Maharishi criticizes Bush, the Pope and modern education
George DeForest
Station 24, 6063 NP Meru, The Netherlands
Europe Office: Tel: +31-475-539-569 • U.S. Office: Tel: +1-641-470-1344
Email: World...@Maharishi.Net
– PRESS CONFERENCE REPORT –
http://www.mou.org/maharishi_channel/news/summary/2002_07_17.html
Maharishi criticizes Bush,
the Pope and modern education
Says American corporate scandals reveal deep flaws of capitalism
Showcases Vedic knowledge as means to stop conflict, promote peace
JULY 18) With the safety and security of the world imperiled by the
destructive policies of war-mongering nations, His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi powerfully repeated his pledge made last week to personally create
world peace, saying, "We can't be a silent witness to the sinking ship. We
have the power to save the ship of life from sinking into disaster."
Maharishi's announcement came during a candid and wide-ranging global news
conference on July 17 that was broadcast live from Meru, Holland, via
satellite, Internet webcast, and teleconference.
While acknowledging that his nature is not to criticize, Maharishi
nonetheless offered frank assessments of U.S. President George Bush, the
Pope, and modern educational systems that produce criminal minds.
Maharishi's opening remarks were brief. He pointed out the inherent flaws of
"humanly conceived constitutions with their human weaknesses and failings"
which lead to problem-ridden administrations, and contrasted them with the
"God-made constitution" which governs the ever-expanding universe with
perfect order and without a problem.
A group in every country
"From the Vedic Tradition of India we have the knowledge and technologies to
enliven the deepest level of Nature's functioning—the Unified Field of
Natural Law, the Will of God—to raise the administration of every nation to
the level of the supreme efficiency and effectiveness of the God-made
constitution," Maharishi said.
The formula for governments is simple. "Every country must have a large
group of Vedic experts in the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi
program, including Yogic Flying," Maharishi said. "Research shows that
through their daily performance these experts will eliminate acute societal
stress—the underlying cause of conflict—and create coherence in world
consciousness."
Emphasizing the global nature of his peace effort, Maharishi said that if
even one country remained stressed and without a coherence-creating group,
then world peace would be shaken—"like a small thorn throws off the balance
of the entire body."
Maharishi also announced the availability of World Peace Bonds to fund the
groups. "These bonds may be of particular interest to individuals,
corporations, and pension funds who would buy the bonds, earn interest on
their investment and create peace." (See www.globalcountry.org.)
"Bush is an ignorant man"
From the first question, Maharishi made apparent his dissatisfaction with
President Bush and his policies of destruction. "I see him as an ignorant
man, who knows nothing of science or reason or religion," Maharishi said.
"That great country is being led to destroy the world by very wrong
sentiments."
Maharishi said that Bush and his advisors should look to the teachings of
their religions to see the consequences of their policies of destruction—and
then he offered his own counsel.
"Every religion has heaven and hell. Every religion says that killing is a
sin. Sinners go to hell; only the virtuous go to heaven. The destroyers of
the world can create ashes in human society, but they cannot escape the door
of hell. Everyone has to pass away, but until he does, he's advised to do
right things—help thy neighbor and relieve the suffering of others. It's a
grave misunderstanding that the present destroyers think they are going to
heaven."
"I have forgotten about Israel"
To a question about the Middle East and whether Maharishi planned any
humanitarian gestures to create a group in Israel, Maharishi was equally
direct: "Israel is a child of America. I have forgotten about Israel because
when people are murderers, who can bother about them? All that is happening
in Israel is the doing of America. Wherever there is destruction, it's the
doing of America. For the sake of politeness, one may not say that, but
those are my thoughts."
America's corporate scandals
Maharishi commented on the rash of scandals and bankruptcies in corporate
America, and targeted capitalism, which, he said, makes personal gain the
sole motivator in life. "There is so much fraud in the way money is earned
in a capitalist country—it's quite ugly. And they are all involved in it—the
president, the vice president—they are all involved. It's a big muddle."
But when asked what would happen to business dealings when a large group of
coherence-creating Vedic experts is established in America, Maharishi
offered an entirely different picture.
"Nothing wrong will sprout. Deceiving others will be absent. Harming others
will be absent. Money mongering makes a man blind—it's such great ignorance.
One can be in the darkness and break one's head or knees, but all that will
come to an end with the onset of light. We will bring the light."
The Pope
Maharishi was asked whether he would join forces with those who advocate
prayer to create peace. "There is nothing in the world to compare with
Transcendental Meditation," he said, adding "We have heard the champions of
prayer and the apologies of the Pope. They are praying to God to be excused
for the misery and destruction and impurity that their organization has
created throughout the ages. They are not peace-promoters. This is not the
kind of prayer that we teach."
Total brain functioning
Maharishi returned to the issue of violence, and cited inadequacies in
modern education worldwide as the cause of crime and terrorism sweeping the
globe.
"Education has been very damaging to life. You educate your children in a
haphazard way and don't train them to use their full brain, and then when
they get older and they shoot someone on the streets, you say, ‘What is
happening?' But it's your own doing. How you educate the students is how
they will behave in society. The purpose of student life is to enliven the
field of cosmic intelligence which is Total Natural Law, total brain
functioning. The use of total brain functioning through Transcendental
Meditation is real; it is not gossip, or a children's story to be cast
aside."
Waking up the leaders
Maharishi reflected on his choice of words during the news conference: "I
know I am using strong words, but I have spoken enough soft words. When a
man is asleep and you want to wake him up, you gently move him. If he still
doesn't wake, you have to shake him harder. After speaking gently for so
many years, now I have to shake the leaders and warn them: ‘You are opening
the gate to hell for yourselves—and for all your supporters.'"
Convincing individuals and nations
Maharishi revealed what lies ahead in his effort to create permanent peace:
"I started the Transcendental Meditation movement all by myself; there was
no second or third person. I had to convince individuals in one country
after another, year after year. Now I have to do the same convincing, this
time with nations. I have created the Global Country of World Peace, and
many countries are coming to join the Global Country, but the process is
slow. I hope the press will take this message of world peace far and wide,
and very soon we will have groups in every country."
Peace not based on the whims of the press
And while looking to the press to help deliver his message, Maharishi
questioned their autonomy, saying they are paid to promote their
governments. He also said that he is not dependent on their assistance. "My
success does not depend on the press, even though I want the press to
publicize good things. But world peace is not going to depend on the whims
of the press. It'll be on the basis of the effectiveness of coherence in
world consciousness. "
Declaring that coherence in society is not an intellectual concept, but
something real, Maharishi said, "Coherence produces a positive effect on the
environment. Either you walk into a dark room or a lighted room. Like that
is the effect of coherence."
Fulfillment of religious prayers is near
Maharishi concluded by answering a reporter who asked whether the
coherence-creating groups would bring fulfillment to religious prophecies.
"The prayers of all religious groups will be fulfilled as world
consciousness becomes purer and purer. This is great news for them—the time
is coming for the fulfillment of their desires, hopes, and prayers. The Will
of God will be on earth as it is in heaven. It doesn't matter what the world
has been in the past. We are bringing the light, and darkness will simply
disappear. Fulfillment can be seen at a distance, but it has come into
vision. Now it will come nearer and nearer," Maharishi said.
Maharishi's next global news conference
Wednesday, July 24, 2002
17:00 hours (CEST) • 11:00 a.m. (U.S.–EDT)
Connect via Internet
www.globalcountry.org
Connect via telephone in USA
Dial +1-512-305-4600 and then enter the code 55689, followed by the # key
Idaho_Spudboy
Jeff E
So Willy, now MMY is disowning you as well as John and Suds
"George DeForest" <george....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:54fbbe7f.0207...@posting.google.com...
> "I started the Transcendental Meditation movement all by myself; there was
> no second or third person. I had to convince individuals in one country
> after another, year after year.
snip
ColdBluICE
> Global Country of World Peace
> Europe
> Email: WorldPeace@Lil MishMashi Maheshi.Net
> Maharishi criticizes Bush,
> the Pope and modern education
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> (...)
> JULY 18) With the safety and security of the world imperiled by the
> destructive policies of war-mongering nations, His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh
> Yogi powerfully repeated his pledge made last week
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> (...)
> While acknowledging that his nature is not to criticize, Maharishi
> nonetheless offered frank assessments of U.S. President George Bush, the
> Pope, and modern educational systems that produce criminal minds.
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> (...)
> The formula for governments is simple. "Every country must have a large
> group of Vedic experts in the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi
> program, including Yogic Flying," Maharishi said.
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> (...)
> Maharishi said that
--Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> Maharishi also announced
> "Bush is an ignorant man"
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> From the first question, Maharishi made apparent his dissatisfaction with
> President Bush and his policies of destruction. "I see him as an ignorant
> man, who knows nothing of science or reason or religion," Maharishi said.
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> Maharishi said that
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> (....)
> It's a
> grave misunderstanding that the present destroyers
> think they are going to
> heaven."
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> "I have forgotten about Israel"
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
> To a question about the Middle East and whether Maharishi planned any
> humanitarian gestures to create a group in Israel, Maharishi was equally
> direct: "Israel is a child of America. I have forgotten about Israel because
> when people are murderers, who can bother about them? All that is happening
> in Israel is the doing of America. Wherever there is destruction, it's the
> doing of America. For the sake of politeness, one may not say that, but
> those are my thoughts."
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
> America's corporate scandals
>
> Maharishi commented on the rash of scandals and bankruptcies in corporate
> America, and targeted capitalism, which, he said, makes personal gain the
> sole motivator in life. "There is so much fraud in the way money is earned
> in a capitalist country—it's quite ugly. And they are all involved in it—the
> president, the vice president—they are all involved. It's a big muddle."
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> But when asked what would happen to business dealings when a large group of
> coherence-creating Vedic experts is established in America, Maharishi
> offered an entirely different picture.
>
> "Nothing wrong will sprout. Deceiving others will be absent. Harming others
> will be absent. Money mongering makes a man blind—it's such great ignorance.
