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

Re: [eckankartruth] Re: Truthiness

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    You had been duped big time into the falsehood of Eckankar and now the best you can do is become neutral? This was how I used the word. The turning point
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      "You had been duped big time into the falsehood of Eckankar and now the
      best you can do is become neutral?"

      This was how I used the word.

      "The turning point was when I became neutral about the sources of so
      much information to the point that I could actively investigate it."

      There were a lot of sources that I wouldn't look at because I was
      biased and didn't want to look at them. And I named a number of them
      (some I didn't) in my post. Like Julian Johnson's book, Ford Johnson's
      book, David Lane's book, and various newsgroups, etc.

      Maybe neutral wasn't the best word to use.



      -----Original Message-----
      From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: eckankartruth <eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sun, Jul 8, 2012 5:28 pm
      Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Truthiness

       
      Etznab,
      Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There is much to learn,
      know embrace and love regarding God. You had been duped big time into
      the falsehood of Eckankar and now the best you can do is become
      neutral? That's OK for now, but you seem to be having difficulty in
      separating "the wheat from the chaff".
      Eckankar is a hodgepodge of world religions (large or small) crafted by
      one single man namely Paul Twitchell. He cleverly extracted
      buzzphrases, words and ideas from Scientology to Hinduism; from the
      Occident to the Orient and then constructed a purely imaginary
      foundation of ECK Masters to justify his new spin
      on God. Fortunately (for you) there is much to believe in Eckankar
      regarding the plagiarized and borrowed concepts but not one shred of
      evidence of ECK Masters before the year 1965. That's where Eckankar
      falls flat on its face. He was a bright guy, Twitch, but you have to be
      discerning and bring into focus what is relevant truth and what is a
      complete lie.
      It's hard to admit we've been tricked. We ran away with our tails
      between the proverbial legs but eventually, rose again and cleaned out
      our temple to find our own way to God (or even perhaps not). Everyone
      DOES have their own Eckankar in a sense but you must strip away the
      outer wrappings and extricate some of the lies before you can see any
      Light and Sound.

