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

8158Re: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    Sep 18, 2011
      Since you mentioned Jesus I would like to comment. How does anybody
      know there was a person who matches the story told about Jesus? There
      is a section in Ford Johnson's book about the story of Jesus and how
      similar to stories from other cultures.

      It was over 2,000 years ago, the story of Jesus. How do I, or anybody,
      know for sure the story about Jesus is true in all its details? Just
      because so many people say so? So many people who were not even born
      until centuries after the fact?

      When I hear people talking about how they lived during the time of
      Jesus and they comment about his life, it usually always matches with
      popular belief. Then sometimes people change the details a bit, saying
      Jesus lived for a time in their country (India, etc.). Well, I don't
      believe beyond a doubt all of those stories either because, Why should
      I?

      Suppose there wasn't an Internet and information sharing like we have
      today where people can research information to verify whether true. And
      suppose that all people had to know about history of Eckankar were the
      new and updated Eckankar books. Fast forward 2,000 years from now and
      what do you suppose the books would say? Would they match the ones
      being printed today? or would they contain (if allowed to do so) even
      more embellishments, etc. etc.?

      If I were living in a world 2,000 years from now I could be skeptical
      about the stories just the same as then from now. In such a world,
      however, How could I find the truth?

      Just because people say it's so, that doesn't mean its true. IMHO.

      Now I suppose there WERE people living during and after the time period
      attributed to Jesus. What are their versions about the time period and
      do any of their writings survive in original form? So many people
      probably claim that they do, but how can this be proved?

      If you ask me, Catholicism became an arm of the Holy Roman Empire that
      was used to conquer and subjugate peoples from many countries at a time
      when the Pope chose the Emperors, Kings and leaders of those same
      countries. Those countries and their Kings could be later "ordered" to
      go on Crusades and do just what the armies in the Old Testament
      reportedly did by the command of Jehovah; Kill every man, woman and
      child. The same God that reportedly told Moses: Thou shalt not kill,
      etc." And what were all those people fighting about in the first place?
      Some said holy regions in the Middle East. Places that had to do with
      Jesus and Mohammad. And still today, centuries later, people are still
      fighting over those same areas. It's not to say that Catholicism, or
      any religion is total malware, badware. It's only to say that if the
      truth be known, I suspect there would be less reasons to kill innocent
      people in the name of religion.

      When I consider the scope and repercussions today for even challenging
      the stories about Jesus and Mohammad I realize how powerful are the
      forces of belief, whether what people believe in has any correlation
      with actual fact. When I entered a.r.e. (alternative.
      religion.eckankar) many years after it began and looked at the
      discussions, eventually I decided to sift fiction from fact for myself.
      And even there, as an Eckist, I received some of the same insults and
      childish banter thrown by Eckists at Non-Eckists. I would have loved to
      continue laying out all the facts, having discussion and dialogue about
      them, and learning from them, etc. Even teaching others a truer version
      of the actual events. But you know what happened at a.r.e.? Even though
      at times I quit for a short time and later came back, in the long run I
      didn't leave. And today a.r.e. is like the cartoon Casper the Friendly
      Ghost where somebody yelled GHOST! and everybody fled. I didn't,
      because I'm not afraid of no ghosts :) I'm not afraid of looking at
      earlier versions of Eckankar - even if they include things that
      contradict contemporary belief. What I'm interested in about this
      religion is the truth. Whether that truth appears ghostly, haunting, or
      scares people doesn't concern me. I think it's better to preserve the
      truth now before we all "give up the ghost". Future generations might
      be grateful that we did.

      So long story short. It's not over. Just because David Lane, Ford
      Johnson, Doug Marman and others wrote some books, in my book it doesn't
      mean all the puzzle pieces have been put back together, let alone
      found. And just because there are groups like a.r.e. ESA, eckankrtruth,
      etc. that does not mean to me that all has been said and done.

      Perhaps the truth about a particular time period is like a landscape.
      One that changes over time. A lot of the old jungles and forests in
      South America held pyramids and ruins centuries old that most of the
      world hadn't a clue about. They were there all the time, but when
      people abandoned those places - for whatever reason - the WEEDS were
      allowed to grow. And grow they did! Lack of care, or concern allowed
      the truth to be covered up so that generations of people the world over
      had no idea.

      The following is "poetry".

      I don't think one can call a weed-eater a weed. Just because it moves
      within and gets covered by so many weeds. That is just the nature of
      the job. Calling it a weed is only an attempt to destroy the weed-eater
      so all people can Hail and Worship the God (and Gods) of WEEDS!

      Etznab



      -----Original Message-----
      From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: eckankartruth <eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sat, Sep 17, 2011 9:58 pm
      Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces

       
      Etznab,

      I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture.
      Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what
      he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his
      life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into
      what is now known as Christianity.
      If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a
      charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar
      nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary
      uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself
      known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like
      to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a
      self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of
      a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught
      to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the
      case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen?
      Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred
      personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The
      plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common
      sense away and look elsewhere.
      I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had
      towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly
      enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending
      towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would
      make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations
      and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to
      express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children.
      My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a
      tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to
      be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the
      truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make
      up your mind. That's all.

      Alf

      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@...>
      wrote:
      >
      >
      > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
      >
      > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
      >
      >
      > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@>
      wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the
      message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your
      post.
      > >
      > > *********
      > >
      > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not
      what it used to be.
      > >
      > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of
      David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one
      thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing
      what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and
      evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my
      back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to
      research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
      > >
      > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to
      Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
      > >
      > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in
      the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I
      think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists
      generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I
      think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include
      those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
      > >
      > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell
      used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one
      (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census.
      Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded
      about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one
      tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the
      things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to
      all the other stories I've heard.
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic