Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

What More?

Expand Messages
  • D.R.D.
    Jew vs. Gentile, Christian vs. Pagan, Sunni vs. Shiite, Catholic vs. Protestant, Cowboy vs. Indian, Hindu vs. Muslim, North vs. South, East vs. West, Etc.,
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Jew vs. Gentile, Christian vs. Pagan, Sunni vs.
      Shiite, Catholic vs. Protestant, Cowboy vs. Indian,
      Hindu vs. Muslim, North vs. South, East vs. West,
      Etc., Etc., Etc.

      The past (and present) is riddled with the bodies
      of men, women, and children who have fallen victim to
      what?

      In the beginning I imagine it was simple disagree-
      ment that led people to argue to the point of picking
      up sticks and stones. But in time these weapons would
      change to even more drastic measures. Like swords and
      shields, bows and arrows, bullets and cannon, missles
      and bombs. All for the price of what?

      Looking at the daily news and reflecting on some of
      the challenges I see, I naturally wonder about these
      (so far mostly "benign") "Eck" vs. "Anti-Eck" terms on
      the internet. How are they any different from all the
      other terms used to catagorize and/or subdivide people
      into different opposing camps? I wonder if whether the
      wars that we see today had also their beginnings with
      people who simply found reasons to disagree.

      It is not something that bothers me so much that we
      can agree to disagree, but I have also to take into my
      consideration the lessons of history.

      Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book.
      It is a way where one can change the course of history
      in an indirect way by convincing others to fight to the
      last man, woman, and child. But for what?

      In most of the conflicts that have throughout history
      turned to war as a final solution, how many of the people
      on both sides failed to establish sanctuary on some form
      of "middle" ground? I don't imagine every single person
      in the religions and/or listed categories at the beginning
      put themselves on one side or another. But I imagine that
      many people did remain neutral, and even at least to the
      point of written and/or spoken debate as a method for sort-
      ing out differences between them.

      Sometimes I admit that it seems like a war when two sides
      agree to disagree. But when people are allowed to talk - both
      sides - and to communicate with oneanother instead of drawing
      battle lines, maybe our planet will progress beyond the point
      of eternal barbarism.

      IMO, "middle" ground does not exist anywhere outside of
      any single person. At least, if we look for it there, IMO
      it will only divide and tear us apart.

      Just some thoughts about agreeing to disagree.

      Etznab
    • tomleafeater
      ... Hi Etznab, This is a topic I ve thought about often, since I have frequently posted on a.r.e, and have been threatened, ridiculed, diagnosed, denigrated,
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "D.R.D." <etznab@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Jew vs. Gentile, Christian vs. Pagan, Sunni vs.
        > Shiite, Catholic vs. Protestant, Cowboy vs. Indian,
        > Hindu vs. Muslim, North vs. South, East vs. West,
        > Etc., Etc., Etc.
        >
        > The past (and present) is riddled with the bodies
        > of men, women, and children who have fallen victim to
        > what?
        >
        > In the beginning I imagine it was simple disagree-
        > ment that led people to argue to the point of picking
        > up sticks and stones. But in time these weapons would
        > change to even more drastic measures. Like swords and
        > shields, bows and arrows, bullets and cannon, missles
        > and bombs. All for the price of what?
        >
        > Looking at the daily news and reflecting on some of
        > the challenges I see, I naturally wonder about these
        > (so far mostly "benign") "Eck" vs. "Anti-Eck" terms on
        > the internet. How are they any different from all the
        > other terms used to catagorize and/or subdivide people
        > into different opposing camps? I wonder if whether the
        > wars that we see today had also their beginnings with
        > people who simply found reasons to disagree.
        >
        > It is not something that bothers me so much that we
        > can agree to disagree, but I have also to take into my
        > consideration the lessons of history.
        >
        > Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book.
        > It is a way where one can change the course of history
        > in an indirect way by convincing others to fight to the
        > last man, woman, and child. But for what?
        >
        > In most of the conflicts that have throughout history
        > turned to war as a final solution, how many of the people
        > on both sides failed to establish sanctuary on some form
        > of "middle" ground? I don't imagine every single person
        > in the religions and/or listed categories at the beginning
        > put themselves on one side or another. But I imagine that
        > many people did remain neutral, and even at least to the
        > point of written and/or spoken debate as a method for sort-
        > ing out differences between them.
        >
        > Sometimes I admit that it seems like a war when two sides
        > agree to disagree. But when people are allowed to talk - both
        > sides - and to communicate with oneanother instead of drawing
        > battle lines, maybe our planet will progress beyond the point
        > of eternal barbarism.
        >
        > IMO, "middle" ground does not exist anywhere outside of
        > any single person. At least, if we look for it there, IMO
        > it will only divide and tear us apart.
        >
        > Just some thoughts about agreeing to disagree.
        >
        > Etznab
        >