> One can be in the darkness and break one's head or knees, but all that will
> come to an end with the onset of light. We will bring the light."
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
> The Pope
>
> Maharishi was asked whether he would join forces with those who advocate
> prayer to create peace. "There is nothing in the world to compare with
> Transcendental Meditation," he said,
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> adding "We have heard the champions of
> prayer and the apologies of the Pope. They are praying to God to be excused
> for the misery and destruction and impurity that their organization has
> created throughout the ages. They are not peace-promoters. This is not the
> kind of prayer that we teach."
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
> Total brain functioning
>
> Maharishi returned to the issue of violence, and cited inadequacies in
> modern education worldwide as the cause of crime and terrorism sweeping the
> globe.
>
> "Education has been very damaging to life.
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> (....)
> The use of total brain functioning through Transcendental
> Meditation is real; it is not gossip, or a children's story to be cast
> aside."
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
> Waking up the leaders
>
> Maharishi reflected on his choice of words during the news conference: "I
> know I am using strong words, but I have spoken enough soft words. When a
> man is asleep and you want to wake him up, you gently move him. If he still
> doesn't wake, you have to shake him harder. After speaking gently for so
> many years, now I have to shake the leaders and warn them: ‘You are opening
> the gate to hell for yourselves—and for all your supporters.'"
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
> Convincing individuals and nations
>
> Maharishi revealed what lies ahead in his effort to create permanent peace:
> "I started the Transcendental Meditation movement all by myself; there was
> no second or third person. I had to convince individuals in one country
> after another, year after year.
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> Now I have to do the same convincing, this
> time with nations. I have created the Global Country of World Peace, and
> many countries are coming to join the Global Country, but the process is
> slow. I hope the press will take this message of world peace far and wide,
> and very soon we will have groups in every country."
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
> Peace not based on the whims of the press
> (...)
> Maharishi
> questioned their autonomy, saying they are paid to promote their
> governments. He also said that he is not dependent on their assistance. "My
> success does not depend on the press, even though I want the press to
> publicize good things."
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> But world peace is not going to depend on the whims
> of the press. It'll be on the basis of the effectiveness of coherence in
> world consciousness. "
>
> Declaring that coherence in society is not an intellectual concept, but
> something real, Maharishi said, "Coherence produces a positive effect on the
> environment. Either you walk into a dark room or a lighted room. Like that
> is the effect of coherence."
>
> Fulfillment of religious prayers is near
>
> Maharishi concluded by answering a reporter who asked whether the
> coherence-creating groups would bring fulfillment to religious prophecies.
>
> "The prayers of all religious groups will be fulfilled as world
> consciousness becomes purer and purer. This is great news for them—the time
> is coming for the fulfillment of their desires, hopes, and prayers.
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
> The Will
> of God will be on earth as it is in heaven. It doesn't matter what the world
> has been in the past. We are bringing the light, and darkness will simply
> disappear. Fulfillment can be seen at a distance, but it has come into
> vision. Now it will come nearer and nearer," Maharishi said.
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
> Maharishi's next global news conference
> Wednesday, July 24, 2002
-Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
Petrus
> President Bush and his policies of destruction. "I see him as an ignorant
> man, who knows nothing of science or reason or religion," Maharishi said.
LOL that from the man who calls TM a science and not a religion...
will...@texas.net
Petrus - You are mistaken. The Maharsihi has never called TM a 'science' nor
has he ever claimed that TM is not a 'religion'. You made that up based on
your own interpretation. But, it all depends on what you mean by the terms
'science' and 'religion' does it not? Again, you failed to define your terms
and you have painted with a rather large brush, yet again.
It has already been established that you do not understand what 'science'
is, but you have consistently avoided my statement that 'Christianity' is
not a religion. So, based on these observations I have come to the
conclusion that dialoging with you about 'science' is another exercise in
futility, seeing as how you obviously believe in 'Creationism' and 'Revealed
Truth' yet, on the subject of religion, there seems to be some common ground
between us. Apparently, we both agree that the vast majority of Christians
enjoy meditation, but, we seem to disagree that meditation, per se, is a
religion, in and of itself.
There is no such thing as pure science, and there are as many religions as
there are people. Any point of view, when taken to extremes, will be found
to be self-contradictory. So, perhaps you should be 'laughing out loud' at
your own personal folly, rather than attempting to be a 'scientist' AND a
'theologian'!
will...@texas.net
> I won't shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep
> muttering more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
Mr. Perino - You are mistaken. Maharsihi does not need any of your 'funny
money' because your money is utterly worthless and is not backed up by any
gold. And, you don't have any money in the first place, being an out-of-work
house painter. In fact, you already gave what little money you and Marcy had
to the Swami Prakash.
Read, "I, Steve Perino, am also broke, because I handed all my money over to
the Swami Prakash, who would not shut up until I gave him lots of money and
performed lots of construction work on his Dagoba, causing me to lose lots
of time and bids on painting and plaster work out in Cedar Park. So, I keep
muttering assinine statements on newsgroups, in order to recruit more slave
labor for the Swami's flower farm, (so the Swami can write his name real big
up on the wall in Hindi) or until I get *my* $100.00 US back from the
ISDL."
Are you still tithing 20% of Marcy's earnings to the Swami?
"ColdBluICE" <ColdB...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:cd5299c0.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > in a capitalist country-it's quite ugly. And they are all involved in
it-the
> > president, the vice president-they are all involved. It's a big muddle."
>
> -Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
> shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
> more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
>
>
> > But when asked what would happen to business dealings when a large group
of
> > coherence-creating Vedic experts is established in America, Maharishi
> > offered an entirely different picture.
> >
> > "Nothing wrong will sprout. Deceiving others will be absent. Harming
others
> > will be absent. Money mongering makes a man blind-it's such great
> > the gate to hell for yourselves-and for all your supporters.'"
> > consciousness becomes purer and purer. This is great news for them-the
time
> > is coming for the fulfillment of their desires, hopes, and prayers.
>
> -Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
> shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
> more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
>
>
> > The Will
> > of God will be on earth as it is in heaven. It doesn't matter what the
world
> > has been in the past. We are bringing the light, and darkness will
simply
> > disappear. Fulfillment can be seen at a distance, but it has come into
> > vision. Now it will come nearer and nearer," Maharishi said.
>
> -Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
> shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
> more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
>
> >
> > Maharishi's next global news conference
> > Wednesday, July 24, 2002
>
> -Read-, "I am broke also, please hand over your money. And, I won't
> shut up until you give me lots and lots money. I'll keep muttering
> more assinine statements until I get *my* $100bil. US."
>
>
> > 17:00 hours (CEST) . 11:00 a.m. (U.S.-EDT)
Petrus
"George DeForest" <george....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:54fbbe7f.0207...@posting.google.com...
> Global Country of World Peace
>
> - PRESS CONFERENCE REPORT -
>
> http://www.mou.org/maharishi_channel/news/summary/2002_07_17.html
>
> Maharishi criticizes Bush,
> the Pope and modern education
>
> Says American corporate scandals reveal deep flaws of capitalism
Not really more like the flaws in the people them selves. It also reveals
the flaws in our education system. When 3 out of 4 university graduates
tell us that they have been taught that the are no absolute right and
wrongs, what do you expect them to do in business?
>
> Showcases Vedic knowledge as means to stop conflict, promote peace
Why? You can't even decrease crime in Fairfield IA. I bet you there are
some business based in Fairfield and in Iowa that have crooks as managers.
>
> JULY 18) With the safety and security of the world imperiled by the
> destructive policies of war-mongering nations, His Holiness
Whose holiness?
> Maharishi Mahesh
> Yogi powerfully repeated his pledge made last week to personally create
> world peace, saying, "We can't be a silent witness to the sinking ship.
Ah he is finally giving up the 8,000 for world peace sham? How many
millions has he bilked out of the poor stockholders wallets?
> We
> have the power to save the ship of life from sinking into disaster."
But we have not been able to proof that.
>
> Maharishi's announcement came during a candid
Not candid enough.
> and wide-ranging global news
> conference
I was not invited.
> on July 17 that was broadcast live from Meru, Holland, via
> satellite, Internet webcast, and teleconference.
>
> While acknowledging that his nature is not to criticize, Maharishi
> nonetheless
Is that a bald face lie or marketing?
> offered frank assessments of U.S. President George Bush, the
> Pope, and modern educational systems that produce criminal minds.
Wow it is not that evil capitalism then. Maybe it is just the people. Guns
don't kill people....
>
> Maharishi's opening remarks were brief.
Give me a break, when is he going to start?
> He pointed out the inherent flaws of
> "humanly conceived constitutions with their human weaknesses and failings"
Yes it is that sin nature.
> which lead to problem-ridden administrations, and contrasted them with the
> "God-made constitution" which governs the ever-expanding universe with
> perfect order and without a problem.
And were can we find that?
>
> A group in every country
But why? first it was 8,000 bun hoppers doing the trick, then 40,000 and
now a group in every country. He is digging in y'alls wallets again folks.
Watch out.
>
> "From the Vedic Tradition of India we have the knowledge and technologies
to
> enliven the deepest level of Nature's functioning-the Unified Field of
> Natural Law, the Will of God-
See natural law is the will of God. And you guys did not want to believe
me. Vedism or Hinduism folks plain and simple.
> to raise the administration of every nation to
> the level of the supreme efficiency and effectiveness of the God-made
> constitution," Maharishi said.
According to Vedism / Hinduism. Now what did your mantra fetch for you from
those personal gods?
>
> The formula for governments is simple. "Every country must have a large
> group of Vedic experts in the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi
> program, including Yogic Flying," Maharishi said. "Research shows that
> through their daily performance these experts will eliminate acute
societal
> stress-the underlying cause of conflict-and create coherence in world
> consciousness."
What research?
www.unstress4less.org/maharishi_effect-mdefect-fairfield.htm
www.unstress4less.org/Maharishi_effect-mdefect-uscities-1976.htm
>
> Emphasizing the global nature of his peace effort, Maharishi said that if
> even one country remained stressed and without a coherence-creating group,
> then world peace would be shaken-"like a small thorn throws off the
balance
> of the entire body."
Really is that our new excuse. We were to have world peace by now according
to his news converence about the 1,000,000 enlightenment course - or did we
forget that - ah - I was not supposed to mention that? - Forgive me.
>
> Maharishi also announced the availability of World Peace Bonds
Bonds? ROTFLOL I bet you will never see your money back on those bonds,
they probably have Goodyear written all over them.
> to fund the
> groups. "These bonds may be of particular interest to individuals,
> corporations, and pension funds who would buy the bonds, earn interest on
> their investment and create peace." (See www.globalcountry.org.)
>
> "Bush is an ignorant man"
That would be classified as an insult.
>
> From the first question, Maharishi made apparent his dissatisfaction with
> President Bush and his policies of destruction.
I must have been sleeping. That policy must have passed by without me
seeing it.
> "I see him as an ignorant
> man, who knows nothing of science or reason or religion," Maharishi said.
I already replied about the science - religion aspect. Pot - kettle....
> "That great country is being led to destroy the world by very wrong
> sentiments."
Really. And what have you done for this country lately. Besides closing
most centers and transferring the funds to India?
>
> Maharishi said that Bush and his advisors should look to the teachings of
> their religions to see the consequences of their policies of
destruction-and
> then he offered his own counsel.
I think that Bush is doing exacty that. His religious teaching tells him to
punish the evil doer. I think he did a great job at that.
>
> "Every religion has heaven and hell. Every religion says that killing is a
> sin.
Not again. Bush's religion says that "Murder is sin" but that the guilty
can not go unpunished.
> Sinners go to hell;
Yes and where do you go then MMY?
> only the virtuous go to heaven.
That maybe in your religion, but in Bush's religion one sin makes one a
sinner and removes all virtue from that person. So by you, MMY telling one
lie that makes you a sinner.
> The destroyers of
> the world can create ashes in human society, but they cannot escape the
door
> of hell.
Remember that when you stand before God almighty.
> Everyone has to pass away,
Yes, your time will be soon. But you still have a change to make things
right before God. Send me an email and I will explain what God expects from
all of us. Send to emailmepetrus at yahoo dot com.
> but until he does, he's advised to do
> right things-help thy neighbor and relieve the suffering of others. It's a
> grave misunderstanding that the present destroyers think they are going to
> heaven."
Where do you think you are going?
>
> "I have forgotten about Israel"
Really, your mind is deteriorating?
>
> To a question about the Middle East and whether Maharishi planned any
> humanitarian gestures to create a group in Israel, Maharishi was equally
> direct: "Israel is a child of America.
Translated: My MMY effect did not work there, must be America's fault.
> I have forgotten about Israel because
> when people are murderers, who can bother about them?
Luckily, Jesus did not have that attitude about people.
> All that is happening
> in Israel is the doing of America.
Ofcourse, we are paying those suicide bombers, did you not know that?
> Wherever there is destruction, it's the
> doing of America.
We supplied them with the dynamite.
> For the sake of politeness, one may not say that, but
> those are my thoughts."
Then don't say those stupid things.
>
> America's corporate scandals
>
> Maharishi commented on the rash of scandals and bankruptcies in corporate
> America, and targeted capitalism, which, he said, makes personal gain the
> sole motivator in life.
That is the sin nature. How many millions have you stached away in your
bank account. MGDF has some US$ 250,000,000 How much in the other accounts?
> "There is so much fraud in the way money is earned
> in a capitalist country-it's quite ugly.
And how did you get that money?
> And they are all involved in it-the
> president, the vice president-they are all involved. It's a big muddle."
Takes one to know one.
> But when asked what would happen to business dealings when a large group
of
> coherence-creating Vedic experts is established in America, Maharishi
> offered an entirely different picture.
What was the name of that telephone company from Fairfield IA? Did they not
go bankrupt?
>
> "Nothing wrong will sprout. Deceiving others will be absent. Harming
others
> will be absent. Money mongering makes a man blind-it's such great
ignorance.
> One can be in the darkness and break one's head or knees, but all that
will
> come to an end with the onset of light. We will bring the light."
What light?
>
> The Pope
>
> Maharishi was asked whether he would join forces with those who advocate
> prayer to create peace.
Is that not what the sidhis do?
> "There is nothing in the world to compare with
> Transcendental Meditation," he said, adding "We have heard the champions
of
> prayer and the apologies of the Pope. They are praying to God to be
excused
> for the misery and destruction and impurity that their organization has
> created throughout the ages. They are not peace-promoters. This is not the
> kind of prayer that we teach."
No the kind of prayer that MMY teaches is repetative chanting of Hindu
personal gods calling cards.
>
> Total brain functioning
>
> Maharishi returned to the issue of violence, and cited inadequacies in
> modern education worldwide as the cause of crime and terrorism sweeping
the
> globe.
That has been an age old problem.
>
> "Education has been very damaging to life. You educate your children in a
> haphazard way and don't train them to use their full brain, and then when
> they get older and they shoot someone on the streets, you say, 'What is
> happening?'
Yes the 10 commandments were removed from the schools.
> But it's your own doing. How you educate the students is how
> they will behave in society.
Correct. No morals taught no morals displayed....
> The purpose of student life is to enliven the
> field of cosmic intelligence which is Total Natural Law,
read the will of god...
> total brain
> functioning. The use of total brain functioning through Transcendental
> Meditation is real; it is not gossip, or a children's story to be cast
> aside."
But it is. That is why you brought it up.
>
> Waking up the leaders
>
> Maharishi reflected on his choice of words during the news conference: "I
> know I am using strong words, but I have spoken enough soft words. When a
> man is asleep and you want to wake him up, you gently move him. If he
still
> doesn't wake, you have to shake him harder. After speaking gently for so
> many years, now I have to shake the leaders and warn them: 'You are
opening
> the gate to hell for yourselves-and for all your supporters.'"
(yell) MMY you are going that same direction....
>
> Convincing individuals and nations
>
> Maharishi revealed what lies ahead in his effort to create permanent
peace:
> "I started the Transcendental Meditation movement all by myself;
There you have it gentleman, what more evidence do you need?
> there was
> no second or third person.
It is all about him folks, has been, is, and will be.
> I had to convince individuals in one country
> after another, year after year. Now I have to do the same convincing, this
> time with nations. I have created the Global Country of World Peace, and
> many countries are coming to join the Global Country,
Is that another lie, or marketing, Duff?
> but the process is
> slow. I hope the press will take this message of world peace far and wide,
> and very soon we will have groups in every country."
>
> Peace not based on the whims of the press
Peace not based on the whims of MMY?
>
> And while looking to the press to help deliver his message, Maharishi
> questioned their autonomy, saying they are paid to promote their
> governments. He also said that he is not dependent on their assistance.
"My
> success does not depend on the press, even though I want the press to
> publicize good things. But world peace is not going to depend on the whims
> of the press. It'll be on the basis of the effectiveness of coherence in
> world consciousness. "
Well you might as well not even start then.
>
> Declaring that coherence in society is not an intellectual concept,
Really, then why do you mention it?
> but
> something real,
Then why has no one noticed it?
> Maharishi said, "Coherence produces a positive effect on the
> environment. Either you walk into a dark room or a lighted room. Like that
> is the effect of coherence."
Obviously it is not quite that simple.
>
> Fulfillment of religious prayers is near
Enlightenment is just around the corners folks, just pray ehh... meditate a
bit longer.
>
> Maharishi concluded by answering a reporter who asked whether the
> coherence-creating groups would bring fulfillment to religious prophecies.
Which ones?
>
> "The prayers of all religious groups will be fulfilled as world
> consciousness becomes purer and purer.
Really, we will get raptured?
> This is great news for them-the time
> is coming for the fulfillment of their desires, hopes, and prayers.
Good news for whom? You bank account?
> The Will
> of God will be on earth as it is in heaven.
Yes but what does the will of God say about those sinners left on earth?
> It doesn't matter what the world
> has been in the past. We are bringing the light, and darkness will simply
> disappear. Fulfillment can be seen at a distance, but it has come into
> vision. Now it will come nearer and nearer," Maharishi said.
And you guys still don't think that MMY is preaching Hinduism?
"When America is ready for Hinduism I will tell them." MMY
http://www.trancenet.org/law/denarot.html
Well that was quite an entertaining afternoon. Hope to see you all soon.
Judy Stein
<snip>
> Not really more like the flaws in the people them selves. It also reveals
> the flaws in our education system. When 3 out of 4 university graduates
> tell us that they have been taught that the are no absolute right and
> wrongs, what do you expect them to do in business?
I'll take the sincere struggles of people trying and
sometimes failing to do the best possible thing in a
jungle of ambiguity any day over pious, simplistic,
morally retarded right-wing fundamentalist crap like
the above.
Petrus
"Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.0207...@posting.google.com...
Say what? You prefer moral relativism (sp?) over moral absolutes? So
you accept what that great upstanding citizen Avila did as a sincere
struggle? If you cannot unequivocally denounce as wrong what Mr. Avila did,
then what you are advocating seems to me is anarchism.
The same study showed that the majority of the student felt that "getting
caught" was the only real difference between Enron executives and executives
of other big companies."
Would you hold the opinion that those in charge of Enron were just trying to
do the best possible thing?
Those without a compass get lost.
Judy Stein
> "Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:19b3c03e.0207...@posting.google.com...
> > "Petrus" <NOS...@NOWAY.NOWHERE> wrote in message
> news:<ujjm5lq...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > <snip>
> > > Not really more like the flaws in the people them selves. It also
> reveals
> > > the flaws in our education system. When 3 out of 4 university graduates
> > > tell us that they have been taught that the are no absolute right and
> > > wrongs, what do you expect them to do in business?
> >
> > I'll take the sincere struggles of people trying and
> > sometimes failing to do the best possible thing in a
> > jungle of ambiguity any day over pious, simplistic,
> > morally retarded right-wing fundamentalist crap like
> > the above.
>
> Say what? You prefer moral relativism (sp?) over moral absolutes?
It's not a matter of "preference." I am convinced
that there are very few moral absolutes. Morality
is a spectrum, with black on one end and white on
the other and a huge, messy, ambiguous gray area
in between.
So
> you accept what that great upstanding citizen Avila did as a sincere
> struggle? If you cannot unequivocally denounce as wrong what Mr. Avila did,
> then what you are advocating seems to me is anarchism.
Of course I can unequivocally denounce what he
did as wrong. That has nothing to do with what
I said above.
Nor did I suggest that when people do wrong,
even if they *thought* it was OK, they
shouldn't suffer the socially mandated
consequences.
Read what I wrote again, please.
> The same study showed that the majority of the student felt that "getting
> caught" was the only real difference between Enron executives and executives
> of other big companies."
Right. They're saying they think all corporate
executives are unethical, not that what the Enron
executives did was OK.
> Would you hold the opinion that those in charge of Enron were just trying to
> do the best possible thing?
Read what I wrote again, please. Why on *earth*
would you think I was including the Enron executives,
or Avila? I was talking about *people who struggle
to do the right thing*.
I *would* say the Enron executives didn't think
they were doing anything wrong. They just didn't
think about it very *hard*. They weren't struggling.
Avila didn't think at all. (Unless he believed he
was sending the little girl to be with Jesus, of
course, or that she deserved to die because she was
tainted with Orignal Sin.)
I wonder how many of the Enron execs showed up in
church every Sunday. I wonder if any of them were
fundamentalist Christians.
Bush and Cheney are both Christians, Bush a born-again.
What do you think about their business ethics?
My main point is that the idea that there is no
absolute right or wrong doesn't keep one from
struggling to do the right thing. It may even
mean that one struggles *harder* because one sees
that adhering to an absolute may cause more harm
than good.
Some of the most ethical people I know are moral
relativists.
Petrus
Do you think in his mind it was wrong? And if he did not think it to be
wrong based on his spectrum of morality, (He obviously thought it to be
pleasurable.) who are you to say that it is wrong for him to commit that
heinous crime?
>
> Nor did I suggest that when people do wrong,
> even if they *thought* it was OK, they
> shouldn't suffer the socially mandated
> consequences.
Then you do believe in absolute right and wrong. Is it wrong for a man to
rape you?
>
> Read what I wrote again, please.
>
> > The same study showed that the majority of the student felt that
"getting
> > caught" was the only real difference between Enron executives and
executives
> > of other big companies."
>
> Right. They're saying they think all corporate
> executives are unethical, not that what the Enron
> executives did was OK.
Do you believe that?
>
> > Would you hold the opinion that those in charge of Enron were just
trying to
> > do the best possible thing?
>
> Read what I wrote again, please. Why on *earth*
> would you think I was including the Enron executives,
> or Avila?
Because you don't seem to understand where our laws are coming from.
> I was talking about *people who struggle
> to do the right thing*.
So was Avila.
>
> I *would* say the Enron executives didn't think
> they were doing anything wrong.
Come now. Why did they plead the 5th?
> They just didn't
> think about it very *hard*. They weren't struggling.
What has struggle to do with right or wrong?
>
> Avila didn't think at all.
I am sure he did. (unless he was a meditator)
> (Unless he believed he
> was sending the little girl to be with Jesus, of
> course, or that she deserved to die because she was
> tainted with Orignal Sin.)
Low blow.
>
> I wonder how many of the Enron execs showed up in
> church every Sunday. I wonder if any of them were
> fundamentalist Christians.
Well according to some reports 1/3 of the people in the states believe they
are born-again. And I am here telling you they are deceiver. millions are
being deceived by a false gospel. Christ said you will know them by their
fruit. Enron is not listed in the spiritual fruit passages. And NO true
bron-again believer can remain in unrepentant sin as those ceo's at Enron
are.
>
> Bush and Cheney are both Christians, Bush a born-again.
You shall know them by their fruit. I prefer a practicing Christian over a
non praticing Christian (but both are born-again) I do believe in OSAS, but
not in eternal presumption.
> What do you think about their business ethics?
I think that Bush did a stellar job on Afghanistan. I do not accept 99% of
what the liberal media cooks up about politicians.
>
> My main point is that the idea that there is no
> absolute right or wrong doesn't keep one from
> struggling to do the right thing.
Correct that struggle will remain until God is in control of that person.
That is why the TM prison project is such a failure.
> It may even
> mean that one struggles *harder* because one sees
> that adhering to an absolute may cause more harm
> than good.
Once God writes His laws in your heart one is a new creature.
>
> Some of the most ethical people I know are moral
> relativists.
That is a contradiction in terms.
Judy Stein
As I said (didn't you read what I wrote?), right and
wrong is a spectrum, black at one end, white at the
other, with a huge, messy, ambiguous area of gray
in between.
Moral relativism doesn't mean the whole spectrum
is a uniform gray. There are some behaviors that
virtually everyone would condemn, such as murdering
a child; and some virtually everyone would applaud,
such as the charity of Mother Teresa.
> > Nor did I suggest that when people do wrong,
> > even if they *thought* it was OK, they
> > shouldn't suffer the socially mandated
> > consequences.
>
> Then you do believe in absolute right and wrong.
No, that's not what I said. Please read it
again.
> Is it wrong for a man to rape you?
First, it's against the law; second, the vast
majority of people consider rape to be wrong
(which is why it's against the law <duh>).
> > > The same study showed that the majority of the student felt that
> "getting
> > > caught" was the only real difference between Enron executives and
> executives
> > > of other big companies."
> >
> > Right. They're saying they think all corporate
> > executives are unethical, not that what the Enron
> > executives did was OK.
>
> Do you believe that?
Nope, I'm not that cynical yet.
> > > Would you hold the opinion that those in charge of Enron were just
> > > trying to do the best possible thing?
> >
> > Read what I wrote again, please. Why on *earth*
> > would you think I was including the Enron executives,
> > or Avila?
>
> Because you don't seem to understand where our laws are coming from.
Non sequitur.
> > I was talking about *people who struggle
> > to do the right thing*.
>
> So was Avila.
Not.
> > I *would* say the Enron executives didn't think
> > they were doing anything wrong.
>
> Come now. Why did they plead the 5th?
Do you really think pleading the Fifth is
automatically a confession of guilt?
> > They just didn't
> > think about it very *hard*. They weren't struggling.
>
> What has struggle to do with right or wrong?
Gray area, remember?
<snip>
> > I wonder how many of the Enron execs showed up in
> > church every Sunday. I wonder if any of them were
> > fundamentalist Christians.
>
> Well according to some reports 1/3 of the people in the states believe they
> are born-again. And I am here telling you they are deceiver. millions are
> being deceived by a false gospel. Christ said you will know them by their
> fruit. Enron is not listed in the spiritual fruit passages. And NO true
> bron-again believer can remain in unrepentant sin as those ceo's at Enron
> are.
Do you recognize that this is a circular
argument? No, I'm sure you don't.
> > Bush and Cheney are both Christians, Bush a born-again.
>
> You shall know them by their fruit. I prefer a practicing Christian over a
> non praticing Christian (but both are born-again) I do believe in OSAS, but
> not in eternal presumption.
(What's OSAS? What's "eternal presumption"?)
> > What do you think about their business ethics?
>
> I think that Bush did a stellar job on Afghanistan. I do not accept 99% of
> what the liberal media cooks up about politicians.
Copout.
> > My main point is that the idea that there is no
> > absolute right or wrong doesn't keep one from
> > struggling to do the right thing.
>
> Correct that struggle will remain until God is in control of that person.
Well, that's your belief.
You don't respect the struggle, though. You
can't accept that people who don't hold the
same beliefs may nonetheless sincerely want
to do the right thing.
> That is why the TM prison project is such a failure.
Uh, no, it's not. It was actually quite successful
at doing what it said it was going to do.
> > It may even
> > mean that one struggles *harder* because one sees
> > that adhering to an absolute may cause more harm
> > than good.
>
> Once God writes His laws in your heart one is a new creature.
Non sequitur.
> > Some of the most ethical people I know are moral
> > relativists.
>
> That is a contradiction in terms.
As you understand moral relativism, yes. But
you hold an exceptionally simplistic view of
what moral relativism involves.
Petrus
> is a uniform gray. There are some behaviors that
> virtually everyone would condemn, such as murdering
> a child; and some virtually everyone would applaud,
> such as the charity of Mother Teresa.
So those would be absolutes then?
<snip>
>
> > Is it wrong for a man to rape you?
>
> First, it's against the law; second, the vast
> majority of people consider rape to be wrong
> (which is why it's against the law <duh>).
I am sure there were civilizations that had no problem with that (no law
against) . Did that make it right then? In older days woman were
considered chattel. Do you think that was wrong?
So why is it wrong for a man to rape you?
>
> > > > The same study showed that the majority of the student felt that
> > "getting
> > > > caught" was the only real difference between Enron executives and
> > executives
> > > > of other big companies."
> > >
> > > Right. They're saying they think all corporate
> > > executives are unethical, not that what the Enron
> > > executives did was OK.
> >
> > Do you believe that?
>
> Nope, I'm not that cynical yet.
So what is the difference?
>
> > > > Would you hold the opinion that those in charge of Enron were just
> > > > trying to do the best possible thing?
> > >
> > > Read what I wrote again, please. Why on *earth*
> > > would you think I was including the Enron executives,
> > > or Avila?
> >
> > Because you don't seem to understand where our laws are coming from.
>
> Non sequitur.
I beg to differ, did you not just mention about the laws against rape?
>
> > > I was talking about *people who struggle
> > > to do the right thing*.
> >
> > So was Avila.
>
> Not.
In his mind he was doing the right thing.
>
> > > I *would* say the Enron executives didn't think
> > > they were doing anything wrong.
> >
> > Come now. Why did they plead the 5th?
>
> Do you really think pleading the Fifth is
> automatically a confession of guilt?
Yes.
>
> > > They just didn't
> > > think about it very *hard*. They weren't struggling.
> >
> > What has struggle to do with right or wrong?
>
> Gray area, remember?
No
>
> <snip>
> > > I wonder how many of the Enron execs showed up in
> > > church every Sunday. I wonder if any of them were
> > > fundamentalist Christians.
> >
> > Well according to some reports 1/3 of the people in the states believe
they
> > are born-again. And I am here telling you they are deceiver. millions
are
> > being deceived by a false gospel. Christ said you will know them by
their
> > fruit. Enron is not listed in the spiritual fruit passages. And NO
true
> > bron-again believer can remain in unrepentant sin as those ceo's at
Enron
> > are.
>
> Do you recognize that this is a circular
> argument? No, I'm sure you don't.
You might say that. But that is because you don't understand the power of
God.
>
> > > Bush and Cheney are both Christians, Bush a born-again.
> >
> > You shall know them by their fruit. I prefer a practicing Christian
over a
> > non praticing Christian (but both are born-again) I do believe in OSAS,
but
> > not in eternal presumption.
>
> (What's OSAS? What's "eternal presumption"?)
>
> > > What do you think about their business ethics?
> >
> > I think that Bush did a stellar job on Afghanistan. I do not accept 99%
of
> > what the liberal media cooks up about politicians.
>
> Copout.
>
> > > My main point is that the idea that there is no
> > > absolute right or wrong doesn't keep one from
> > > struggling to do the right thing.
> >
> > Correct that struggle will remain until God is in control of that
person.
>
> Well, that's your belief.
>
> You don't respect the struggle, though. You
> can't accept that people who don't hold the
> same beliefs may nonetheless sincerely want
> to do the right thing.
Do you think rape is the right thing? Do you think murder is the right
thing?
>
> > That is why the TM prison project is such a failure.
>
> Uh, no, it's not. It was actually quite successful
> at doing what it said it was going to do.
Really?
"He brought in instructors from the Maharishi University of Latin America
who tried to teach Transcendental Meditation to 600 prisoners to change
their behavior; it failed and cost taxpayers $300,000. "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1997/12/15/
NEWS8420.dtl
Does not look like what faith based prison reform looks like.
>
> > > It may even
> > > mean that one struggles *harder* because one sees
> > > that adhering to an absolute may cause more harm
> > > than good.
> >
> > Once God writes His laws in your heart one is a new creature.
>
> Non sequitur.
That is because you don't understand it.
>
> > > Some of the most ethical people I know are moral
> > > relativists.
> >
> > That is a contradiction in terms.
>
> As you understand moral relativism, yes. But
> you hold an exceptionally simplistic view of
> what moral relativism involves.
It seems we disagree again.
Judy Stein
> "Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:19b3c03e.02072...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Moral relativism doesn't mean the whole spectrum
> > is a uniform gray. There are some behaviors that
> > virtually everyone would condemn, such as murdering
> > a child; and some virtually everyone would applaud,
> > such as the charity of Mother Teresa.
>
> So those would be absolutes then?
No, they'd be at opposite ends of the relative
spectrum.
> > > Is it wrong for a man to rape you?
> >
> > First, it's against the law; second, the vast
> > majority of people consider rape to be wrong
> > (which is why it's against the law <duh>).
>
> I am sure there were civilizations that had no problem with that (no law
> against) . Did that make it right then? In older days woman were
> considered chattel. Do you think that was wrong?
That question doesn't make sense. If it were to
occur *today*, of course I'd think it was wrong.
If I were a person living back then, I probably
wouldn't.
There are things we do today that would have been
thought terrible sins in the past. Does that make
them wrong now?
> So why is it wrong for a man to rape you?
You mean, why do I believe it's wrong for a man
to rape me?
Because I believe women are human beings who
should have the same rights as men, not toys
to be used for a man's sexual pleasure or as
an outlet for his angry feelings.
I would not necessarily have held that belief
had I lived in the past, though.
> > > > > The same study showed that the majority of the student felt that
> "getting
> > > > > caught" was the only real difference between Enron executives and
> executives
> > > > > of other big companies."
> > > >
> > > > Right. They're saying they think all corporate
> > > > executives are unethical, not that what the Enron
> > > > executives did was OK.
> > >
> > > Do you believe that?
> >
> > Nope, I'm not that cynical yet.
>
> So what is the difference?
Some corporate executives are unethical,
most are not.
> > > > > Would you hold the opinion that those in charge of Enron were just
> > > > > trying to do the best possible thing?
> > > >
> > > > Read what I wrote again, please. Why on *earth*
> > > > would you think I was including the Enron executives,
> > > > or Avila?
> > >
> > > Because you don't seem to understand where our laws are coming from.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> I beg to differ, did you not just mention about the laws against rape?
Explain the connection you perceive, please.
> > > > I was talking about *people who struggle
> > > > to do the right thing*.
> > >
> > > So was Avila.
> >
> > Not.
>
> In his mind he was doing the right thing.
He apparently thought he had a *right* to do it.
That doesn't mean he *struggled* to decide
whether he did.
> > > > I *would* say the Enron executives didn't think
> > > > they were doing anything wrong.
> > >
> > > Come now. Why did they plead the 5th?
> >
> > Do you really think pleading the Fifth is
> > automatically a confession of guilt?
>
> Yes.
You're very much mistaken. Ask a lawyer.
> > > > They just didn't
> > > > think about it very *hard*. They weren't struggling.
> > >
> > > What has struggle to do with right or wrong?
> >
> > Gray area, remember?
>
> No
If what you're thinking about doing falls in a
gray area, you have to struggle to decide
whether it's right or wrong. The Enron execs
obviously didn't struggle.
<snip>
> > Do you recognize that this is a circular
> > argument? No, I'm sure you don't.
>
> You might say that. But that is because you don't understand the power of
> God.
Ah, the power of God makes circular arguments
reasonable. I'll have to remember that.
<snip>
> > You don't respect the struggle, though. You
> > can't accept that people who don't hold the
> > same beliefs may nonetheless sincerely want
> > to do the right thing.
>
> Do you think rape is the right thing? Do you think murder is the right
> thing?
No, but that's a non sequitur. Those are
at the ends of the spectrum. Struggle
takes place only in the gray areas in
between.
Actually, I think murder is in a somewhat
gray area. Would it have been wrong to
assassinate Hitler? Would it be wrong to
assassinate Saddam Hussein? For me, those
are tough questions. If assassination were
the *only* way to neutralize them, then I
think it would be the right thing to do, or
at least the less-wrong thing to do.
(Doesn't the Bible say something about
"the lesser of two evils"? That's moral
relativism.)
> > > That is why the TM prison project is such a failure.
> >
> > Uh, no, it's not. It was actually quite successful
> > at doing what it said it was going to do.
>
> Really?
> "He brought in instructors from the Maharishi University of Latin America
> who tried to teach Transcendental Meditation to 600 prisoners to change
> their behavior; it failed and cost taxpayers $300,000. "
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1997/12/15/
> NEWS8420.dtl
I'll look at the story, but most of the projects
introducing TM to prisoners have had high success
rates.
> > > > It may even
> > > > mean that one struggles *harder* because one sees
> > > > that adhering to an absolute may cause more harm
> > > > than good.
> > >
> > > Once God writes His laws in your heart one is a new creature.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> That is because you don't understand it.
I understand the theory, and it's a non
sequitur.
> > > > Some of the most ethical people I know are moral
> > > > relativists.
> > >
> > > That is a contradiction in terms.
> >
> > As you understand moral relativism, yes. But
> > you hold an exceptionally simplistic view of
> > what moral relativism involves.
>
> It seems we disagree again.
Your statement above proves it.
Judy Stein
<snip>
> "He brought in instructors from the Maharishi University of Latin America
> who tried to teach Transcendental Meditation to 600 prisoners to change
> their behavior; it failed and cost taxpayers $300,000. "
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1997/12/15/
> NEWS8420.dtl
Petrus, this link didn't bring up the story, just
the home page of the Examiner.
Judy Stein
<snip>
> "He brought in instructors from the Maharishi University of Latin America
> who tried to teach Transcendental Meditation to 600 prisoners to change
> their behavior; it failed and cost taxpayers $300,000. "
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1997/12/15/
> NEWS8420.dtl
OK, I found it in the archives. But it doesn't
say anything more than what you quote, so we
have no idea *why* it failed. Were the TM teachers
unable to teach the prisoners TM, or was the teaching
successful but not the results?
If the former, there could be any number of
reasons that had nothing to do with the efficacy
of TM (e.g., the guards didn't like the idea and
went around telling the prisoners they would
become Hindus against their will if they learned,
so none of the prisoners was willing to learn).
Petrus
> "Petrus" <NOS...@NOWAY.NOWHERE> wrote in message
news:<ukh0l5a...@corp.supernews.com>...
> <snip>
> > "He brought in instructors from the Maharishi University of Latin
America
> > who tried to teach Transcendental Meditation to 600 prisoners to change
> > their behavior; it failed and cost taxpayers $300,000. "
> >
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1997/12/15/
> > NEWS8420.dtl
>
> OK, I found it in the archives. But it doesn't
> say anything more than what you quote, so we
> have no idea *why* it failed. Were the TM teachers
> unable to teach the prisoners TM,
Well for $300,000 in Mexico, buys a whole lot of mantras.
> or was the teaching
> successful but not the results?
Where does that blame fall. You got it on the technique. Remember the
quote from Woodroffe:
"The recitation of a Mantra without knowing
its meaning is practically fruitless."
I guess the guy knew what he was talking about.
It is alway a joy to see a spinster at work.:
>
> If the former, there could be any number of
> reasons that had nothing to do with the efficacy
> of TM (e.g., the guards didn't like the idea
Nope that is not required according to the theory.
> and
> went around telling the prisoners they would
> become Hindus against their will if they learned,
> so none of the prisoners was willing to learn).
That seems to argue against the $300,000. worth of mantras.
Come on you can spin better than that.
Petrus
For those who would like to also see this page, append the: news8420.dtl to
the url.
Petrus
> "Petrus" <NOS...@NOWAY.NOWHERE> wrote in message
news:<ukh0l5a...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:19b3c03e.02072...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Moral relativism doesn't mean the whole spectrum
> > > is a uniform gray. There are some behaviors that
> > > virtually everyone would condemn, such as murdering
> > > a child; and some virtually everyone would applaud,
> > > such as the charity of Mother Teresa.
> >
> > So those would be absolutes then?
>
> No, they'd be at opposite ends of the relative
> spectrum.
Absolutely.
>
> > > > Is it wrong for a man to rape you?
> > >
> > > First, it's against the law; second, the vast
> > > majority of people consider rape to be wrong
> > > (which is why it's against the law <duh>).
> >
> > I am sure there were civilizations that had no problem with that (no law
> > against) . Did that make it right then? In older days woman were
> > considered chattel. Do you think that was wrong?
>
> That question doesn't make sense. If it were to
> occur *today*, of course I'd think it was wrong.
> If I were a person living back then, I probably
> wouldn't.
Really. If you were living then? It would not be wrong? Why? Why is it
wrong then now? Just because you think so?
>
> There are things we do today that would have been
> thought terrible sins in the past. Does that make
> them wrong now?
Such as?
>
> > So why is it wrong for a man to rape you?
>
> You mean, why do I believe it's wrong for a man
> to rape me?
>
> Because I believe women are human beings who
> should have the same rights as men, not toys
> to be used for a man's sexual pleasure or as
> an outlet for his angry feelings.
Where are you getting those rights from?
>
> I would not necessarily have held that belief
> had I lived in the past, though.
Are you serious?
<snip>
>
> > > > > > Would you hold the opinion that those in charge of Enron were
just
> > > > > > trying to do the best possible thing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Read what I wrote again, please. Why on *earth*
> > > > > would you think I was including the Enron executives,
> > > > > or Avila?
> > > >
> > > > Because you don't seem to understand where our laws are coming from.
> > >
> > > Non sequitur.
> >
> > I beg to differ, did you not just mention about the laws against rape?
>
> Explain the connection you perceive, please.
Allow to answer that a bit later.
>
> > > > > I was talking about *people who struggle
> > > > > to do the right thing*.
> > > >
> > > > So was Avila.
> > >
> > > Not.
> >
> > In his mind he was doing the right thing.
>
> He apparently thought he had a *right* to do it.
Was he wrong, thinking that?
> That doesn't mean he *struggled* to decide
> whether he did.
>
> > > > > I *would* say the Enron executives didn't think
> > > > > they were doing anything wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Come now. Why did they plead the 5th?
> > >
> > > Do you really think pleading the Fifth is
> > > automatically a confession of guilt?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> You're very much mistaken. Ask a lawyer.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59304,00.html
Not Enron but the same line. If they did not think they might have done
something wrong they would not plead the 5th.
I know the legal details, but for us poo foulks that is how we see it. Self
incrimination says it all.
>
> > > > > They just didn't
> > > > > think about it very *hard*. They weren't struggling.
> > > >
> > > > What has struggle to do with right or wrong?
> > >
> > > Gray area, remember?
> >
> > No
>
> If what you're thinking about doing falls in a
> gray area, you have to struggle to decide
> whether it's right or wrong. The Enron execs
> obviously didn't struggle.
>
> <snip>
> > > Do you recognize that this is a circular
> > > argument? No, I'm sure you don't.
> >
> > You might say that. But that is because you don't understand the power
of
> > God.
>
> Ah, the power of God makes circular arguments
> reasonable. I'll have to remember that.
Blind leading the blind again eh? And so nice of you to snip the argument.
But I have come to expect that from you. Twist and cut. You must be
related to Willy.
>
> <snip>
> > > You don't respect the struggle, though. You
> > > can't accept that people who don't hold the
> > > same beliefs may nonetheless sincerely want
> > > to do the right thing.
> >
> > Do you think rape is the right thing? Do you think murder is the right
> > thing?
>
> No, but that's a non sequitur. Those are
> at the ends of the spectrum. Struggle
> takes place only in the gray areas in
> between.
No because there are absolute right and absolute wrongs. Rape and murder is
one of those absolute wrongs. It is scary to see you twist and spin around
that subject.
>
> Actually, I think murder is in a somewhat
> gray area. Would it have been wrong to
> assassinate Hitler?
Depends on your reason.
He looked at your sister wrong and you won't stand for that - knife in the
back - wrong.
He killed my aunt and I shoot him out of revenge - wrong
Court of law found him quilty of his crimes and condemned him to hang. Hang
um high. Not wrong.
> Would it be wrong to
> assassinate Saddam Hussein?
Yes and no. Same reasons as Hitler.
> For me, those
> are tough questions.
Then you are on shifting sands.
> If assassination were
> the *only* way to neutralize them, then I
> think it would be the right thing to do, or
> at least the less-wrong thing to do.
Do two wrongs make a right?
>
> (Doesn't the Bible say something about
> "the lesser of two evils"?
I do not remember that one. Searched on "lesser" in the nasv. Three hits,
but not related to your two evils. I would say no.
> That's moral
> relativism.)
Sad eh?
>
> > > > That is why the TM prison project is such a failure.
> > >
> > > Uh, no, it's not. It was actually quite successful
> > > at doing what it said it was going to do.
> >
> > Really?
> > "He brought in instructors from the Maharishi University of Latin
America
> > who tried to teach Transcendental Meditation to 600 prisoners to change
> > their behavior; it failed and cost taxpayers $300,000. "
> >
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1997/12/15/
> > NEWS8420.dtl
>
> I'll look at the story, but most of the projects
> introducing TM to prisoners have had high success
> rates.
What recidivism do you consider high success? Do you have the studies to
back those up?
And please not Orne Johnson, his reputation as a researcher is highly
tainted.
Lawson English
clarification of what the author meant.
How can we comment?
"Petrus" <NOS...@NOWAY.NOWHERE> wrote in message
news:ukj73mp...@corp.supernews.com...
Petrus
"Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aicf9v$tbm$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> There's no need to spin anything. The article says "it failed" without any
> clarification of what the author meant.
Thank you.
Judy Stein
<snip>
> > > > > Is it wrong for a man to rape you?
> > > >
> > > > First, it's against the law; second, the vast
> > > > majority of people consider rape to be wrong
> > > > (which is why it's against the law <duh>).
> > >
> > > I am sure there were civilizations that had no problem with that (no law
> > > against) . Did that make it right then? In older days woman were
> > > considered chattel. Do you think that was wrong?
> >
> > That question doesn't make sense. If it were to
> > occur *today*, of course I'd think it was wrong.
> > If I were a person living back then, I probably
> > wouldn't.
>
> Really. If you were living then? It would not be wrong?
I said I probably would not think it was wrong.
> Why? Why is it wrong then now?
You mean, why do I *think* it is wrong now but I
probably wouldn't have then?
Because I'm a child of my times, and the way people
think about women now has changed from how they
thought about women in the past.
> Just because you think so?
See above.
> > There are things we do today that would have been
> > thought terrible sins in the past. Does that make
> > them wrong now?
>
> Such as?
Divorce, sex before marriage, exploiting the
environment to its detriment, for example (the
specific sin would depend on the specific culture).
> > > So why is it wrong for a man to rape you?
> >
> > You mean, why do I believe it's wrong for a man
> > to rape me?
> >
> > Because I believe women are human beings who
> > should have the same rights as men, not toys
> > to be used for a man's sexual pleasure or as
> > an outlet for his angry feelings.
>
> Where are you getting those rights from?
Where am I getting my belief in those rights
from? From the culture I live in, of course.
> > I would not necessarily have held that belief
> > had I lived in the past, though.
>
> Are you serious?
Er, yes, that's what I've been pointing out all
along.
> > > > > > I was talking about *people who struggle
> > > > > > to do the right thing*.
> > > > >
> > > > > So was Avila.
> > > >
> > > > Not.
> > >
> > > In his mind he was doing the right thing.
> >
> > He apparently thought he had a *right* to do it.
>
> Was he wrong, thinking that?
I think so.
> > That doesn't mean he *struggled* to decide
> > whether he did.
> >
> > > > > > I *would* say the Enron executives didn't think
> > > > > > they were doing anything wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Come now. Why did they plead the 5th?
> > > >
> > > > Do you really think pleading the Fifth is
> > > > automatically a confession of guilt?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > You're very much mistaken. Ask a lawyer.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59304,00.html
>
> Not Enron but the same line.
The story has nothing to do with taking the 5th.
> If they did not think they might have done
> something wrong they would not plead the 5th.
You cannot conceive of any circumstance in which
a person might take the 5th if they didn't think
they had done something wrong?
> I know the legal details,
What are the legal details?
<snip>
> > <snip>
> > > > Do you recognize that this is a circular
> > > > argument? No, I'm sure you don't.
> > >
> > > You might say that. But that is because you don't understand the power
> > > of God.
> >
> > Ah, the power of God makes circular arguments
> > reasonable. I'll have to remember that.
>
> Blind leading the blind again eh? And so nice of you to snip the argument.
> But I have come to expect that from you. Twist and cut. You must be
> related to Willy.
Oh, for pete's sake. The point isn't the specific
argument, it's your defense of it. You admitted
the argument was circular.
> > > > You don't respect the struggle, though. You
> > > > can't accept that people who don't hold the
> > > > same beliefs may nonetheless sincerely want
> > > > to do the right thing.
> > >
> > > Do you think rape is the right thing? Do you think murder is the right
> > > thing?
> >
> > No, but that's a non sequitur. Those are
> > at the ends of the spectrum. Struggle
> > takes place only in the gray areas in
> > between.
>
> No because there are absolute right and absolute wrongs.
Petrus, that's the point at issue. You don't advance
the discussion by citing your position again as a
"because."
And you haven't responded to my point about
your not respecting the struggle.
Rape and murder is
> one of those absolute wrongs. It is scary to see you twist and spin around
> that subject.
I'm not "twisting and spinning around the subject,"
you oaf. I'm *disagreeing* with you and trying to
respond directly and honestly to your questions
about my position.