      Alf
      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Lacking the resources to independently verify a story, people
      generally become dependent on others and various so-called authorities.
      Problem is, the latter have probably depended on secondhand information
      as well. It's like nobody really knows the answers and nobody can
      really prove fact from fiction. With history I have found this to be
      common. The older the history the more common to fill in the blanks
      with what people imagine.
      >
      > When Ford Johnson's book came out in 2003 it took me two years to
      read it. Two years! Why did it take that long? Because I didn't want to
      believe it! I didn't want to hear it! I was like that Indian near the
      end of the movie: Dances with Wolves, who told Kevin Costner: "You're
      hurting my ears!"
      >
      > During the 1990s I hardly ever touched base in a.r.e. and other
      groups. My impression of a.r.e. when I did learn about it, I thought
      a.r.e. was a literal Hell Hole. One that I avoided for many years.
      >
      > When I first learned about David Lane and his research my opinion
      was that he must be the Devil.
      >
      > Long story short, I was unprepared for certain facts and I didn't
      want to hear about them. I was partly unprepared because Eckankar
      writings and teachings had taught and told me the opposite of what was
      true. Instead, I learned, I had taken literally so much of what
      amounted to pseudo man-made history and religion. As a consequence I
      felt more responsible for the information that I knew. I could no
      longer describe the history of Eckankar absent the facts, or to the
      point of covering up some of the more unsavory ones.
      >
      > The turning point was when I became neutral about the sources of
      so much information to the point that I could actively investigate it.
      That required actually reading what people were saying and checking to
      verify the details in each of the stories. It required actually reading
      the The Path of the Masters, the research of David Lane, the book by
      Ford Johnson and listening to former members on the various newsgroups.
      >
      > All along I've not wanted to see religion as a total ruse.
      Something where people were making so many things up and dodging the
      truth. At least, I didn't want to see it as part of the Eckankar
      religion. The reason is because I had my own beliefs before Eckankar. I
      had my own relationship with Spirit and God. Since Eckankar
      incorporated so many sayings from various spiritual paths, I listened.
      Since I believed a lot of stories by Paul Twitchell and Eckankar it
      convinced me that Eckankar was top of the heap, king of the hill. I
      then surrendered and yielded to much of what I read as though it were
      literally true. I didn't (at the time) believe I had a way to verify
      many of the stories; ones created years before I joined and where the
      founder was long since dead. My authority was based on what I believed
      to be true, and whether acyually true or not. My convictions were
      largely based on what others believed. Iow, on what the majority
      believed; on what peers and clergy taught me about the history of
      Eckankar and Eck Masters.
      >
      > In summary, I realized that even with Eckankar (as with many
      organized religions) the package included fact and fiction. Where a lot
      of the popular fictions were being "sold" as literally true. The only
      way I could remain a member, I thought, was to sacrifice the pseudo
      memes on the altar of truth. First I had to find them though. I had to
      sift out the facts from fiction because "God" is not something I
      imagine to be a pack of lies sold for entertainment, prestige, power
      and profit. This is not what is "God" to me.
      >
      > The old saying that "Everybody has their own Eckankar" is not
      totally true (IMO). Not when people are imbibing other people's
      Eckankar. Not when the false beliefs of others are taken to be one's
      own. Eckankar is a word, but for me it is a symbol for something else.
      Something that can stand well enough alone when based on true history
      and true natural events in history divorced from the fabulous fictions
      born out of a desperate need for recognition.
      >
      > If Eckankar history cannot stand on the truth. Then (IMO) Eckankar
      history cannot stand on the truth. That doesn't mean it's my Eckankar
      history. Meanwhile, what people allege to be true and based on natural
      events (see LTG for definition) vs. pseudo events (ditto) is largely a
      matter of heresy so far as I'm concerned. It adds up to nothing (for
      me) until I can verify what is actually true and what belongs in the
      context of fiction, or myth. I'm not taking chances believing anybody
      anymore. Not even those who dawn the title Godman, Guru, Master,
      Minister, Priest, religious authority, what have you.
      >
      > I would love to hear more from DavidP111 who sounds like an eye
      witness with experiences from the early formative days of Eckankar. Who
      sounds like someone who personally knew the founder of Eckankar and his
      wife. More than any of that, I look forward to verifying how much of
      what David says is true and how much of it is something else.
      >
      > It's not intended as disrespect that I don't believe everything
      that others say. Only that I'd rather be able to confirm and verify it
      myself through substantial evidence that anybody can easily find. It is
      the only way I'd feel totally safe using it and quoting it as the
      truth. If it can't be proven as truth beyond a reasonable doubt, then I
      fear others will make something else of it. Like a "club" to beat me
      over the head with :) This is why I stress the importance of backing up
      one's claims with substance and easily verifiable information. It makes
      a lot of difference, and especially with Internet dialogue.
      >
    • TuzaHu973@cox.net
      Being too FOR something is just as much an imbalance as being too AGAINST something. If one is truly neutral there is no fear of investigating. Fact is
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 8, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Being too 'FOR' something is just as much an imbalance as being too 'AGAINST' something. If one is truly neutral there is no fear of investigating. Fact is the best scientists are those that investigate a subject without getting involved with it. Then the information is valid, uncorrupted.