        Hi Etznab,

        This is a topic I've thought about often, since I have frequently posted
        on a.r.e, and have been threatened, ridiculed, diagnosed, denigrated,
        and personally insulted in every manner imaginable by the denizens
        there. Naturally, it leads one to contemplate the nature of religious
        persecution and conflicts.

        Here's one of my thoughts:

        It seems to me that when a group claims to have an exclusive
        relationship with God, this is an attempt to become God's only agent, or
        intermediary, for all humankind. It is like an exclusive listing agents
        have to sell real estate. No one can get the property except through
        that agent. And religions that grow into millions upon millions of
        members have enormous power. They begin to separate the world into
        believers and non-believers. They begin to create doctrines that those
        who are not members will suffer in various forms, depending on the
        religion. It could be more incarnations, or burning in hell, or
        purgatory, or reincarnating as a dog, or even returning as a rock or
        mineral, as Paul Twitchell once suggested would happen to former
        followers.

        These are threats, but also these are devices that separate. Followers
        take these threats to mean the 'others' are less worthy than they are,
        and discrimination creeps into relationships with them.

        People are fighting over the ownership of God, as if God were property.
        And when those who are in the majority, or have enormous followings,
        have such doctrines, the 'others' are seen as Godless, and often are
        treated accordingly. In real terms, we know what has occurred down
        through history to the pagans or other groups that have found themselves
        on the wrong end of the power equation.

        This is why the most important realization I had in leaving eckankar is
        that no one is the exclusive intermediary for God, and anyone who makes
        such a claim is tinkering with one of the most horribly destructive and
        conflict generating concepts known in human history.

        God is not an anthropomorphic being that is picking and choosing this
        master or that saint to represent it. To suggest this implies a
        dualistic God with thoughts and opinions, and human-like purposes and
        motives, which is absurd.

        Well, I've got to go, and now that the holidays are over, I'm getting
        shorter on time to post on the Internet as much as I have in the last
        few days.

        Kent
      • mishmisha9
        I m sorry, Etznab, but I don t quite understand what you are suggesting unless you think these discussions are going to turn into physical violence? You ask
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm sorry, Etznab, but I don't quite understand what you
          are suggesting unless you think these discussions are
          going to turn into physical violence?

          You ask "What more?" I don't think there is much more
          really. Eckankar is a small and insignificant "religious"
          group. Ask the common man on any street corner and I
          would venture that 99 out of 100 people will say they
          never heard of it--that's being generous. Well, unless,
          you go to Chanhassen, MN! And many of those people
          might not have anything good to say about it.

          What would we "critics" be conquering if we did fight
          a real battle--what would the spoils be and what would
          we do with them?? I for one would never want to move
          to Minnesota, or takeover a warehouse full of Klemp's
          books, and I'm not interested in the jewelry either--I just
          threw some of it away recently! I guess there could be
          money in some Swiss Bank accounts, but how would one
          access that? Oh, heck, I have enough money anyway--LOL!

          Physical conflicts/wars erupt out of greed, hate
          and fear! Someone wants something someone else has.

