waves had shaped the universe. 'If they had not been there the universe would have been filled with nothing more than an evenly distributed dilute gas'.

He added: 'The research also adds weight to the strangest idea of all: that our universe, far from being unique, is one of an infinite number of universes.'

The scientists have also made other important discoveries. The nature and levels of the background radiation confirm that 'ordinary' matter - the protons, electrons and neutrons of which Earth, the stars and all living things are made - comprise only about five per cent of the universe.

The findings add weight to suggestions that 45 per cent of the universe is made up of dark matter which cannot interact with light and so is invisible. It is thought to be made of neutrinos or another exotic particle.

The scientists have termed the remaining 55 per cent of the mass of the universe dark energy, because they know so little about it, said Jahn Carlstrom, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Chicago. 'Our research confirms it has an effect opposite to gravity which means it is accelerating the expansion of the universe' he said.

Just read the above article reprinted in my local newspaper - not that much of it makes any sense to me but thought the timing after reading your post was a bit of humorous synchronicity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 03:29:20 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Gary Epton
Subject: 5/1Just In:Astrophysicists hear Big Bang HARMONICS
Message:
do re mi fa so la ti do: THE MUSIC OF THE SPHERES - IN THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE ITSELF:

New York Times News Service 5/1/01
'2 detectors in Antarctica [Boomerang] have discovered minute patterns in a glow from primordial gases, possible traces of the cosmic match that ignited the big bang and led to the creation of the universe 14 billion years ago, astronomers announced on Sunday...

...The leading theory of how the universe could have exploded out of primordial nothingness, known as the theory of inflation, predicts that quantum fluctuations rattled the universe in such a [banana] way that it resonated like a vast organ pipe, with one main tone, or wavelength, and a series of overtones or harmonics.

Last year, Boomerang detected the main tone but found no clear evidence of overtones. Since much of the information about the fluctuations, like their relative intensity and spectrum, would reside in the characteristics of the overtones, those results raised the prospect that few remnants of the initial spark might be found.

On Sunday, the three teams announced that they had see two of the overtones for the first time. In musical terms, the observations saw the first two harmonics above the main tone...'

The chord initiating the Creation - the music of the spheres, indeed! Similarly, the first sense perceived in the womb and the last sense perceived on the way out [by the dying] -- sound -- as well as the fundamental wave force rippling out in the creation of the universe itself!! Astounding!!! What mathematical sonic perfection and harmony in the manifestation of existence!!!

Peace and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 11:34:54 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: so my astrology theory is right. and as usual
Message:
my posts and breakthroughs go up on this board about three weeks before the mainstream reaches the same conclusions.
anyone remember my theory?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 20:48:24 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Do you always live in a fantasy world Janet?
Message:
xx
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 21:09:35 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: (nt) Above post (nt)
Message:
xx
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 22:49:11 (GMT)
From: such
Email: None
To: such
Subject: 3. The Symmetric Theory
Message:
The Symmetric Theory

An alternative to Big-Bang cosmology

Øverview

* The Universe is dynamic, not steady-state. Creation is balanced by destruction and is ongoing & continuous.

* There is no expansion of space with time. Space is constant, it is time itself that changes with time. This variation in the rate of time results in the Hubble red-shift vs. distance relation. As Hubble's constant - a measure of the change in the rate of time - is a function of the regional mass density, it will vary somewhat between galaxy clusters. By invoking a Generalized Mach Principle, a gravitationally bound Universe is thermalized. Thus the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation maps the largest scale structures of the Universe, with the CMB dipole pointing to the 'super-galactic' center, while the quadrupole aligns with the super-galactic equator.

* By applying a Fractal Principle - of repeated structures over a range of scales - the Universe would resemble a super-spiral with sheets of galaxies clustered at regular intervals along an equatorial line-of-sight. Utilizing the CMB as an Absolute Reference Frame (ARF), the galaxies would exhibit a large proper velocity, which is a measure of the Universe's angular momentum. This view implies an interrelation of fundamental constants which provides some vindication of Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis.

* The Symmetric Theory requires revisions of the Standard black hole models & the General Relativistic treatment at these extremes. As holes are bound by their angular momentum, they can 'decay' through a non-Hawking path by ejecting 'white holes'. To break the matter-antimatter symmetry, white holes would decay further into matter and high energy photons. Thus Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRB) are the signature of the creation of matter. Therefor, matter/energy is 'destroyed' as it falls into holes, yet it is 'created' again as holes decay into matter/energy. This dynamic view necessitates a revision of the thermodynamic treatment of black holes as well, providing relief from the oft quoted 'heat death' of a static Universe.

* As galactic center holes lose angular momentum, to the rest of the galaxy or through interactions, they become 'excited', ejecting star-burst clusters or QSOs. Star burst clusters decay further into globular clusters, while QSOs form elliptical galaxies. As these holes have no spin angular momentum, they form objects with a spherical distribution. This ongoing creation of matter yields an alternate interpretation of 'metal-poor' Pop. II stars & blue-stragglers.

Note : In the Symmetric Theory, the term QSO (Quasi-Stellar Object or quasar) is reserved for ejected white holes. It is differentiated from Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) which often bear the same name in the literature.

* Elliptical galaxies are characterized by a single super massive black hole at their center, while spiral galaxies have a binary black hole system at their hearts. Spiral galaxies are formed when two elliptical galaxies merge. In time they coalesce to form a single larger elliptical galaxy.

* Time is a condition of existence and the rate of time is a function of age (the Age & Existence Axiom). From the Symmetric Principle, gravity can be viewed as a warpage by mass of the time field, with objects moving along the least time path (similar to Fermat's least time optics or Feynman's least action mechanics). As perturbations in the time field propagate with no time, and a finite velocity is necessary for a wave, gravity waves do not exist.

Evolution of Galactic Morphology

1 gif = 1 K·word

In the Symmetric Model, elliptical galaxies can be considered as in the 'ground state' of galactic morphology, whereas spiral galaxies are in an 'excited state'. In the simplest example, two elliptical galaxies fall together, spin up and form a spiral galaxy. In time, the galaxy coalesces, the central black holes merge and a larger elliptical galaxy is formed.

During the initial merger as the two galaxies combine, globular clusters & dwarf galaxies are generated about the forming spiral galaxy.

As spiral galaxies coalesce, they 'windup' in the converse of the classical Hubble sequence from 'late' to 'early' types. While the transition from Barred Spiral (SB) to Spiral (S) types - where the bar is hidden deep within the spherical nuclear bulge - is a function of the initial masses & angular momentums. This results in several parallel branches for the morphological evolution of 'disk type' galaxies.

Evolution of Disk Galaxies
SBc » Sc » Sb » Sa
SBc » SBb » Sb » Sa
SBc » SBb » SBa » Sa

Flat galactic rotation curves indicate that spiral type galaxies rotate as 'solid' disks. A consequence of an extended dark matter halo causing these galaxies to be more 'sticky' than in the classical models.

In the final phase of merger, as the galactic center holes fuse together, lenticular/S0 type galaxies become active, losing 'binding' energy in the form of powerful bipolar radio jets. The nearest active galaxy Centaurus-A (NGC 5128) is the prototypic example of this stage.

This merger process can repeat with different scenarios
(Spiral + Elliptical, Spiral + Spiral, counter rotating mergers etc.) eventually yielding a giant prolate cD galaxy in the heart of a galactic cluster.

Black holes are bound by their angular momentum. During interactions such as mergers, where angular momentum is lost, galactic center holes become unstable 'boiling off' white holes which decay further into globular clusters.

Starburst Clusters

These starburst clusters are globular clusters

in the process of forming . . .

A real puzzle for the Standard Model, starbirth clusters contain impossibly massive, hot blue young yet 'metal poor' Pop. II stars.

Extremely massive, blue hot stars (Wolf-Rayet, O & B type stars) are relatively sort lived, hence recently formed. In the standard view through stellar nucleosynthesis, the interstellar media is enriched over time with 'metals' (elements heaver than Helium). Thus young stars should be 'metal rich' Pop. I stars, while 'metal poor' Pop. II stars should have been formed long ago from 'primordial' material.
The Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) is in the process of merging with our much larger 'Milkyway' galaxy. It is a small spiral galaxy, though classified as a Dwarf Irregular due to distortion from this interaction. The LMC is a region of active star birth, starburst clusters and the SuperNova of 1987 (SN1987).

30 Doradus (30Dor) is the starburst cluster in the heart of the LMC's beautiful Tarantula Nebula. The central cluster region, named R136 is seen in this HST WFPC-2 image. The visual similarity of globular clusters such as M13 to starburst cluster R136 is striking!

As ejected holes have no spin angular momentum they form clusters with a spherical distribution.

NGC 604 a large starburst cluster in the 'Pinwheel' galaxy (M33) shares morphological characteristics with 30 Dor. The diameter and stellar densities are comparable to large globular clusters.

A member of the 'local group', M33 is relatively near ( ~ 2.3 Mly) in the constellation of Triangulum.