        ---- etznab@... wrote:
        >
        > "You had been duped big time into the falsehood of Eckankar and now the
        > best you can do is become neutral?"
        >
        > This was how I used the word.
        >
        > "The turning point was when I became neutral about the sources of so
        > much information to the point that I could actively investigate it."
        >
        > There were a lot of sources that I wouldn't look at because I was
        > biased and didn't want to look at them. And I named a number of them
        > (some I didn't) in my post. Like Julian Johnson's book, Ford Johnson's
        > book, David Lane's book, and various newsgroups, etc.
        >
        > Maybe neutral wasn't the best word to use.
        >
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
        > To: eckankartruth <eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Sun, Jul 8, 2012 5:28 pm
        > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Truthiness
        >
        >  
        > Etznab,
        > Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There is much to learn,
        > know embrace and love regarding God. You had been duped big time into
        > the falsehood of Eckankar and now the best you can do is become
        > neutral? That's OK for now, but you seem to be having difficulty in
        > separating "the wheat from the chaff".
        > Eckankar is a hodgepodge of world religions (large or small) crafted by
        > one single man namely Paul Twitchell. He cleverly extracted
        > buzzphrases, words and ideas from Scientology to Hinduism; from the
        > Occident to the Orient and then constructed a purely imaginary
        > foundation of ECK Masters to justify his new spin
        > on God. Fortunately (for you) there is much to believe in Eckankar
        > regarding the plagiarized and borrowed concepts but not one shred of
        > evidence of ECK Masters before the year 1965. That's where Eckankar
        > falls flat on its face. He was a bright guy, Twitch, but you have to be
        > discerning and bring into focus what is relevant truth and what is a
        > complete lie.
        > It's hard to admit we've been tricked. We ran away with our tails
        > between the proverbial legs but eventually, rose again and cleaned out
        > our temple to find our own way to God (or even perhaps not). Everyone
        > DOES have their own Eckankar in a sense but you must strip away the
        > outer wrappings and extricate some of the lies before you can see any
        > Light and Sound.
        >
        > Alf
        > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@...>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Lacking the resources to independently verify a story, people
        > generally become dependent on others and various so-called authorities.
        > Problem is, the latter have probably depended on secondhand information
        > as well. It's like nobody really knows the answers and nobody can
        > really prove fact from fiction. With history I have found this to be
        > common. The older the history the more common to fill in the blanks
        > with what people imagine.
        > >
        > > When Ford Johnson's book came out in 2003 it took me two years to
        > read it. Two years! Why did it take that long? Because I didn't want to
        > believe it! I didn't want to hear it! I was like that Indian near the
        > end of the movie: Dances with Wolves, who told Kevin Costner: "You're
        > hurting my ears!"
        > >
        > > During the 1990s I hardly ever touched base in a.r.e. and other
        > groups. My impression of a.r.e. when I did learn about it, I thought
        > a.r.e. was a literal Hell Hole. One that I avoided for many years.
        > >
        > > When I first learned about David Lane and his research my opinion
        > was that he must be the Devil.
        > >
        > > Long story short, I was unprepared for certain facts and I didn't
        > want to hear about them. I was partly unprepared because Eckankar
        > writings and teachings had taught and told me the opposite of what was
        > true. Instead, I learned, I had taken literally so much of what
        > amounted to pseudo man-made history and religion. As a consequence I
        > felt more responsible for the information that I knew. I could no
        > longer describe the history of Eckankar absent the facts, or to the
        > point of covering up some of the more unsavory ones.
        > >
        > > The turning point was when I became neutral about the sources of
        > so much information to the point that I could actively investigate it.
        > That required actually reading what people were saying and checking to
        > verify the details in each of the stories. It required actually reading
        > the The Path of the Masters, the research of David Lane, the book by
        > Ford Johnson and listening to former members on the various newsgroups.
        > >
        > > All along I've not wanted to see religion as a total ruse.
        > Something where people were making so many things up and dodging the
        > truth. At least, I didn't want to see it as part of the Eckankar
        > religion. The reason is because I had my own beliefs before Eckankar. I
        > had my own relationship with Spirit and God. Since Eckankar
        > incorporated so many sayings from various spiritual paths, I listened.
        > Since I believed a lot of stories by Paul Twitchell and Eckankar it
        > convinced me that Eckankar was top of the heap, king of the hill. I
        > then surrendered and yielded to much of what I read as though it were
        > literally true. I didn't (at the time) believe I had a way to verify
        > many of the stories; ones created years before I joined and where the
        > founder was long since dead. My authority was based on what I believed
        > to be true, and whether acyually true or not. My convictions were
        > largely based on what others believed. Iow, on what the majority
        > believed; on what peers and clergy taught me about the history of
        > Eckankar and Eck Masters.
        > >
        > > In summary, I realized that even with Eckankar (as with many
        > organized religions) the package included fact and fiction. Where a lot
        > of the popular fictions were being "sold" as literally true. The only
        > way I could remain a member, I thought, was to sacrifice the pseudo
        > memes on the altar of truth. First I had to find them though. I had to
        > sift out the facts from fiction because "God" is not something I
        > imagine to be a pack of lies sold for entertainment, prestige, power
        > and profit. This is not what is "God" to me.
        > >
        > > The old saying that "Everybody has their own Eckankar" is not
        > totally true (IMO). Not when people are imbibing other people's
        > Eckankar. Not when the false beliefs of others are taken to be one's
        > own. Eckankar is a word, but for me it is a symbol for something else.
        > Something that can stand well enough alone when based on true history
        > and true natural events in history divorced from the fabulous fictions
        > born out of a desperate need for recognition.
        > >
        > > If Eckankar history cannot stand on the truth. Then (IMO) Eckankar
        > history cannot stand on the truth. That doesn't mean it's my Eckankar
        > history. Meanwhile, what people allege to be true and based on natural
        > events (see LTG for definition) vs. pseudo events (ditto) is largely a
        > matter of heresy so far as I'm concerned. It adds up to nothing (for
        > me) until I can verify what is actually true and what belongs in the
        > context of fiction, or myth. I'm not taking chances believing anybody
        > anymore. Not even those who dawn the title Godman, Guru, Master,
        > Minister, Priest, religious authority, what have you.
        > >
        > > I would love to hear more from DavidP111 who sounds like an eye
        > witness with experiences from the early formative days of Eckankar. Who
        > sounds like someone who personally knew the founder of Eckankar and his
        > wife. More than any of that, I look forward to verifying how much of
        > what David says is true and how much of it is something else.
        > >
        > > It's not intended as disrespect that I don't believe everything
        > that others say. Only that I'd rather be able to confirm and verify it
        > myself through substantial evidence that anybody can easily find. It is
        > the only way I'd feel totally safe using it and quoting it as the
        > truth. If it can't be proven as truth beyond a reasonable doubt, then I
        > fear others will make something else of it. Like a "club" to beat me
        > over the head with :) This is why I stress the importance of backing up
        > one's claims with substance and easily verifiable information. It makes
        > a lot of difference, and especially with Internet dialogue.
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • robokidnx
        When eckies are wrong, they re wrong. And when they re right, they have a death grip on the obvious. This statement is content free, like most of what passes
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 12, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          When eckies are wrong, they're wrong. And when they're right, they have a death grip on the obvious.

          This statement is content free, like most of what passes for wisdom in eck. Rarely has any idea emerged from eckankar that didn't sound like Behavior Modification for Dummies.

          Convincing followers to be neither for nor against anything (as practiced in the cult) is a great way to keep them spinning their wheels. It serves to "neutralize" critical thinking. It's also a perfect way to shut people up and pacify them.

          --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, <TuzaHu973@...> wrote:
          >
          > Being too 'FOR' something is just as much an imbalance as being too 'AGAINST' something. If one is truly neutral there is no fear of investigating. Fact is the best scientists are those that investigate a subject without getting involved with it. Then the information is valid, uncorrupted.
        • al_radzik
          The first two standard rules of any cult are: 1) The guru is always right. 2) You are always wrong.
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 18, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            The first two standard rules of any cult are:
            1) The guru is always right.
            2) You are always wrong.


            --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, robokidnx <no_reply@...> wrote:
            >
            > When eckies are wrong, they're wrong. And when they're right, they have a death grip on the obvious.
            >
            > This statement is content free, like most of what passes for wisdom in eck. Rarely has any idea emerged from eckankar that didn't sound like Behavior Modification for Dummies.
            >
            > Convincing followers to be neither for nor against anything (as practiced in the cult) is a great way to keep them spinning their wheels. It serves to "neutralize" critical thinking. It's also a perfect way to shut people up and pacify them.
            >
            > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, <TuzaHu973@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Being too 'FOR' something is just as much an imbalance as being too 'AGAINST' something. If one is truly neutral there is no fear of investigating. Fact is the best scientists are those that investigate a subject without getting involved with it. Then the information is valid, uncorrupted.
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.