          Middle ground is like everything else in life--transient.
          That's actully okay because without changes and differing
          opinions, life would be just too darn passive and boring! : )

          Don't get me wrong, though--I've been enjoying all the
          postings today! Really good discussions and sharing, Everyone!
          I guess that's a middle ground position! : )

          Mish




          --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "D.R.D." <etznab@...> wrote:
          >
          > Jew vs. Gentile, Christian vs. Pagan, Sunni vs.
          > Shiite, Catholic vs. Protestant, Cowboy vs. Indian,
          > Hindu vs. Muslim, North vs. South, East vs. West,
          > Etc., Etc., Etc.
          >
          > The past (and present) is riddled with the bodies
          > of men, women, and children who have fallen victim to
          > what?
          >
          > In the beginning I imagine it was simple disagree-
          > ment that led people to argue to the point of picking
          > up sticks and stones. But in time these weapons would
          > change to even more drastic measures. Like swords and
          > shields, bows and arrows, bullets and cannon, missles
          > and bombs. All for the price of what?
          >
          > Looking at the daily news and reflecting on some of
          > the challenges I see, I naturally wonder about these
          > (so far mostly "benign") "Eck" vs. "Anti-Eck" terms on
          > the internet. How are they any different from all the
          > other terms used to catagorize and/or subdivide people
          > into different opposing camps? I wonder if whether the
          > wars that we see today had also their beginnings with
          > people who simply found reasons to disagree.
          >
          > It is not something that bothers me so much that we
          > can agree to disagree, but I have also to take into my
          > consideration the lessons of history.
          >
          > Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book.
          > It is a way where one can change the course of history
          > in an indirect way by convincing others to fight to the
          > last man, woman, and child. But for what?
          >
          > In most of the conflicts that have throughout history
          > turned to war as a final solution, how many of the people
          > on both sides failed to establish sanctuary on some form
          > of "middle" ground? I don't imagine every single person
          > in the religions and/or listed categories at the beginning
          > put themselves on one side or another. But I imagine that
          > many people did remain neutral, and even at least to the
          > point of written and/or spoken debate as a method for sort-
          > ing out differences between them.
          >
          > Sometimes I admit that it seems like a war when two sides
          > agree to disagree. But when people are allowed to talk - both
          > sides - and to communicate with oneanother instead of drawing
          > battle lines, maybe our planet will progress beyond the point
          > of eternal barbarism.
          >
          > IMO, "middle" ground does not exist anywhere outside of
          > any single person. At least, if we look for it there, IMO
          > it will only divide and tear us apart.
          >
          > Just some thoughts about agreeing to disagree.
          >
          > Etznab
          >
        • etznab@aol.com
          In a message dated 1/2/07 9:31:52 PM Central Standard Time, ... [ME] I ve seen that venue a long time ago, but haven t gone there much at all. Don t know that
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 1/2/07 9:31:52 PM Central Standard Time, tianyue@... writes:


            This is a topic I've thought about often, since I have frequently posted
            on a.r.e, and have been threatened, ridiculed, diagnosed, denigrated,
            and personally insulted in every manner imaginable by the denizens
            there. Naturally, it leads one to contemplate the nature of religious
            persecution and conflicts.


            [ME] I've seen that venue a long time ago, but haven't gone there much
            at all. Don't know that I ever posted there. However, from what I remember
            about it, I can definately see your point.

            You wrote:

            People are fighting over the ownership of God, as if God were property.
            And when those who are in the majority, or have enormous followings,
            have such doctrines, the 'others' are seen as Godless, and often are
            treated accordingly. In real terms, we know what has occurred down
            through history to the pagans or other groups that have found themselves
            on the wrong end of the power equation.

            [ME] Agreed.

            [ME] I thought this was one of your best posts, and that's all the more
            I want to say about it except that I can relate to much of what you said.

            Etznab








          • etznab@aol.com
            In a message dated 1/2/07 9:59:15 PM Central Standard Time, ... Not necessarily these discussions. I was just pretty much tapped out by the thought of Eck
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 1/2/07 9:59:15 PM Central Standard Time, mishmisha9@... writes:


              I'm sorry, Etznab, but I don't quite understand what you
              are suggesting unless you think these discussions are
              going to turn into physical violence?