Note: This model of white hole decay into starburst clusters is applicable to Pop. II starbirth. It is to be differentiated from the standard nebular condensation Pop. I starbirth models as seen in the 'Eagle' nebula ( M16) in Scutum and in the Orion Nebula ( M42).

It is a strong prediction of the Symmetric Theory that these clusters are sites of the creation of matter and high energy photons.

Ring Galaxies

The 'Cartwheel' Galaxy

'Cartwheel' NucleusThis image of the 'Cartwheel' galaxy in Sculptor was taken with the Wide Field Planetary Camera (WFPC-2) on the HST.
The curved 'spokes' and the ring of starburst clusters are a mystery in the Standard Model. Yet they offer strong empirical corroboration of the Symmetric View.

The arcing 'spokes' are clear evidence of ejection perpendicular to the rotation axis. The 'Cartwheel' having lost angular momentum to a companion galaxy has been forced into an 'excited state'.   In the Symmetric Model it is 'decaying' by ejecting white holes, resulting in the 'spokes' and the ring of starburst material.


Over time the starburst clusters will decay further into a massive halo of MACHOs and globular clusters with long elliptical orbits about the galactic center.

One-Sided Jetting

Standard jet models involve a dense accretion disk that 'nozzles' excited material into two jets that squirt out along the polar axis. While this bipolar model is plausible for double-lobed radio galaxies, to account for the observed cases of one-sided jetting , a chance near 'face-on' alignment is required .

The reasoning is such that a jet travelling near radially away from the observer, will experience relativistic dimming while its approaching partner will be relativistically brightened such that only one jet is visible. Through a geometrical illusion, this chance alignment would also account for the apparent superluminal motion seen in many one-sided jets.

However, This model is applicable to only the most shallow of angles to the line-of-sight. This appears not to be the case for M87 - the giant elliptical, center dominant cD galaxy in the heart of the Virgo Cluster.

The active galaxy 3C273, also in Virgo, has a large one-sided jet that is visible in both the optical & radio. Using the MERLIN global array of 16 radiotelescopes, R.J. Davis et al. (Nature 354, 374-376 '91) have observed large-scale superluminal motion of the jet, with some of its knots displaying apparent velocities of nearly 5·c !

Note: This motion was measured directly by observations at different epochs, not via Doppler shifts. The greatest errors are in the value of H° used to infer the distance to 3C273 from its redshift of Z = 0.158 .
Corresponding optical images have been obtained with the Faint Object Camera (FOC) on the HST by R.C. Thomson et al. (Nature 365, 133-135 '93 see also J.N. Bahcall et al. ApJ 452, L91-L93 Oct.'95). The data indicates that, contrary to the standard model, the jet is aligned nearly perpendicular to the line-of-site.


Now this result challenges our most venerated paradigm. Yet, it is understood in the Symmetric Theory with the realization that the speed of light is a local constant. This is a direct extension of Einstein's principle of the lack of absolute simultaneity, and is effected through a variation of time.

Utilizing an optical reference geometry, M.A. Abramowicz has shown that the sign of the centrifugal force is reversed across the horizon of a black hole, the so called 'Centrifugal Force Paradox'. This implies that black holes are bound by their angular momentum. Thus, holes can decay in a non-Hawking way by increasing their angular momentum through ejection - tangent to the horizon & perpendicular to the rotation axis - of decaying white holes.

To break the matter-antimatter symmetry, these ejected holes decay further into matter & high energy light.

Thus the Universe is dynamic with creation and destruction ongoing & continuous. Matter/Energy is 'destroyed' as it falls into holes. Yet it is 'created' again as the holes decay into matter/energy.
Though continuous, a dynamic theory predicts that the rate of creation fluctuates with region and epoch. Unlike the Standard Theory which predicts all creation at one instant (the Big-Bang), nor the Steady-State Theory which predicts continuous uniform creation.

The paradigm is further challenged by the

recent empirical observations . . .

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 00:36:22 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: such
Subject: Hey, Professor, enough with the science already
Message:
Now my brain is overloaded. I think I'll smoke a joint and listen to some sacred music, Poulenc or Bruckner, a Stabat Mater or Magnificat - ''My soul doth magnify the Lord.''

I prefer poetry and music to philosophy as I am not very clever but revel in my emotions - just another bhakti yogi minus the Chubster. But I will bookmark the links and copy your posts in case my IQ increases one day.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 21:38:06 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~boomerang/
Message:
http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~boomerang/

BOOMERANG Press Page (April 29, 2001)
 
BOOMERANG CMB Fact Sheet: Background information on BOOMERANG and on the CMB
List of BOOMERANG Institutions
Previous Press Release With More Information
Press release images follow. Click on the thumbnail image for bigger version.

Better maps of the microwave sky and an analysis of a larger section of those mapsare two factors that have led to an improved picture of the kind of universe in which we live. The top map shows the previously analyzed section (rectangle), and the new expanded region of analysis (ellipse). The bottom image shows a map used in the previous analysis, which was released last year.

The 'New and Improved' Spectrum of Primordial Sound. The temperature variations in early universe seen in the BOOMERANG images are due to sound waves in the primordial plasma. The angular spectrum of these images shown here, reveals the characteristic size of the structures that dominate the image. A peak in this spectrum at scales of ~ 1 degree, as is seen here in the BOOMERANG data, indicates that the Universe is nearly spatially flat. This graph is a 'double-binned' plot. The red points are independent of each other, as are the blue points. However, each red point is based on some of the same data as its blue neighbors, and vice versa. Therefore neighboring points are correlated.

Cosmological parameter estimation from BOOMERANG. The power spectrum of primordial sound waves can be used to estimate various parameters of the Universe. Some of these parameters include how fast the Universe is expanding, the age of the Universe, the total mass of the Universe, and how much of that mass is comprised of normal (baryonic) matter. The spectrum at left shows the data points (in black) that were used for the analysis, as well as several different models that have good fits to the data. Check out the scientific papers for more info.
  Last edited April 28, 2001

BOOMERANG:
List of Institutions

*= spokeperson

Astrophysics, University of Oxford
Keble Road, OX1 3RH, UK
P.G.Ferreira
pgf@astro.ox.ac.uk

California Institute of Technology
Mail Code: 59-33, 1201 E. California, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
B.P.Crill, E.Hivon, V.V.Hristov, A.E.Lange* (co-PI), P.Mason
ael@astro.caltech.edu
phone +1(626)-395-6887

Center for Particle Astrophysics, University of California at Berkeley
301 Le Conte Hall, Berkeley CA 94720, USA
A.H.Jaffe
jaffe@cfpa.Berkeley.EDU

CITA University of Toronto
Toronto M5S 3H8, Canada
J.R.Bond, D.Pogosyan, S.Prunet
bond@cita.utoronto.ca

Departments of Physics and Astronomy, University of Toronto
60 St. George Street Room 1403 Toronto, Ontario Canada M5S 3H8
L.Miglio, C.B.Netterfield* netterfield@astro.utoronto.ca
phone +1(416)-9465-465

Department of Physics, Queen Mary and Westfield College
Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK
P.A.R.Ade
p.a.r.ade@qmw.ac.uk

Department of Physics, University of California at Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
K.Coble, P.C.Farese, T.Montroy, J.E.Ruhl*
ruhl@physics.ucsb.edu
phone +1(805)893-8860

Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita di Roma 'La Sapienza'
P.le A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy
P. de Bernardis*(co-PI), M.Giacometti, , A.Iacoangeli, S.Masi*, A.Melchiorri, F.Piacentini, D.Sforna
debernardis@roma1.infn.it
phone +39-06-4991-4271
masi@roma1.infn.it
phone +39-06-4991-4690

Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita di Roma 'Tor Vergata'
Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Roma, Italy
G.De Gasperis, N.Vittorio
vittorio@roma2.infn.it

ENEA Centro Ricerche di Frascati
Via E. Fermi 45, 00044 Frascati, Italy
L.Martinis, F.Scaramuzzi
scaramuzzi@frascati.enea.it

IROE - CNR
Via Panciatichi 64, 50127 Firenze, Italy
E.Pascale, A.Boscaleri*
aboscale@iroe.fi.cnr.it
phone +39-055-4235-245

Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica
Via di Vigna Murata 605, 00143, Roma, Italy
S.Rao, G.Romeo
romeo@ingrm.it

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
J.J.Bock
jjb@astro.caltech.edu

NERSC-LBNL
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
J.Borrill
borrill@cfpa.Berkeley.EDU

PCC, College de France
11 pl. Marcelin Berthelot, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
K.Ganga
ganga@cdf.in2p3.fr

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Cardiff
University of Wales, Cardiff, 5, The Parade,
P.O. Box 913, Cardiff, CF24 3YB, UK
P.D.Mauskopf*
mauskopf@fcrao1.phast.umass.edu
phone +44-(0)29-2087-4785 and +44-1-71-975-5032

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 05:47:42 (GMT)
From: Gary Epton
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~boomerang/
Message:
Many thanks for providing the links, sources of reading and commentary. Are you aware of scientific data, studies, discussion groups, etc. corresponding to macrocosm/microcosm models of the universe. i.e., what we learn about the properties of the outer realm as it might be reflected inside of ourselves; light, sound (harmonic) and vibrational energy, for instance. Regards, Gary
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 16:13:52 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Gary Epton
Subject: Apply certain harmonic physics principles in music
Message:
I try to be very concscious and deliberate when creating music. Music is a very magical medium -- the generation of sound through vibrations, measured in oscillations per second (the frequencies of pitch), and volume as amplitude - the force of the sound waves generated by the vibrations' source.

There is actually only one tone/note; all pitches are contained within one infinite note. At its slowest vibration, it is a rumble, and the higher the frequency, then sound eventually transforms into radio waves, then light...

Certain notes resonate with other notes harmonically -- subdivisions and combinations of the same frequencies mathematically.

Then, there are the even and odd harmonic series.

Some combinations of tonal frequencies produce healthier responses. Exposure to excessive volume (amplitude) is very harmful. In addition to electric music, people in industrial societies are exposed to very unhealthy and stressful levels of noise. Also, when an object reaches a speed faster than sound waves (Mach 1), it produces a shock wave - which is heard as a sonic boom.

Anyway, once transmitted sound travels in waves and reaches the ear receivers of other beings in the tiny hairs of the middle ear, as the sound waves vibrate within the being's ears, recreating the sound(s) via the various parts of the eardrum and inner ear, and then transferring the vibrations received to the brain and the central nervous system.

Accordingly, sound provokes intense responses in beings - especially those with finely attuned hearing [dolphins, dogs, etc.] - and homo sapiens, too.

Since the 1960s, I have studied the effects of certain scales, instruments, harmonies on people, and I think it behooves the human race to promulgate healthier approaches to sound and ambient noise in the environment - and responsibly inculcate the young with a refined appreciation of music, in its most developed and sublime forms.

Deep music also stimulates one's intelligence, and harmonious music can also contribute toward the development of one's spirituality [or higher senses]. Additionally, when one performs heartfelt music full of joy, feeling, etc., that same feeling is transferred via the sound waves and received within any other listening human being. Hence, the ability of music to 'move' us.
Likewise, anger can also be conveyed via the spoken word or music, and that energy has an unhealthy and discordant effect on the central nervous system of other human beings.

Those who might scoff at such principles have no understanding of ic, physics, or the inherent power of sound -- which created the universe, after all!

If you know of any related informative sites or good on-line discussion groups [as you mentioned], I would be interested.

Ciao!

Peace and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 02, 2001 at 01:52:48 (GMT)
From: Gary
Email: epton@magma.ca
To: suchabanana
Subject: Apply certain harmonic physics principles in music
Message:
Have you created any MP3s of your music that you'd care to pass along? Which artists, composers, etc. would you recommend?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 02, 2001 at 04:26:37 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Gary
Subject: MP3s, CDs to be released later this year! TBA +
Message:
Gary,

here is a special list [for your pleasure] of assorted Highly Recommended Beautiful music [in random order]:

The Lark Ascending - Vaughn-Williams
Appalachian Spring - Copland
The Cure; and Tribute - Keith Jarrett
Concert for Peace - Ravi Shankar
Concerto de Aranjuez - Rodrigo
Twelve Spanish Dances - Granados
Claire de Lune and other piano works - Debussy
Piano Works - Ravel
Nocturnes - Chopin
Hariprashad Charuasia and his Divine Flute
The Mystical Flute of Hariprashad Chaurasia
Santoor - Shiv Kumar Sharma
Concerto for 2 Violins - Bach
Ninth Symphony - Beethoven
Ninth Symphony - Dvorak
Tabula Rasa - Fleck/Bhatt
Arabian Waltz - Rabih Abou-Khalil
Infinity - McCoy Tyner
Violin - Lalgudi Jayaraman
Time Remembered - John McLaughlin
All Blues - Miles Davis
Sketches of Spain - Miles Davis
Angel of Light - Rautavaara
Violin Concertos: Beethoven, Mendelsohn, Brahms, Tchaikovsky
Music of Torroba - David Russell
The Healing Harp - Naoko Yoshino
Prince of Music - Palestrina
Letter from Home - Pat Metheny
Winter Light - Oregon
Native Sense - Chick Corea, Gary Burton
Like Minds - Gary Burton
Naima - John Coltrane
Voice in the Night - Charles Lloyd
Meditation from Thais - Massenet
Pastorale Symphony - Beethoven; and Vaughn-Williams
Turkish Concerto - Mozart
Chaconne in D minor - Bach [Segovia]

Of my approx. 1000 CDs and tapes, these are among my favorite musical pieces/recordings. Occasionally, I play the Bach Chaconne, too, on classical guitar [although nowhere near as lovely as Andres Segovia] and pieces by Tarrega and Villa-Lobos et al. However, I mostly compose and perform my own instrumental music.

Peace and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 02, 2001 at 15:47:29 (GMT)
From: such
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: also Bach's 3rd Brandenburg Concerto
Message:
Great for lifting one's spirit. Wonderfully upbeat and inventive!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 21:53:54 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Fabulous site. See Dobson link above too NT
Message:
j
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:13:31 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Atheistic evolutionism vs theistic creationism
Message:
The FV atheists argue that evolution disproves the existence of a god or prime cause. I think that is fallacious.

Not exactly, Pat. Evolution makes the intervention of god or a prime cause unnecessary to explain the existence of complex organisms but says nothing about the origins of the universe.

Yes, there is sufficient evidence that all current life forms evolved from simple one-celled organisms but evolution does not explain the existence or the creation of the cosmos before life began.

As you say, it would be fallacious to argue that evolution disproves the existence of god, but nothing in evolutionary theory even attempts to do that.

What caused the Big Bang and WHY?

As I see it the 'what' question is unanswerable, and the 'why' question unnecessary, unless you want to infer intelligence or a creator with purpose, which would look to me like a projection of human motivations onto the cosmos. But by way of a non-evolutionary observation, I know of no evidence for either.

Until I can answer that question I will call myself an agnostic.

As did Darwin and his 'bulldog' Thomas Huxley who invented the term 'agnostic' to accommodate precisely your outlook.

I used to call myself 'agnostic' but I now prefer 'atheist', mostly because any prime mover or fundamental entity - if it exists - would have to be pretty indifferent to its creation, given the degree of suffering allowed to happen. Not 'godlike' qualities in any sense that I find meaningful.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 17:40:58 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Thomas Huxley vs Aldous Huxley
Message:
Like Aldous, I changed from being an atheist into a theist after taking psychedelics. I began to think that human beings were the pinnacle of evolution and were the epitome of the intelligence which had created the universe. I even went so far as to believe the Hindu idea that what we see is what we have created with our desires.

However since then I have backed off from that position as it is far too subjective and unprovable. I'm not unhappy being a Know Nothing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:59:25 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Hmmm
Message:
'I used to call myself 'agnostic' but I now prefer 'atheist', mostly because any prime mover or fundamental entity - if it exists - would have to be pretty indifferent to its creation, given the degree of suffering allowed to happen. Not 'godlike' qualities in any sense that I find meaningful'

So you're saying that the fact that a hypothetical God allows suffering, He can't be very nice so there is no God. Or, you are projecting human emotions onto a hypothetical God and saying no such beast could exist.

Why couldn't a prime mover be indifferent to the suffering of its creation? I know, many people (including myself) have said, 'If there's a God, how come there's so much suffering?'

But that alone isn't enough to refute the idea that there could be a God. Since there is evolution, there has to be suffering anyway. Plus, how do we know that such a hypothetical God is really indifferent to the suffering of its creation (or assembly).

Personally, I don't like this creation idea. Because it supposes a beginning and as I said on AG, I don't believe there ever was a beginning.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 22:02:37 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: You're not really disagreeing, I don't think...
Message:
..when you said:

Why couldn't a prime mover be indifferent to the suffering of its creation? I know, many people (including myself) have said, 'If there's a God, how come there's so much suffering?'

That kind of prime mover, fundamental essence of being or whatever, would not remotely resemble anything that human beings had conjured up for themselves and labelled 'God'. As indifferent, in fact, as Newton's gravitational laws when, say, a cuddly hamster falls over a cliff to a messy and untimely death.

(Just got this comment from Moldy Warp over my shoulder: 'or was he pushed?')

Why call it god if it displays no interest in the well-being of its creation - nor even evidence for its own existence?

If that is the case, better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 09:59:31 (GMT)
From: Gary Epton
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Atheistic evolutionism vs theistic creationism
Message:
Pat, in the spirit of FV's leading or at least most verbose atheist I am re-posting some his comments to my post with my belated rebuttal (I've been away all weekend). I believe this dovetails nicely with your topic. Jim is away in Costa Rica but I don't imagine that will keep away from this site! My original comments are in regular font, Jim's remarks are italicized, and my rebuttal to Jim's remarks are in bold.

Is it possible that an entity or force beyond what our minds can conceive is responsible for evolutionary processes? Sure.

Yes, you're right, it's possible. However, there is no evidence of any such intelligence, there is no place for it in evolutionary theory and there is no need for it either. So, all in all, unless someone can actually find it one day and then, of course, natural selection's out the window because natural selection takes the place of consciousness as a 'designing' force -- there's no reason to think twice about it. As I say, natural selection is, to some extent anyway, evidence that there is no such consciousness.

Because there is natural selection it does show that life has an over-riding concern for survival and perpetuation - where did that drive come from? And if you want to suggest that it was naturally selected as well, fine, but I'm sorry I don't agree that natural selection necessarily 'takes the place of' consciousness or a designing force because the question of the original spark has not been answered. Until you can answer how the proverbial 'first cause' originated or what it's nature is you cannot definitively speculate about whether the process of natural selection has a 'conscious design' or not. A computer search engine is created by a person to seek out information on a specific topic, the computer does not consciously go about this work but the perameters built into instructions by the creator of the search engine were consciously designed.

Is it possible that evolution itself is a random chaotic phenomomena? Sure.

Not sure what you mean by 'chaotic' because, as we know, nature evolves with all sorts of nicely synchronized parts and patterns. But then that's the power of natural selection.

Chaos refers to a theory of the universe and evolution that proposes that the elements that go into the 'building blocks' of matter could have been achieved by the random combining of 'elements' - atoms/electrons/gases/whatever over billions of years until they came together in a supportive order - life as some kind of primal soup - think of it as a very primitive form of 'natural selection'.

However, no one can deny that matter came into existence somehow. Whether we describe existence as a result of intelligent/conscious design or purely random processes is quite possibly only a semantical distinction. Because it could still be argued that there is/was intelligent/conscious design even behind the random processes of evolution. Only your hairdresser knows for sure. To try to argue with certainty on the side of 'grand scheme' or 'random chaos' is kind of pointless.

Sorry, Gary, but the difference is far more than a matter of semantics. It's the difference of whether one believes that God's necessary to explain our existence as opposed to finding that, not only is there no evidence God exists, there isn't even any room for him if he DID show up!

I used the word semantics because whether one thinks one has a theory to explain how life has come into being and evolves - even if the theory is correct - and I certainly agree with natural selection - there still is no proof positive that there isn't conscious design even behind the seemingly 'godless' natural selection process.

You say that it could still be argued that there is intelligent design behind evolution but, like I say, the whole point of natural selection is that it obviates the need for such design. It takes its place. That's the whole point.

That is the whole point for you!!! Like I said above, it is simply impossible to make that statement with any certainty, it can appear that natural selection replaces design - but hey, what if that IS the design?

Obviously a linkage is made between 'grand scheme' theorists and the idea of a 'Master' - the result of a benevolent, caring, unfolding-as-it-should universe. Is it possible for humans to gain some understanding or experience of 'the mystery' without having to be subservient to some kind of 'divine' interloper or subscribe to one theory of evolution over another? Yes. Do we have a choice as to whether we want to even bother? Yes.

I agree with your answer to your last question. No one has to bother thinking about any of this. But the question before, no I don't agree. I think that evolution's not some optional hobby like model train building. It happens to be THE scientific explanation for how we got to be the way we are. It's not a complete explanation, by any means. We can only speculate about how it all started, for instance. But it IS the best explanation we've got for who we are and I don't know how you're going to solve the 'mystery' of our existence otherwise.

Jim, we will in all likelihood NEVER 'solve' the mystery of our existence - at least not intellectually. To go back to my original premise - that it is possible that we are simply not equipped - our minds are equipped wonderfully to grasp the properties of the universe and rather helpless in dealing with 'the cause' (and I use that word loosely). And even if theoretically our minds could know that which allowed matter to come into existence, and time and space and all of that good stuff - it can NEVER be argued with certainty that a conscious force ISN'T behind creation. No matter how many books you read, no matter how many great theorists, astro-physicists, deep thinkers, are quoted - THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING FOR SURE. This is not being anti-intellectual. This is not saying it's useless to use our brains. This is saying that when it comes to the mystery of life, then perhaps knowing truly is an experience and not an equation. Leaving Maharaji for me does not mean that there is no real and honest experience of the mystery. I do not draw the parallel that my mind can know all things - no more than I expect my home computer to have feelings and know who I am. I can understand why it is so important for you to think that the mind can solve life - for you it is very much part and parcel of your exiting from M&K and indeed from everything that smacks of quackery, superstition and irrationality. But I don't feel that the intellect is the only means to know. However, I do applaud your thorough investigative talents - your logic and reason. For me and I suspect others that post here intellect and spirit are not mutually exclusive. Regards, Gary

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 17:59:26 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Gary Epton
Subject: Gary it was this post of yours which prompted
Message:
me to start the discussion as a new thread. It was good then and it's good now for a second read.

Whenever evolution has been debated here before the atheists seem to have won mostly because, as you said to Jim, there is a knee-jerk tendency among exes to throw out all speculative thought as being contaminated with ''spiritual'' mumbo-jumbo.

To me the solution is not to then become as totalitarianly atheist as we once were theistic. I prefer not dealing with absolutes or dogmas. I know a lot of people think being a liberal agnostic is like trying to have your cake and eat it. I just think of it as leaving plenty of room for doubt in my mind.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:26:53 (GMT)
From: zippy
Email: zippy@zippy.com
To: PatC
Subject: ancient, archetypal bang quote
Message:
Here's a quote from
Big Bang

The universe originated from an ancient, archetypal bang, produced by a minuscule but highly compressed, flea-sized ball of energy. Originally this energy consisted of purely spiritual energy which created itself from within, although even it can be traced back to an Ur-Universe's energy conception [Ur = is a German prefix which means archetypal, most ancient or original in English]. A universe is also called a 'Creation' or a 'Universal Consciousness' and so forth, of which exist 1049 variations. The least evolved Creational form is called a Creation-Universe and the next higher form is an Ur-Creation or Ur-Universe; the one following is called a Central Creation or Central Universe, etc. The ultimate of all Creational forms is the 1049, called the Absolute Absolutum. This Absolute Absolutum was the initial Creational form which created Itself from the Absolute Void by way of the Primary Big Bang, thereupon It embarked on Its path through 1049 different main Creational forms before becoming the Absolute Absolutum. Thereafter It wafts in non-space as the highest of the highest Creational forms and continues to endlessly expand and evolve through the wisdom of all Creations which unite with It once each individual Creation achieves a status of being an Absolute Absolutum as well.

Not one Creational form is absolutely perfect, not even the Absolute Absolutum. Creational forms, just as life itself, can only achieve a relative type of perfection over their evolutionary course through processes of constant waxing and waning and waxing again that characterize all life.

We live in a Creation-Universe, a material universe, unequivocally the lowest form of a Creation or universe. And our universe, our Creation, Universal Consciousness or whatever else people want to call It, must Itself strive to work Its way up the evolutionary ladder. It must evolve so as to become one with the Absolute Absolutum once It has passed through the 1049 Creational-form transformations. From a human perspective this process takes an unfathomably long time, for alone the period during which our Creation, our Universe, transforms into the next higher Creational form, that of an Ur-Creation or Ur-Universe, takes more than 85 quintillion years [8518 or 85,000,000,000,000,000,000 years]. Once the Universal Consciousness, or Creation, reaches the stage of Ur-Universe, respectively Ur-Creation, this Ur-Universal-Consciousness self-generates an idea for a new, simple Creation, the type of material universe with which we are familiar. This 'idea' or 'concept' consists of the purest spirit energy and contains everything It needs to become self-creating for Itself from within Itself. From a tiny energy ball the mere size of a flea, It creates within Itself new, immense energies which become highly compressed until this process culminates in a monumental explosion—the Big Bang. The energies from this explosion initially shoot outward and then expanded for fractions of a second at 107000 times the speed of light, as they displace other universes in an effort to create Its own space among the uncounted other universes, or Creations, already in existence. The seven Creational belts, or Universe belts, form simultaneously, of which one is the coarse-matter belt, the visible-matter-universe. In this belt originate coarse matters and gases and dust particles from which derive meteors, suns, comets, planets, nebulae, galaxies and other things when coarse matter gathers and condenses. In this way our Earth was born. This means our universe's birth and that of our Earth, along with foreign worlds, stars and galaxies and so forth, is a Creational-physical energy process and has nothing to do with a Creator God. These happenings are the result of purely spiritual-physical and material-physical laws and processes based upon physics and chemistry in every way and are, indeed, explainable through them.

2
No. No Creator-God exists in this sense. The Big Bang did not come about through the strength or might of one god, but did so, simply and exclusively, through spiritual- and material-physical as well as chemical processes, that were triggered and directed by a young Universal Consciousness, respectively Creation.

The term 'God' has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the world or the universe, stars, galaxies and the like, for the expression 'God' has existed in the vastness of the universe for billions of years, from ancient times to the present, and it represents nothing more than the title of a person. Initially this title was 'Ishwish' which means 'God' when translated into our languages. But Ishwish, respectively god, is nothing more than another term for 'King of Wisdom.' It is a purely human title assigned to humans who were particularly knowledgeable, wise, and who possessed great mastery in everything. This term's significance, however, was distorted and falsified by humans on Earth, particularly by the early religions and those experienced in profiting from using the word. The result was that God, as a King of Wisdom, was removed and the people turned him into a Creator-God who, allegedly, had created the Earth, the sun and outer space. Numerous individuals, such as Jehovah and many others, even claimed of themselves to be Creator-Gods with the consequence that they were also revered and worshiped. One thing led to another and soon the original meaning of the word 'God' was forgotten and, consequently, the purported Creator-Gods were able to victoriously march into the realm of the people's religions, sects and faiths.

3
Basically, Creation is the entire universe, the Universal Consciousness, the largest force and energy humans can ever imagine. And Creation is also the entire energy and consciousness of every life form in existence, bar none. In Its most archetypal form, Creation is the purest spirit energy, although It can display countless other forms of energy in Its external manifestations, which range from the finest to the coarsest matter. As Creation, this all-encompassing energy embodies every level and sphere—including the BEING of the spirit as well as the material existence.

As a universe, Creation remains the highest energy form and the highest active consciousness capable of evolution—Its flawless laws and directives have unequivocal validity at every level of existence and spirit form throughout the entire universe.

Creation is the mightiest power and energy of this universal-Creational existence, and It has no human equivalent. More than everything, It has not even the most infinitesimal shred of an iota in common with the 'man-made' Creator-God who disappears into an abyss of limitless absurdity when compared with Creation, Its strength, and Its mastery.

4
Creation plays a very significant role in human evolution and that of all other life, for every life form carries within it a minute piece of Creation, which provides life to all life. Without this minute particle of Creational spirit not one single life form would exist, for this Creational spirit is the actual, fundamental life-energy. This life energy, in turn, however is dependent upon the comprehensive totality of Creation Itself, which disburses a fine energy form known as cosmic life energy throughout the entire universe. The minute particles of Creational spirit absorb and are given life by this cosmic life energy. One could almost say that this cosmic life energy acts as Creational sustenance on which all particles of Creational spirit subsist. To this end, every life form is dependent upon Creation. And yet, It provides no mandate on how humans, for instance, should shape, lead or live their lives. Through Its laws and directives, Creation merely establishes Its goal of evolution and Its related proviso. Indeed, the goal is that humans greatly evolve and develop themselves—spiritually as well as consciously—to their highest level of perfection, relatively speaking. In so doing, they may join Creation in the future and become one with It; and therefore they help Creation to evolve as well.

While Creation does not dispense conditions to any life form, and every entity is free to live and do as it pleases, there are laws, directives, and guidelines provided which state, that according to the law of causation, certain lifestyles will result in certain consequences. This law demonstrates that every action results in a specific reaction. It is, therefore, a Creational-natural fact that every life form can live as it wishes, that it can make its own decisions and that it can adapt itself, one way or the other, into the laws and directives. Depending on the type of life a particular life form leads, makes for itself, and lives, the result is very specifically consequential and this life form, especially the human one, is responsible in every way for its actions.

The Creational-natural laws and directives are based upon the positive and negative factors, and for this reason is everything within the entire universe subject to these parameters. And since Creation Itself, known also as nature, does not dispense any type of conditions as to how a way of life should be fashioned, led and lived, the individual life form, hence all human beings, must therefore fully accept their own, full responsibility for their actions. Every human, therefore, makes his or her own decision whether he or she wants to live according to the Creational-natural laws and directives to the extent that they bring him or her benefit and advancement, or whether he or she wants to transgress against the laws and suffer the detrimental consequences. This also means that Creation bears no responsibility whatsoever for any human action; humans alone are responsible for each and everything they do, regardless of what they think, feel, concoct, do and undertake.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:45:14 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: zippy
Subject: Hi, Zippy - so it all started with a pinhead?
Message:
Interesting post and yes absolutely God is a term for a human Lord. All gods until Jehovah and Allah were human. Even Brahman was often confused with Brahma a very human god.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:16:54 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: But read the website
Message:
and then you'll what a load of cobblers this is. The guy gets all his info from a wandering alien who congratulates him and a few other earthlings for doing peace meditations and saving the world from the Third World War.

Vivid imagination this guy has. But he's also making money out of it and the people who believe him. Only in America.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:03:37 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Do I have to?
Message:
The excerpts were enough for me. Only in America?

You mean no enterprising salesmen have made money out of crop circles in England? No I guess not. Yes, the USA is the culture of hucksterism. You would never remain poor here for long if you had some utopian idea to sell.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:05:35 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: zippy
Subject: ancient, archetypal bang quote
Message:
Whoever wrote that has a good imagination. However, he's not done his homework. This bit:

'The energies from this explosion initially shoot outward and then expanded for fractions of a second at 107000 times the speed of light'

is proven bullshit since lightspeed cannot be surpassed. The rest is also total crap but no doubt some people will believe it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:34:05 (GMT)
From: Bob
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Excuse me: Big Bang did have warpspeed
Message:
Current astrophysics assume that in the first instant, the universe Hyperinflated, with a speed much faster than light. It has to do with planck-time, below which time cannot be defined (like an atom for an element, Planck-time for time) in which all speeds are possible.
This would account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe, thanks to that galaxies could form and thanks to that we are here..

I really do enjoy my new life as a worm. Why did I ever seek enlightenment?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:41:34 (GMT)
From: Bob
Email: None
To: Bob
Subject: PS Excuse me: Big Bang did have warpspeed
Message:
I forgot one reason for hyperinflation: If the universe would not have hyperinflated it would have been a black hole: think about all the mass in such a small space, it would never be able to escape it's own gravity
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:56:04 (GMT)
From: such
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: actually 186,000miles/sec is initial light speed
Message:
the 'base' measurable speed of light = 3 X 10 10^5 km/sec

which = 9.5 X (10^15)m, or 63,000 AU [astronomical units]

Peace and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:00:46 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Big Bang:+ The Unanswerable Question/futile debate
Message:
The discovery of the cosmic blackbody microwave radiation boosted the big-bang model to its present status as the 'correct' model for our universe. The isotropy of the radiation implies that our assumptions of isotropy and homogeneity are reasonable: The universe begins as a cosmic fireball. It expands in a big bang, and the high-energy radiation creates matter. The matter interacts to form helium nuclei, about 25-30 percent by mass. The universer expands more slowly; eventually nuclei capture electrons to form neutral atoms. At this point matter can be brought together by gravity to form stars and galaxies.

The broad outlines of this history do not depend strongly on the details of the big-bang model. For example, whether the universe is open or closed does not affect the general conclusions for the universe's past. The universe sill has a hot big bang and about the same amount of helium is produced as in early times.

Also, whether the universe is open or closed does not significantly affect the future of the big-bang model. The first possibility demands the same end: no end at all. The expansion continues, and the temperature of the cosmic radiation goes down. Eventually most of the matter is locked in dark stars and black holes. No more nuclear fires flare up. Cosmic evolution stops.

More acceptable aesthetically is a closed, oscillating universe, which collapses on itself at a finite time in the future, just as it sprang from itself at a finite time in the past. As pleasing as this idea appears, it has problems. It requires that the universe be closed. But the universe appears open from observational evidence to date.

A 'bang-bang-bang...' model also runs into theoretical problems. Like a black hole, the universe should collapse into a point of zero-volume and infinite density, a singularity. This is physically meaningless, so theoreticians assume that the universe somehow avoids collapsing into a singularity. Maybe it bounces out and expands again. Here Einstein's equations offer no help; at such incredible densities, they have no physical meaning. Even the single-bang model has this unanswered question:
WHAT WAS THE UNIVERSE LIKE BEFORE THE COSMIC FIREBALL?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:34:54 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: This was on AG forum
Message:
Where I talked about it to myself. There was no 'before' the universe because time is based upon space and if there's no space, there's no time, certainly as we know it.

Present theories indicate that the universe will just cool out and not crunch back in upon itself. This was big news last year in the UK.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:10:12 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: WHAT WAS THE UNIVERSE LIKE BEFORE THE BANG?
Message:
Perhaps I will probably never know. But that to me is THE question that evolution or scientific materialism cannot answer.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 09:17:05 (GMT)
From: F arti
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: We're all little farts in the great arsole of the
Message:
universe.I thought I would share that little gem of wisdom with you Pat.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:12:33 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: F arti
Subject: We're talking eschatology here not scatology
Message:
Always wondered if the two words had the same root. Is that cosmic arsehole just our galxy or the entire cosmos?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 09:32:04 (GMT)
From: F arti
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: I'll root for the latter. (NT).
Message:
Rooting.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:45:52 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Absolutely , what set off the fucking BANG .
Message:

When I was a teenager & felt it was important to understand relativity , I found an old paperback on the subject , written in the 30's .

The author , who's name is long gone , was one of those scientists who could explain things in plain English . (Darwin would've approved)

I never did get relativity ,although his explanation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is one of my party pieces to this day & I can't wait until my son (8), says ,'Daddy do you know about'...... so cool .

He also said , & this is what stuck , yea unto the advent of rawat ,is that the rythmn of the universe , from the movement of the galaxies , to the movement of an amoeba is IN OUT , BACKWARD FORWARD .