> > Actually, I think murder is in a somewhat
> > gray area. Would it have been wrong to
> > assassinate Hitler?
>
> Depends on your reason.
How about because he was an evil madman bent
on destroying the Jews and taking over the world?
> > Would it be wrong to
> > assassinate Saddam Hussein?
>
> Yes and no. Same reasons as Hitler.
The reason *I* have in mind is because it
looks like he may be in a position, and has
the motivation, to supply terrorists with
weapons of mass destruction to use against
those they consider their enemies.
> > For me, those are tough questions.
>
> Then you are on shifting sands.
You haven't addressed any of *my* reasons for
assassination, you've just provided some straw
man reasons where the answer is a lot clearer.
> > If assassination were
> > the *only* way to neutralize them, then I
> > think it would be the right thing to do, or
> > at least the less-wrong thing to do.
>
> Do two wrongs make a right?
Ah, that's the tough question, isn't it?
> > (Doesn't the Bible say something about
> > "the lesser of two evils"?
>
> I do not remember that one. Searched on "lesser" in the nasv. Three hits,
> but not related to your two evils. I would say no.
OK, I can't find it in Strong's Concordance to
the KJV either.
> > That's moral relativism.)
>
> Sad eh?
Problematic. You have to deal with it
even if you believe in absolute right and
absolute wrong.
"Thou shalt not kill," for instance. Capital
punishment, war, self-defense, assassination
of madmen--all the lesser of two evils if
killing is an absolute wrong.
If you're going to insist "kill" means "murder,"
you can eliminate the first three, but you're
still left with assassination.
<snip>
> > I'll look at the story, but most of the projects
> > introducing TM to prisoners have had high success
> > rates.
>
> What recidivism do you consider high success?
Can't cite a percentage, but it's a matter of
the percentage *reduction* in recidivism. As
I recall, some of the studies showed the
recidivism rate was cut in half.
"Success" would be defined in practical terms
by comparing the cost of teaching the prisoners
TM versus the cost of dealing with the higher
rate of recidivism without TM.
Disregarding cost, I'd define success in
*human* terms as enabling a single prisoner
who would otherwise have been imprisoned
again to go straight after he was released.
> Do you have the studies to back those up?
When I get a chance, I'll look, but I think you
know they exist.
> And please not Orne Johnson, his reputation as a researcher is highly
> tainted.
Oh, I see, you just exclude the studies whose results
don't fit your argument by impugning the researcher.
On what basis do you say Orme-Johnson's reputation
as a researcher is "highly tainted"?
I don't know if any of the prison studies were done
by researchers other than Orme-Johnson; as I say,
when I get a chance, I'll check. But you need to
back up your assertion about Orme-Johnson. Actually
that won't be sufficient either. You have to show the
prison studies he did are themselves questionable.
As a general principle, even if a researcher has been
found to have fudged on one or several studies, that
doesn't mean *all* the studies he's done can be dismissed.
It just means you have to look at them more carefully
than you otherwise might.
Petrus
What does your thinking have to do with right or wrong?
And why would *you* change your thinking about it?
>
> > Just because you think so?
>
> See above.
Does that make sense to you?
>
> > > There are things we do today that would have been
> > > thought terrible sins in the past. Does that make
> > > them wrong now?
> >
> > Such as?
>
> Divorce, sex before marriage, exploiting the
> environment to its detriment, for example (the
> specific sin would depend on the specific culture).
I think you know my answer by now.
>
> > > > So why is it wrong for a man to rape you?
> > >
> > > You mean, why do I believe it's wrong for a man
> > > to rape me?
> > >
> > > Because I believe women are human beings who
> > > should have the same rights as men, not toys
> > > to be used for a man's sexual pleasure or as
> > > an outlet for his angry feelings.
> >
> > Where are you getting those rights from?
>
> Where am I getting my belief in those rights
> from? From the culture I live in, of course.
I asked you about the rights not your beliefs in them.
>
> > > I would not necessarily have held that belief
> > > had I lived in the past, though.
> >
> > Are you serious?
>
> Er, yes, that's what I've been pointing out all
> along.
Unbelievable.
>
> > > > > > > I was talking about *people who struggle
> > > > > > > to do the right thing*.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So was Avila.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not.
> > > >
> > > > In his mind he was doing the right thing.
> > >
> > > He apparently thought he had a *right* to do it.
> >
> > Was he wrong, thinking that?
>
> I think so.
Why? It was his beliefs that he had the right to do so. That was *his*
thinking on the subject. Who are you to think what he thought was wrong?
Does might make right?
<snip>
> > Not Enron but the same line.
>
> The story has nothing to do with taking the 5th.
If I recall correct. Them fellers also took the fifth a few weeks ago.
>
> > If they did not think they might have done
> > something wrong they would not plead the 5th.
>
> You cannot conceive of any circumstance in which
> a person might take the 5th if they didn't think
> they had done something wrong?
>
> > I know the legal details,
>
> What are the legal details?
I already answered that self incrimination.
>
> <snip>
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Do you recognize that this is a circular
> > > > > argument? No, I'm sure you don't.
> > > >
> > > > You might say that. But that is because you don't understand the
power
> > > > of God.
> > >
> > > Ah, the power of God makes circular arguments
> > > reasonable. I'll have to remember that.
> >
> > Blind leading the blind again eh? And so nice of you to snip the
argument.
> > But I have come to expect that from you. Twist and cut. You must be
> > related to Willy.
>
> Oh, for pete's sake. The point isn't the specific
> argument, it's your defense of it. You admitted
> the argument was circular.
I did admit to that?
>
> > > > > You don't respect the struggle, though. You
> > > > > can't accept that people who don't hold the
> > > > > same beliefs may nonetheless sincerely want
> > > > > to do the right thing.
> > > >
> > > > Do you think rape is the right thing? Do you think murder is the
right
> > > > thing?
> > >
> > > No, but that's a non sequitur. Those are
> > > at the ends of the spectrum. Struggle
> > > takes place only in the gray areas in
> > > between.
> >
> > No because there are absolute right and absolute wrongs.
>
> Petrus, that's the point at issue. You don't advance
> the discussion by citing your position again as a
> "because."
>
> And you haven't responded to my point about
> your not respecting the struggle.
I did, I don't struggle because to me there are those absolute right and
absolute wrongs. It is you who struggle because of your lack of them. I
doubt Avila struggled.
>
> Rape and murder is
> > one of those absolute wrongs. It is scary to see you twist and spin
around
> > that subject.
>
> I'm not "twisting and spinning around the subject,"
> you oaf. I'm *disagreeing* with you and trying to
> respond directly and honestly to your questions
> about my position.
I do appreciate that. I just find some of those positions you hold, well
quite unbelievable.
>
> > > Actually, I think murder is in a somewhat
> > > gray area. Would it have been wrong to
> > > assassinate Hitler?
> >
> > Depends on your reason.
>
> How about because he was an evil madman bent
> on destroying the Jews and taking over the world?
Did I not answer that already? Why did you snip my answers?
>
> > > Would it be wrong to
> > > assassinate Saddam Hussein?
> >
> > Yes and no. Same reasons as Hitler.
>
> The reason *I* have in mind is because it
> looks like he may be in a position, and has
> the motivation, to supply terrorists with
> weapons of mass destruction to use against
> those they consider their enemies.
Well, give us the evidence and lets try him. Then if he is found quilty of
a crime deserving death. Hang m high
>
> > > For me, those are tough questions.
> >
> > Then you are on shifting sands.
>
> You haven't addressed any of *my* reasons for
> assassination, you've just provided some straw
> man reasons where the answer is a lot clearer.
That was because you had not given me any of *your* reasons until this post.
And I already addressed that issue in the parts that you snipped out, is not
adequate for you, please address them. And where did you find that
strawman?
>
> > > If assassination were
> > > the *only* way to neutralize them, then I
> > > think it would be the right thing to do, or
> > > at least the less-wrong thing to do.
> >
> > Do two wrongs make a right?
>
> Ah, that's the tough question, isn't it?
No, it is not. Simple. Two wrongs never make a right.
>
> > > (Doesn't the Bible say something about
> > > "the lesser of two evils"?
> >
> > I do not remember that one. Searched on "lesser" in the nasv. Three
hits,
> > but not related to your two evils. I would say no.
>
> OK, I can't find it in Strong's Concordance to
> the KJV either.
Neither is "God helps those that help themselves."
I know, I know...
>
> > > That's moral relativism.)
> >
> > Sad eh?
>
> Problematic. You have to deal with it
> even if you believe in absolute right and
> absolute wrong.
>
> "Thou shalt not kill," for instance. Capital
> punishment, war, self-defense, assassination
> of madmen--all the lesser of two evils if
> killing is an absolute wrong.
That is the problem with the Ole King James. The proper translation would
say; "Thou shalt not murder". That explains immediately all the options
that we have.
Capital punishment - ok
Defensive war - ok
Offensive war - need more info
Self-defence - ok
Assassination -not ok.
Not a lesser of two evils. Justice.
>
> If you're going to insist "kill" means "murder,"
I did and I will.
> you can eliminate the first three, but you're
> still left with assassination.
I answered the above before I read this and I am not going to change my
answer.
>
> <snip>
> > > I'll look at the story, but most of the projects
> > > introducing TM to prisoners have had high success
> > > rates.
> >
> > What recidivism do you consider high success?
>
> Can't cite a percentage, but it's a matter of
> the percentage *reduction* in recidivism. As
> I recall, some of the studies showed the
> recidivism rate was cut in half.
What happened in Mexico?
>
> "Success" would be defined in practical terms
> by comparing the cost of teaching the prisoners
> TM versus the cost of dealing with the higher
> rate of recidivism without TM.
I heard that Christian prison ministry programs are just that ministry. Why
does MMY have to charge for it?
>
> Disregarding cost, I'd define success in
> *human* terms as enabling a single prisoner
> who would otherwise have been imprisoned
> again to go straight after he was released.
Well the prison system as it is, is then 40- 60 % successful.
>
> > Do you have the studies to back those up?
>
> When I get a chance, I'll look, but I think you
> know they exist.