                 Not necessarily "these" discussions. I was just pretty
              much tapped out by the thought of "Eck" and "Anti-Eck"
              turning into what some of the other wars in history have
              become. I mean some day turing into that.

              Etznab


            • etznab@aol.com
              In a message dated 1/2/07 9:59:15 PM Central Standard Time, ... I m trying to respond fast and don t have time to repost all of what you said. However, I like
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 1/2/07 9:59:15 PM Central Standard Time, mishmisha9@... writes:


                Middle ground is like everything else in life--transient.
                That's actully okay because without changes and differing
                opinions, life would be just too darn passive and boring! : )


                I'm trying to respond fast and don't have time to repost
                all of what you said. However, I like the sense of humor
                used to express some of your points. Humor or not, it
                was fun to read.

                The last paragraph was good too, I thought.

                Etznab

              • prometheus_973
                I enjoyed the topic and the replies. I can see that the reference to A.R.E could also be apply to HU-Chat, an Official ECKANKAR SOP E-Mail Site! Prometheus ...
                Message 7 of 9 , Jan 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I enjoyed the topic and the replies. I can see that
                  the reference to A.R.E could also be apply to HU-Chat,
                  an Official ECKANKAR SOP E-Mail Site!

                  Prometheus

                  >
                  "D.R.D." wrote:
                  > >
                  Jew vs. Gentile, Christian vs. Pagan, Sunni vs.
                  Shiite, Catholic vs. Protestant, Cowboy vs. Indian,
                  Hindu vs. Muslim, North vs. South, East vs. West,
                  Etc., Etc., Etc.
                  > >
                  The past (and present) is riddled with the bodies
                  of men, women, and children who have fallen victim to
                  what?
                  > >
                  In the beginning I imagine it was simple disagree-
                  ment that led people to argue to the point of picking
                  up sticks and stones. But in time these weapons would
                  change to even more drastic measures. Like swords and
                  shields, bows and arrows, bullets and cannon, missles
                  and bombs. All for the price of what?
                  > >
                  Looking at the daily news and reflecting on some of
                  the challenges I see, I naturally wonder about these
                  (so far mostly "benign") "Eck" vs. "Anti-Eck" terms on
                  the internet. How are they any different from all the
                  other terms used to catagorize and/or subdivide people
                  into different opposing camps? I wonder if whether the
                  wars that we see today had also their beginnings with
                  people who simply found reasons to disagree.
                  > >
                  It is not something that bothers me so much that we
                  can agree to disagree, but I have also to take into my
                  consideration the lessons of history.
                  > >
                  Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book.
                  It is a way where one can change the course of history
                  in an indirect way by convincing others to fight to the
                  last man, woman, and child. But for what?
                  > >
                  In most of the conflicts that have throughout history
                  turned to war as a final solution, how many of the people
                  on both sides failed to establish sanctuary on some form
                  of "middle" ground? I don't imagine every single person
                  in the religions and/or listed categories at the beginning
                  put themselves on one side or another. But I imagine that
                  many people did remain neutral, and even at least to the
                  point of written and/or spoken debate as a method for sort-
                  ing out differences between them.
                  > >
                  Sometimes I admit that it seems like a war when two sides
                  agree to disagree. But when people are allowed to talk - both
                  sides - and to communicate with oneanother instead of drawing
                  battle lines, maybe our planet will progress beyond the point
                  of eternal barbarism.
                  > >
                  IMO, "middle" ground does not exist anywhere outside of
                  any single person. At least, if we look for it there, IMO
                  it will only divide and tear us apart.
                  > >
                  Just some thoughts about agreeing to disagree.
                  > >
                  Etznab

                  ********************************************************************

                  > Hi Etznab,
                  >
                  > This is a topic I've thought about often, since I have frequently posted
                  > on a.r.e, and have been threatened, ridiculed, diagnosed, denigrated,
                  > and personally insulted in every manner imaginable by the denizens
                  > there. Naturally, it leads one to contemplate the nature of religious
                  > persecution and conflicts.
                  >
                  > Here's one of my thoughts:
                  >
                  > It seems to me that when a group claims to have an exclusive
                  > relationship with God, this is an attempt to become God's only agent, or
                  > intermediary, for all humankind. It is like an exclusive listing agents
                  > have to sell real estate. No one can get the property except through
                  > that agent. And religions that grow into millions upon millions of
                  > members have enormous power. They begin to separate the world into
                  > believers and non-believers. They begin to create doctrines that those
                  > who are not members will suffer in various forms, depending on the
                  > religion. It could be more incarnations, or burning in hell, or
                  > purgatory, or reincarnating as a dog, or even returning as a rock or
                  > mineral, as Paul Twitchell once suggested would happen to former
                  > followers.
                  >
                  > These are threats, but also these are devices that separate. Followers
                  > take these threats to mean the 'others' are less worthy than they are,
                  > and discrimination creeps into relationships with them.
                  >
                  > People are fighting over the ownership of God, as if God were property.
                  > And when those who are in the majority, or have enormous followings,
                  > have such doctrines, the 'others' are seen as Godless, and often are
                  > treated accordingly. In real terms, we know what has occurred down
                  > through history to the pagans or other groups that have found themselves
                  > on the wrong end of the power equation.
                  >
                  > This is why the most important realization I had in leaving eckankar is
                  > that no one is the exclusive intermediary for God, and anyone who makes
                  > such a claim is tinkering with one of the most horribly destructive and
                  > conflict generating concepts known in human history.
                  >
                  > God is not an anthropomorphic being that is picking and choosing this
                  > master or that saint to represent it. To suggest this implies a
                  > dualistic God with thoughts and opinions, and human-like purposes and
                  > motives, which is absurd.
                  >
                  > Well, I've got to go, and now that the holidays are over, I'm getting
                  > shorter on time to post on the Internet as much as I have in the last
                  > few days.
                  >
                  > Kent
                  >
                • tomleafeater
                  ... posted ... denigrated, ... denizens ... religious ... there much ... remember ... property. ... followings, ... often are ... down ... themselves ... more
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jan 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
                    etznab@... wrote:
                    >
                    > In a message dated 1/2/07 9:31:52 PM Central Standard Time,
                    > tianyue@... writes:
                    >
                    >
                    > > This is a topic I've thought about often, since I have frequently
                    posted
                    > > on a.r.e, and have been threatened, ridiculed, diagnosed,
                    denigrated,
                    > > and personally insulted in every manner imaginable by the
                    denizens
                    > > there. Naturally, it leads one to contemplate the nature of
                    religious
                    > > persecution and conflicts.
                    >
                    > [ME] I've seen that venue a long time ago, but haven't gone
                    there much
                    > at all. Don't know that I ever posted there. However, from what I
                    remember
                    > about it, I can definately see your point.
                    >
                    > You wrote:
                    >
                    > People are fighting over the ownership of God, as if God were
                    property.
                    > And when those who are in the majority, or have enormous
                    followings,
                    > have such doctrines, the 'others' are seen as Godless, and
                    often are
                    > treated accordingly. In real terms, we know what has occurred
                    down
                    > through history to the pagans or other groups that have found
                    themselves
                    > on the wrong end of the power equation.
                    >
                    > [ME] Agreed.
                    >
                    > [ME] I thought this was one of your best posts, and that's all the
                    more
                    > I want to say about it except that I can relate to much of what
                    you said.
                    >
                    > Etznab


                    Thanks, Etznab. For what its worth, your post raised truly worthy
                    points, and in my way of seeing things, you're looking at an
                    important basic issue that underlies what so much of these
                    discussions are realy all about.