Everything from a particle to a shag .

I wonder what would've happened if I had ever met this long dead 'guru' & decided that he was God .

I think he would have probably called the police .

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:49:03 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Bin Liner
Subject: The Shagadelic BANG vs the old in/out
Message:
I prefer poetry and jokes to philosophy, Bin. Ta for the chortle.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:35:54 (GMT)
From: Bob
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: WHAT WAS THE UNIVERSE LIKE BEFORE THE BANG?
Message:
Now this is one of the merits of a decomposed mind( Fuul thanks to the holy satguru for this!!):
The enigma of these questions lies in the limitations of the human mind which is of course formed after our sensory impressions as a baby along whith some hardwired instincts forged by the survival mechanisms of the species.
This is all highly applicable when dealing whith daily situations , like hunting , gathering or everything considering the benefit of the clan.
Dealing whith quantum mechanics or high energy astronomics does not come naturally to most of us, but instead we do have a sense of wonder when facing these questions open minded.
To be able to enjoy these kind of questions we develop constructs to categorize them within our daily frame of thoughts.
So theisms and atheisms are created, to keep the sense of wonder (at bay?), and still being able to bring in that paycheck.
As ex premies we have this half decayed mind, which for one time might be useful: Why not just appreciate each topic for its own merit, That is be a hindu when reading about krishna, and be an einstein when thinking about wormholes. But Knowing that the truth is always more surprising than our most daring imaginations. But of course never losing sight of the supra eternal truth:
ALWAYS LEVE ROOM FOR DOUBT IN YOUR MIND!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:24:01 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: It wasn't
Message:
If you are supposing that the universe once started with a big bang - there would be no 'before' the universe in the universe. There would be no universe to have a 'before' in.

It's a bit like saying, 'What was the time on that clock a year before it was manufactured?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:09:16 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: a boundary?
Message:
In Stephen Hawkin's view, space/time originated from 'imaginary' space/time, 'imaginary' as in the 'imaginary' number i, the square root of minus 1. You can think of the imaginary numbers forming an axis perpendicular to the real axis. Together, a pair of imaginary and real numbers form a complex number.

Somthing like that. It sounds strange, but it seems to make more sense than the universe having a boundary and just poofing into existence.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:35:51 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: I'm just a hedonist, Sir Dave. You're koan blew me
Message:
You said: ''What was the time on that clock a year before it was manufactured?''

Just call me Mr Know Nothing and Couldn't Really Care.

That reminds me of the koan: ''What did your face look like before you were born?''

I think I'll stick with being a liberal agnostic and not be dogmatic. That way I can just have a bit of fun before I kick the bucket.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:33:39 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Oh, yeah? well I want to be an ex-nun
Message:
with hair dyed blonde named Tami and have some fun too, before I kick the bucket.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:45:52 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: an ex-nun with hair dyed blonde named Tami?
Message:
Well, I'll just stick to be an ex-TV with crumbly old silicone tits named Thelma.

I hope you'll post a pic of yourself like that, Helen.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 01:58:40 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: an ex-nun with hair dyed blonde named Tami?
Message:
But that's what I do look like!! HA HA Not really. Well, people say I have a nun face, but I'm not as nice as I look, and I do dye my hair blonde.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 09:05:05 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: So, of course now I want to see for myself NT
Message:
h
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:16:54 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Think of it this way, Pat
Message:
If time and space are characteristics of this universe, then there could be no such thing as 'before' outside of this universe. 'Before' is a concept that exists in our time based consciousness which evolved in this universe. To look for something outside of this universe, or before it, is beyond our capabilities. We just don't have the tools for it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:31:53 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Yes, me too, Jerry
Message:
I would have to step out of time to see something which existed before time therefore all I will ever know is time/space since I cannot step out of time. That's why I have given up trying to understand it.

Scientific explanations like the Big Bang leave me just as unsatisfied as the mystic mumbo-jumbo that says that we can be immortal in this life and therefore see beyond time into the Timeless Present Being Here Nowness Unborn Nothingness nonsense.

I think I'll have another glass of liquid samadhi.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:09:58 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: This is how wthe universe started...
Message:

God made the universe one day in Heaven when he sneezed.

I actually enjoy these discussions about the universe et al and luckily have a learned friend who will talk about it with me for hours.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:14:25 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: I thought it was Vishnu's Brain Fart
Message:
He is lying on a lake dreaming. When he breathes out the universe is created and when he breathes in it disappears up his own anus.

I prefer poetry to philosophy because I don't have the scientific knowledge to discuss most of what you guys talk about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:12:19 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: No, God jerked off.
Message:
That's how it all started.

This is what some people actually believe, there is even a web site about it, it's from some ancient Egyptian religious myth.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:27:49 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Shiva jerked off and spilled his semen
Message:
in the Indus Valley. I forgot the whole story but the old Harappa stuff was lot raunchier than the Aryan Vedic stuff.

Of course we all know that really it was Pimple Rawat aka Balyouguesswhat who got drunk one night and fucked a holy heifer on the banks of the Ganges River.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:38:55 (GMT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Is that Creationist Onanism? (NT)
Message:
I thought he had a consort and didn't need to jerk off.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:46:24 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: No, Rawat's auto (fellatio) Knowledge of God - NT
Message:
k
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:02:57 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Atheistic evolutionism vs theistic creationism
Message:
I don't see any incompatibility between the two, Pat. All evolution does is disprove that the Bible can be taken literally. The Catholic Church, for example, which certainly teaches that a 'God' is responsible for creation, has never had a problem with evolution. But then the Catholic chruch doesn't put all that much stock in the Bible, either.

Look, if I believed in God, I would be saying that I thought it was the best theory going, based on what I know. I'm an atheist because it's the best theory going, based on what I know.

I think the test should be the other way around. Until somebody proves the existence of god, or unless it is the 'best theory going' or unless the evidence is substantial, I don't think one should believe in god. Why not believe in spontaneous combustion or believe that everything has always existed and was never created?

That's not to say that I don't think religions and religious beliefs can't be good things. But I think you can have religious beliefs, even christian beliefs, and not believe in a god as a creator.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 23:38:35 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: I'm tired of being an atheist
Message:
It becomes increasingly difficult to defend atheism, because who can really say, FOR SURE, that there is no God? I can't, and I don't think any other atheist can, either. We're only kidding ourselves if we claim we can. So, yeah, if leaving the door open for the possibility that God might exist, only because you can't say, FOR SURE, that he doesn't, means you're an agnostic, then I guess I'll have to move on over to that camp.

But, Pat, I never claimed that Darwin's theory disproved God's existence. If anything, I've only stressed that nowhere in the theory does God exist. The theory stands alone without God as a factor. Understand? There's a difference.

Some atheists think the theory of evolution (which is really more like a fact), bolsters their contention that God doesn't exist, but it doesn't really. It just doesn't need him for the theory to exist.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:29:16 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Right.
Message:
I agree that the theory of evolution does not disprove the theory of God. But why should it?

But I disagree on your other point. I think the theory that there is no God, is a much better theory than the existence of God, from a rational perspective. Sure, you can't prove a negative, which is one way of looking at atheism. But the better way to look at it is that the burden of proof should be on the side that is trying to say something DOES exist. And I think there hasn't been much proof in that regard, so I conclude that God doesn't exist. I haven't seen one shread of proof that God does exist, so I see no reason not to be pretty sure, or at least as sure as one can be about anything.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:36:06 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: What about the mystical experience?
Message:
That's the toughest one to get around for me, Joe. Especially since I have been the subject of one myself. When I read the mystics' testimonies of being touched by God, I can relate. I've been there. The only reason I don't consider these experiences to be foolproof evidence of God's existence is because of what has been learned about our central nervous system, and how that plays a part in the creation of our subjective experience.

So, the question which still remains for me is what is the truth value of the mystical experience? If it was just a question of using logic and reason to believe or disbelieve, I'm certain I'd be a full blown atheist, not because I'd be able to disprove God's existence, but because I just wouldn't see enough reason, logically, to believe he exists.

But the actual experience of feeling that you've been touched by God... you're going somewhere where science is just beginning to tread. Much has been found out, and more and more research is being done on this subject, but nothing conclusive has yet to be determined. It may never be.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 23:52:45 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I used to think I was an atheist
Message:
To me evolution explains LIFE but not the cosmos. As many theists here have said, they believe that evolution actually is a sign of an intelligent god.

Me - I'm a know nothing, Jerry. I once thought I had seen the face of god and even kissed his feet but then I found out that he was a Hindu huckster from Hardwar and I became an atheist. Now I have to admit that I don't know and I am allergic to any absolutist, totalitarian or fundamentalist cosmologies.

Perhaps I should have posed the question differently because creationism includes the creation of the cosmos as well as life but evolution only explains the evolution of current life forms from a strand of amino acids. What created the lifeless environment in which those amino acids could be formed?