                    Kent


                    >
                  • etznab@aol.com
                    In a message dated 1/3/07 1:15:03 AM Central Standard Time, ... One thing I have speculated about and even posted about well over a year ago on T.S. has to do
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jan 3, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 1/3/07 1:15:03 AM Central Standard Time, tianyue@... writes:


                      Thanks, Etznab. For what its worth, your post raised truly worthy
                      points, and in my way of seeing things, you're looking at an
                      important basic issue that underlies what so much of these
                      discussions are realy all about.


                         One thing I have speculated about and even posted about well
                      over a year ago on T.S. has to do with what they might not be
                      telling us, the people who DO know about Eckankar "Trivia" and/
                      or history.

                         I am not sure what are the terms of service or SOP on the
                      TruthSeeker about reposting content from their B.B. to other
                      venues so I hesitate to specify what I said in this regard. It
                      might be better to give the links to the posts instead.

                         The topic I speculated about is close to what Liz recently
                      mentioned about a "gag order". Did she say that Eckankar
                      paid for a gag order?

                         Personally I wouldn't want to put somehing like this on a
                      timeline (even if for my own personal viewing) because the
                      credibility of it (to me) cannot be credibly verified beyond
                      personal speculation.

                         Although IMO it is something to consider perhaps, because
                      if people who know and/or who hold the missing pieces on
                      a number of issues are not allowed to talk about it well, the rest
                      of us could argue until we're blue in the face, and it could very
                      well cause more harm then good.

                         I don't know if there is a gag order. What I do know is that
                      sometimes I feel like people are putting a "gag order" on me
                      when I ask certain questions about conflicting information or
                      if I just want to know more about "Eckankar" history.

                         If I knew for sure that there was some legal element in all
                      of this preventing certain information from becoming public it
                      might answer a lot of questions IMO about certain events. At
                      the same time I have asked questions in this regard on T.S.,
                      but I don't recall Ford Johnson saying anything or writing in
                      his book anything about a gag order. It is very possible that
                      if he did I missed it, but I would welcome someone to refresh
                      my memory in the case that he (or even David Lane) did.

                         I think it's fair to say (without quoting the T.S. post) that I
                      had mentioned the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and what
                      happened to the Ark at the end of that movie. Remember it
                      got stowed away in a warehouse out of sight so that only
                      certain people in the government could know about it, but
                      the average citizen would not even know it existed.

                         Although it's speculation on my part, I do believe this might
                      turn out to be a healthy point for discussion because it would
                      put into context the "legal" nature of certain information that a
                      person in the future might want to seek or request. In other
                      words, if certain historical facts are "off-limits" to us, then it
                      might be well to take that into account.

                         I liked the posts about "good" and "evil" that came out yesterday
                      and last night I read a chapter by Helena Blavatsky by the name of:
                      DEMON EST DEUS INVERSUS. It was chap. 11 from The Secret
                      Doctrine (Cosmogenesis) Vol. 1. I know this book is on the net and
                      can be viewed for free. Anyway (she's not an easy read) but there
                      was a lot of history, comments, and speculations about God and
                      the Devil in that chapter.

                         I thought Prometheus started a good thread just recently about
                      spiritual experiences with or without (before and after) Eckankar
                      and wanted to respond to that too. Basically my observation has
                      been that it doesn't matter what the name of a person's religion or
                      spiritual path is. That the attribution of "name" is not a prerequisite
                      for spiritual experience. One possible example (although there are
                      probably many, but I'm naturally going to choose this one) is the
                      fact that even "legally speaking" the name "Eckankar" was not used
                      to refer to .... before the 1960's? (I didn't try an quote because I'm
                      not sure about the exact wording used in court. However, I imagine
                      most of you are already familiar with what I am referring to. So all
                      of those people who now use the name "Eckankar" have to consider
                      that that word and spelling may not always have been the "name" of
                      their religion - if only at the very least - before they first saw or heard
                      about it.

                         I know of people from various religions using different names to
                      describe the path they are on. But I don't think it is the name or the
                      symbol alone that brings spiritual experience. I could go and call
                      myself the President, but would that make me the President?
                      Perhaps in the land of "make-believe", but not in the country where
                      I live.

                      Etznab




                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.