Actually I don't worry my silly little head about those things anymore and am quite contented to simply keep my mind open for further education.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:58:58 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: The best thing we have going.
Message:
The theory of evolution fulfills all the scientific criteria for adequacy: it is falsifiable, it predicts, it leads to further discoveries, it is conservative, and it fits what we already know. That isn't to say that a better theory won't come along someday, but it won't be creationism, which fails all those tests in spades. True, it doesn't disprove the existence of some kind of Creator but it is still a better theory than the theory of God.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:06:19 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: But where did the cosmos come from?
Message:
The theory of evolution to me completely explains LIFE satisfactorily but not the origins of the universe BEFORE life.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 15:49:12 (GMT)
From: zippy
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: But where did the cosmos come from?
Message:
this is the $10,000,000 question. if there is a beginning and there is, somehow we all got here and are conscious (so people would say no) implies that there was a beginning and if so, what created that which created the beginning of it all, how is it all possible ???? the fact that we even exist is a total miracle !!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 16:04:55 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: zippy
Subject: Ahem - there WAS no beginning
Message:
That is my conclusion. This beginning thing is something we can grasp within time and space. But to me, evidently there was no beginning to existence. It always has been. I also think the universe is just a transformation not a creation.

Something has always existed and some of it recently transformed into a universe. Time, is of little consequence or meaning to existence that never had a beginning.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:09:11 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Thanks Sir Dave for answering Zippy for me
Message:
Your answer sits very comfortably inside my liberal Know Nothing mind. I have never been happy with a theory of an original Big Bang. Transformation - the dance of time. Very nice.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 20:01:37 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: I also play the recorder
Message:
and can do a fine rendition of 'Greensleeves' by King Henry VIII.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 20:59:35 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: I also play the recorder - so do I!
Message:
But my favorite is the Londonderry Air, or when I very stoned I'll do mating whales or is that waiting males?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 22:26:17 (GMT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: PatC and Sir Dave
Subject: As do I! Well boys, we have a trio...
Message:
I can play either soprano, alto, tenor or bass, but I don't have a sopranino.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 00:20:13 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Latvian Nights in Amaroo 2025 Trio
Message:
Guess we'll have to polish up to entertain all the old fogey ex-premies who turn up for our class reunion. What's the bet most will prefer garage rock?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 03:28:56 (GMT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Latvian Nights in Amaroo 2025 Trio
Message:
Well, Pat, I can do the Garage Rock stuff, too. In fact, it was garage rock and punk rock which helped me when I was leaving the Living Lard back in the late 1970's. The music was vibrant, alive, funny, and as far away from that devotional crap as one could get, in my opinion.

Living in Panamá means that I often get news late, and I was sad to learn that Joey Ramone died of cancer on Easter morning. The music of the Ramones, the Buzzcocks, the Clash and the Sex Pistols helped deprogram me from 'Rock Me, Maharaj-ji.

Latvian Nights in 2025? I'll be there!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 09:09:56 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Not another rocker. Who would have thunk it? NT
Message:
j
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:45:57 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: the boundary condition
Message:
An interesting quote from Stephen Hawkin: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundaries'.

If the universe didn't have an absolute abrupt beginning point, then it didn't have to be created (from nothing that is, rather it 'was transformed' or 'transformed' or something like that), and so there is no need for a (separate) creator. He thinks space/time transformed from 'imaginary' (in a mathematical sense) space/time. When asked if he believes in God, he replied 'It depends on what you mean by God.'

Well, that's my layman's description/understanding of his view.

Often when we say 'created' we mean 'assembled'. There is a big difference between something being poofed into existence and being assembled.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:41:15 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: G
Subject: hawkins is overstating the evidence. dawkins does
Message:
that also.
I hate that when supposed science guys go way out on a limb and say things AS IF they were true.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 18:13:16 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: perhaps
Message:
That could be true. I think he would agree, however, that his views are theoretical, that they have not been proven. One thing I don't like is the wording 'theory of everything', I think it is presumptuous and assumes that the material universe (and what it came from) is all there is. It doesn't address consciousness. Also, it will not explain the specific content of the universe, like why there is an Alfred E. Newman character. They should rename it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 23:10:40 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: G
Subject: If they would rephrase thier presentations, it
Message:
would be more respectful to thier readers and also thier peers.
Dawkins just does not seem to care at all about that. His writings are laced with so much assumption stated as fact that
even a guy as dense as me can spot it!

Unfortunatly, the Hawkings qoute also was guilty, hopefully it was a misqoute. Hawkings is a remarkable man.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 01, 2001 at 04:20:54 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: the quote
Message:
I didn't present the quote in it's full context. I don't think Hawkin was trying to present it as fact, probably more as a conjecture, but I don't know, I don't have the full quote off hand. Perhaps he should be a little more careful in his wording.

Dawkins certainly does present assumptions as fact, that's the main objection I have with his writing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 21:05:07 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Two camps only?
Message:
Or atheistic evolutionism, agnostic evolutionism, agnostic creationism and weirdly enough, atheistic creationism....

Depending on ones definition of 'god' ....something could still be created without a supreme, all-knowing 'god'.

Of course, I haven't got the faintest idea about about the true source of the universe......and of course whatever I choose to believe or choose not to believe or choose to suspend judgement on ......does not make the slightest difference to actuality.

....I tend to believe up to the limit of logic (as we know it ) and then suspend judgement thereafter. To me faith now seems irrelevant and purely subjective ....and probably ( though of course not definitely ) way off beam.

Still ....we have the sublime luxury of awe and wonder !!

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:13:39 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: it makes a difference to my own well being
Message:
I agree that what I choose to believe or not makes no difference to actuality...

except that what I choose to believe affects my sense of well being and happiness. So I'd rather be a happy agnostic humanist, believing that there is a spiritual aspect to life, than be an atheist. It works for me.

So it makes a difference to me and my own subjective happiness (and the welfare of others who depend on me, like my kid, who will benefit more from a happy mom than a miserable depressive one). Though I am *pretty sure* there is no afterlife, I'd rather focus on things of the spirit so that the next 40-50 years I have left (if I'm lucky) will be more fulfilling.

That's how it is for me. I don't presume that other people need what I need for their well being and happiness, for that spark that gets them through the day. It's up to each person to figure out.

One thing that is kind of funny in an ironic way: I left my old church (a Unitarian church) because it was too atheistic, not 'GOD oriented enough' for me. Well since then I have become more of a humanist and less and less concerned with the whole God thing. But lately I have been running into friends from my old church and longing to be back in that community. Do you think it's a sign from God that I should go back to that atheistic church (which I miss)? HA HA--just a little joke.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 23:57:05 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Two camps only? No, what about us Know Nothings?
Message:
You said: ''Still ....we have the sublime luxury of awe and wonder !!''

Absolutely! That's why I am not an atheist but a Know Nothing. I have seen ''the world in a grain of sand and heaven in a wild flower.''

But I haven't yet seen the Prime Cause so I'll remain agnostic until I do.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 20:57:52 (GMT)
From: Joy
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: I don't see why they have to be incompatible
Message:
Why do the supposedly conflicting theories of evolution and creation have to be incompatible? Why couldn't evolution just be the way that God created the universe?

Just because it says in the Bible he created it in seven days, perhaps our interpretation of 'days' might be a little off and several billion years is seven days on God's calendar? I don't understand why people have to view these two ideas in such a mutually exclusive way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:36:47 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: joy, my main point was that I don't know
Message:
When I lived in a monastery we were taught that evolution proved that god was perfect because he created the seed from which everything evolved; that the whole of life was contained in that original strand of amino acids.

Also I'm just saying that I don't know god. There may be one. My hunch is that there is but I don't need to be a god-expert. I've got my own theories but I don't presume to get others to believe in them.

I would rather not fib and say that what I believe is the truth. And I'm sure that God in all her wisdom would not want me to fib either.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:48:31 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: When will you know if you know, Pat
Message:
How much proof will you need before you believe God doesn't exist? Absolute proof? A little more than you have now? A lot more? You probably believe the sun will come up tomorrow, but it might not, you know? Should you be agnostic about that, too? Why is 'God' in this special category? We are talking about theories, Pat. But creationism isn't even a theory, it's religion. And so is the theory or God.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:04:04 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: I may never know, Joe
Message:
And I don't bother myself with such weighty matters anymore. Perhaps one day I will but right now it is just a relief not to have to believe in anything anymore or try to understand god. I did that for 28 years in the cult and I'm sick of religion and theology and cosmolgy. My new religion is eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow I may die; just feeling Absolutley Fabulous. So call me a hedonistic fag then!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:31:40 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Pass me a beer, Pat, I'll drink to that
Message:
I'm with you on this Pat. I think the questions are unanswerable, I really do. And my brain is tired of trying to figure it out. When I get caught up in these God circles, I become so tiresomely self-involved. 'Is there a God? Or isn't there? Is it all some kind of cruel joke? If there is a God, is there something more I should be doing? Blah blah blah'

Many many years of this kind of turmoil have cured me of it forever! I want to eat, drink and be merry also, and share in the good fellowship of my fellow human beings. Because this is probably IT, this life right here and now. And I'm happier when I am not walking around brooding about God all day.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:39:33 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Cheers, Helen but could I offer a glass of wine?
Message:
I've got a very fine old South African Pinotage, smooth as velvet, not too oaky but with enough body to make it feel almost chewy and that wonderful hint of rose-petals when it undergoes some secondary fermentation in the bottle - highly sought after.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:24:46 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Cheers, Helen but could I offer a glass of wine?
Message:
God, that sounds wonderful. On my budget, I never get to taste wines like that but I sure could get used to them FAST!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:52:00 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: I cheat, Helen. I'm in the business and get them
Message:
WHOLESALE. Buy them when they're young, age them and then drink all my profits.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 22:32:36 (GMT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: I don't see why they have to be incompatible
Message:
I agree with you, Joy.
Most mainline Christians accept the theory of evolution and understand that the creation story in Genesis is a creation myth; it is not historic or scientific or meant to be. It is a myth just like all the other creation myths which are understood to be stories and not accurate accounts of how the cosmos came to be. In the seminary I attended it was accepted that evolution was the means by which God created life; no one believed that the universe was created in six days.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:30:35 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: When I say that I am an agnostic Anglican I mean
Message:
that I make no presumptions about God but do believe in non-theological Christianity (kindness, charity, love and forgiveness) or perhaps I should call it ethical humanism except that is too cold and bloodless for my tastes. I have known several agnostic (or at least undogmatic) Anglicans.

I chose to say ''Anglican'' because it seems to be the least dogmatic of the christian sects and it is not papist but has still produced all that wonderful church architecture, music, art and poetry than has arisen from it's religion of love.

Basically I'm just an old fogey who thinks that the west has a lot more to offer in terms of philosophy and culture than anything out of India and non-papist christianity is more civilized than the Roman version.

PS I was going to say this to you via email but I thought it fit in here quite well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:37:16 (GMT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Agnostic Anglicans
Message:
Yes, I know several agnostic Anglicans, too. I once heard Anglicanism described as 'the grad-school of Christianity.' I also know some Anglican Evolutionary Biologists here in Panama.

At one time I rejected almost anything from the West; I grew up in Asia (Okinawa) and am biased towards things Japanese, and I also thought that anything from India was superior to the West, but my time in the cult cured me of that.

The Anglican Church has its share of terrible baggage, but they have also offered the world some wonderful things, too, which is more than I can say about M and his crew.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:44:01 (GMT)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Agnostic Anglicans - and did those Feet in ancient
Message:
time walk upon England's...?

Yes, to me it is mostly a matter of respect for the civilization of which the Church of England is the established religion. I just loved all the Anglican hymns more than all the Latin stuff.

And, as I said I am not a dogmatic agnostic but a liberal agnostic with a hunch that there is a god and she would like us to be kind to one another and follow the Sermon on the Mount.

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my chariot of fire...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 23:13:26 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: I don't see why they have to be incompatible
Message:
Most mainline Christians accept the theory of evolution and understand that the creation story in Genesis is a creation myth; it is not historic or scientific or meant to be.

I disagree with you, Michael. Maybe in today's world, it's agreed that the book of Genesis is a creation myth, but that's a fairly recent development. During the Dark Ages, and even into the Renaisance, it was considered heresy to question the the bible as anything but historical fact, or to consider any part of it myth. People were burnt at the stake if they did. And that's a fact.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:29:08 (GMT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I don't see why they have to be incompatible
Message:
I am well aware of that, Jerry, but no one was really talking about evolution in the Dark Ages or the Renaisance, were they? I'm talking about the present. Biblical Criticism has been around since the early twentieth century. I don't see how your comment is relevant.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 00:19:44 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Um, Jerry
Message:
. During the Dark Ages, and even into the Renaisance, it was considered heresy to question the the bible as anything but historical fact, or to consider any part of it myth.

Jerry, the theory of evolution didn't exist until the 18th century, and really only the 19th century, so I don't think that was an issue.

As I said above, the Catholic Church has never taken the Bible literally, and, in fact, didn't even want Catholics to read the Bible (nor in many cases even learn to read), lest they actually take it literally, which would differ quite a bit from Catholic teaching if they did. Much of the Protestant Reformation revolved around the Biblical issue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:58:29 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Joe, Michael
Message:
Maybe the theory of evolution wasn't around during the Renaisance, but the Copernican revolution was well under way. It was believed at the time that the earth was the center of the universe, as stated in the bible, and any scientist, such as Copernicus, or Galileo was considered a heretic if they taught otherwise.

In fact, Galileo was exiled for insisting that the solar system was heliocentric, and forced to do penance until his dying day for it. And at least one scientist (I forget who) was burned at the stake for teaching the same thing. So, yeah, you're both right, Darwin's Origin Of Species wasn't to be released for another 200 years, but if it had been at the same time Galileo was on his knees before the Inquisition, you can be sure there would be hell to pay for it.

Being persecuted for saying the earth revolved around the sun is miniscule compared to what the church would have done to somebody saying man decended from the ape. Christ, they would have burned Darwin three times for it! So, no Michael, I don't consider what I said to be irrelevant. The fact remains, that the church, at the height of it's power, was violently opposed to any doctrine that opposed the bible as historical fact.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:11:11 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Sheesh
Message:
So Jerry, every time we enter in to this conversation, will it make you happy if I say 'but the Church was anti-scientific at one time, so anything we say now is suspect'?
Joy had said that she did not see why theism and evolution had to be incompatible and I said that most mainline Christians accept evolution and know that the story in Genesis is a creation myth. Not all Christian, and not all Christians throughout history (although Origen [185-253] taught that the Bible was allegorical and not to be understood literally) saw Genesis that way, but most modern, mainline Christians do.

You were having a knee-jerk reaction to anything even slightly positive about Christianity. Be an adult and admit it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:02:37 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Sheesh
Message:
Michael,

Here's what got my goat:

it is not historic or scientific or meant to be.

That would imply that the bible was never intended to be historic or scientific, and that's wrong, and I'm right, and that's all that really matters :)

So there!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 13:21:05 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Furthermore
Message:
I don't mean to beat this to death, but to say that the biblical account of creation is only meant as a myth is an outright denial of the fact that millions of school children are being taught that it's an historical fact.

I, myself, went to Catholic grammar school and was taught that the bible was a divine revelation whose authors were inspired by God and every word of it was true, including the story of Adam and Eve. I didn't hear about evolution until I got to high school, and if I lived in Kansas, TODAY, I'd never hear about evolution, in school, given the recent ruling of their Board Of Education that evolution can no longer be taught in public schools.

So, Michael, to say that the book of Genesis is not meant to be taken as an historical account of creation is to be blind to the ongoing controversy that has been raging since the theory of evolution first raised it's head almost 150 years ago.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 14:10:35 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Furthermore
Message:
I suspected that you may have been smacked with a ruler by a nun...

You're right, Jerry, I should have been more precise with my language. I should have said 'according to the latest scholarship, the original authors of Genesis did not mean for it (Genesis) to be understood as historically accurate or a scientific text as we modern twentieth/twenty-first century Westerners understand history and science.'

Now, it is true, that for many centuries that many groups, including the Roman Church, the Protestants, and the Jews accepted the first five books as factual. But there were others (Origen, whom I mentioned a few posts back) who understood that there is much allegory in those books and that they were not factual.

The debate over teaching evolution in the schools in the U.S. has much more to do with politics and class than actual religion, in my opinion. Just don't think that all Christians are part of the religious right; main-line denominations respect science and education and do not spend their time trying to get everyone to live according to a nineteenth century North American ideal.

I apologise for my tone in the one post; I was reacting to what I perceived as your self-rightous tone. I hope that this post clarifies my point.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 15:22:04 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Furthermore
Message:
No apologies necesary, Michael. I never took offense, nor do I think you meant any. Good to see you back on board.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 21:06:12 (GMT)
From: Joy
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: P.S. One Thing's For Certain, Though
Message:
and that is that Prem Pal Singh Rawat is NOT the Lord of the Universe or Superior Power in Person!

Can you believe we used to actually sing this every day:

Our Lord is the Maker of All Things Created
He keeps them and brings them all home to His Feet
Our Lord's the Superior Power in Person
I bow down before such a wonderful Lord.

How could we have been so deluded? Where in evolution does it allow for people to be this foolish?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 20:36:55 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Atheistic evolutionism vs theistic creationism
Message:
The Big Bang is only a theory which has yet to be proved. A lot of scientists' assumptions are based on the Doppler effect or Doppler shift which scientists have used to measure the universe and time within it. However, they may have got it wrong and the Doppler 'red shift' which they have used might be innacurate or completely wrong. This kind of thing has happened before.

In other words, the reason why the more distant stars have an increasingly red shift might not be due to the Doppler effect but may be due to the matter or particles which lie in between us and the stars making everything distant look red. If this was the case then all our assumptions of an expanding universe from a single beginning would be wrong.

Interestingly enough, one of the great physicists of our time, Professor Stephen Hawking who is the only person allowed to take the Sir Isaac Newton chair at Cambridge University; he is a confirmed theist and is not an atheist.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 20:18:40 (GMT)
From: mercedes
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Good question Pat - NT -
Message:
yyyy
Return to Index -:- Top of Index