>
> > And please not Orne Johnson, his reputation as a researcher is highly
> > tainted.
>
> Oh, I see, you just exclude the studies whose results
> don't fit your argument by impugning the researcher.
>
> On what basis do you say Orme-Johnson's reputation
> as a researcher is "highly tainted"?
Markowsky's testimony. need I reference the URL I am sure you are familiar
with it.
John A. Stanley
The link was probably too long. Here, try this shorter version:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A23253D61
It will redirect you to the SFGate story.
--
John A. Stanley Remove delicious mucilaginous vegetable to email
Judy Stein
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, it's against the law; second, the vast
> > > > > > majority of people consider rape to be wrong
> > > > > > (which is why it's against the law <duh>).
> > > > >
> > > > > I am sure there were civilizations that had no problem with that (no
> law
> > > > > against) . Did that make it right then? In older days woman were
> > > > > considered chattel. Do you think that was wrong?
> > > >
> > > > That question doesn't make sense. If it were to
> > > > occur *today*, of course I'd think it was wrong.
> > > > If I were a person living back then, I probably
> > > > wouldn't.
> > >
> > > Really. If you were living then? It would not be wrong?
> >
> > I said I probably would not think it was wrong.
> >
> > > Why? Why is it wrong then now?
> >
> > You mean, why do I *think* it is wrong now but I
> > probably wouldn't have then?
> >
> > Because I'm a child of my times, and the way people
> > think about women now has changed from how they
> > thought about women in the past.
>
> What does your thinking have to do with right or wrong?
What *else* could it have to do with?
> And why would *you* change your thinking about it?
You mean, why would I change my thinking
about it from medieval times to today?
I hate to break it to you, Petrus, but I'm
only 60 years old, not 1060.
> > > Just because you think so?
> >
> > See above.
>
> Does that make sense to you?
I'm afraid I'm going to shock you again,
Petrus. I know you're an exception, but
most people don't say things that don't make
sense to them.
<snip>
> > > > Because I believe women are human beings who
> > > > should have the same rights as men, not toys
> > > > to be used for a man's sexual pleasure or as
> > > > an outlet for his angry feelings.
> > >
> > > Where are you getting those rights from?
> >
> > Where am I getting my belief in those rights
> > from? From the culture I live in, of course.
>
> I asked you about the rights not your beliefs in them.
The rights come from the beliefs of the culture,
obviously.
<snip>
> > > > He apparently thought he had a *right* to do it.
> > >
> > > Was he wrong, thinking that?
> >
> > I think so.
>
> Why? It was his beliefs that he had the right to do so. That was *his*
> thinking on the subject. Who are you to think what he thought was wrong?
> Does might make right?
?? Where did I suggest it did? In this case,
the "might" seems to be on the part of law
enforcement who arrested Avila for murder.
Anybody can think whatever they like is
wrong or right. Die Gedanken sind frei. But
if they break the law or offend social mores,
they have to expect negative consequences.
<snip>
> > > If they did not think they might have done
> > > something wrong they would not plead the 5th.
> >
> > You cannot conceive of any circumstance in which
> > a person might take the 5th if they didn't think
> > they had done something wrong?
> >
> > > I know the legal details,
> >
> > What are the legal details?
>
> I already answered that self incrimination.
I see, so you *don't* know the legal details.
> > > > > > Do you recognize that this is a circular
> > > > > > argument? No, I'm sure you don't.
> > > > >
> > > > > You might say that. But that is because you don't understand the
> > > > > power of God.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, the power of God makes circular arguments
> > > > reasonable. I'll have to remember that.
> > >
> > > Blind leading the blind again eh? And so nice of you to snip the
> > > argument. But I have come to expect that from you. Twist and cut.
> > > You must be related to Willy.
> >
> > Oh, for pete's sake. The point isn't the specific
> > argument, it's your defense of it. You admitted
> > the argument was circular.
>
> I did admit to that?
You said, "You might say that."
<snip>
> > And you haven't responded to my point about
> > your not respecting the struggle.
>
> I did, I don't struggle because to me there are those absolute right and
> absolute wrongs.
Yes, that's obvious. What I'm saying is that
you don't respect the struggle to do the right
thing of people who *don't* believe there are
absolute rights and wrongs.
Most human beings have the *impulse* to do
the right thing, and many of them work very
hard at it, even if they haven't Seen the Light
as you have.
I mean, from your perspective, it's like
not applauding the efforts of the participants
in the Special Olympics but rather scorning
them because their disabilities keep them from
participating in the *real* Olympics.
Jesus denounced a bunch of people as
hypocrites because they were so preoccupied
with the fine points of absolute right and
wrong that they neglected to help the poor
and oppressed. They were so absorbed in
their own self-righteousness they forgot
all about compassion.
> > > > Actually, I think murder is in a somewhat
> > > > gray area. Would it have been wrong to
> > > > assassinate Hitler?
> > >
> > > Depends on your reason.
> >
> > How about because he was an evil madman bent
> > on destroying the Jews and taking over the world?
>
> Did I not answer that already? Why did you snip my answers?
You didn't answer that part, that's why I snipped
your answers. You talked about Hitler hitting
on your sister and whether he should get capital
punishment for committing a murder.
I agree (as I said) that the preferable
alternative to assassination is to bring
the madman to justice. But what if that's
impossible, is assassination then justified?
> > > > Would it be wrong to
> > > > assassinate Saddam Hussein?
> > >
> > > Yes and no. Same reasons as Hitler.
> >
> > The reason *I* have in mind is because it
> > looks like he may be in a position, and has
> > the motivation, to supply terrorists with
> > weapons of mass destruction to use against
> > those they consider their enemies.
>
> Well, give us the evidence and lets try him. Then if he is found quilty of
> a crime deserving death. Hang m high
If you can take him alive. There's very
little chance of that, that's the point.
While we're trying to figure out a way to
mount the exceptionally delicate and difficult
operation that might have a chance of taking him
alive, he could be finishing up the nuclear weapon
and handing it over to the terrorists, or he
could be launching missiles containing lethal
biological agents at Israel.
Hundreds of thousands of lives might be saved
if we organized a much simpler assassination
attempt.
How do you decide whether preventing a
greater wrong justifies committing a lesser
wrong?
> > > > For me, those are tough questions.
> > >
> > > Then you are on shifting sands.
> >
> > You haven't addressed any of *my* reasons for
> > assassination, you've just provided some straw
> > man reasons where the answer is a lot clearer.
>
> That was because you had not given me any of *your* reasons until this post.
Frankly, I thought it would be obvious. To most
people, it would not be necessary to list reasons
for assassinating Hitler or Saddam Hussein.
> And I already addressed that issue in the parts that you snipped out
No, you most certainly did not.
> > > > If assassination were
> > > > the *only* way to neutralize them, then I
> > > > think it would be the right thing to do, or
> > > > at least the less-wrong thing to do.
> > >
> > > Do two wrongs make a right?
> >
> > Ah, that's the tough question, isn't it?
>
> No, it is not. Simple. Two wrongs never make a right.
So it would be better for hundreds of thousands
of innocent people to die (millions in the case
of Hitler) than to assassinate one madman.
Is that what you think? And you call *my*
responses "unbelievable"!
<snip>
> > > What recidivism do you consider high success?
> >
> > Can't cite a percentage, but it's a matter of
> > the percentage *reduction* in recidivism. As
> > I recall, some of the studies showed the
> > recidivism rate was cut in half.
>
> What happened in Mexico?
How should I know? The newspaper reporter
didn't provide any details.
> > "Success" would be defined in practical terms
> > by comparing the cost of teaching the prisoners
> > TM versus the cost of dealing with the higher
> > rate of recidivism without TM.
>
> I heard that Christian prison ministry programs are just that ministry. Why
> does MMY have to charge for it?
Because he doesn't lead a religious movement.
<snip>
> > > Do you have the studies to back those up?
> >
> > When I get a chance, I'll look, but I think you
> > know they exist.
> >
> > > And please not Orne Johnson, his reputation as a researcher is highly
> > > tainted.
> >
> > Oh, I see, you just exclude the studies whose results
> > don't fit your argument by impugning the researcher.
> >
> > On what basis do you say Orme-Johnson's reputation
> > as a researcher is "highly tainted"?
>
> Markowsky's testimony. need I reference the URL I am sure you are familiar
> with it.
Oh, so you know Markovsky is a born-again
Christian and thus is able to discern
absolute right and wrong where Orme-Johnson
is concerned?
Funny, I was under the impression
Markovsky was Jewish.
In any case, Markovsky is as biased against
TM as Orme-Johnson is biased in favor of it.
Is that really all the basis you have for
saying Orme-Johnson's reputation is "highly
tainted"??
Markovsky also believes the TM researchers
behaved unethically in studying the effects
of large gatherings of TM-Sidhas on crime
since they didn't first obtain the informed
consent of the entire population they believed
the gathering was likely to affect.
Do Christians ever pray for people without
first obtaining their informed consent?
If so, Markovsky might have a big problem
with Christians' ethics as well.
Angelo
Given your chronic and habitual dishonesty, I'm wondering if this claim
isn't just some ploy to solicit sympathy from James Duffy so that he won't
have the heart to annihilate you a second time. "Have pity on a poor old
woman, Mr Duffy sir, I'm 60 years old, for pity's sake." (wringing hands
obsequiously)
Angie
PS: if you're really 60 - congratulations - you seem younger.
Judy Stein
> Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:19b3c03e.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > I hate to break it to you...but I'm...60 years old...
>
> Given your chronic and habitual dishonesty
That isn't something you've been "given," it's
something you made up out of whole cloth.
Angelo
Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.02080...@posting.google.com...
> "Angelo" <angel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ukolifp...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> That isn't something you've been "given," it's
> something you made up out of whole cloth.
Back in June you repeatedly and haughtily proclaimed that you wouldn't be
staying here long: just long enough to expose Joe Kellet. Well Joe left a
long time ago but you're still here. Don't make promises you can't keep.
Your grand claim has back-fired. And for sure you could no more leave
alt.m.t than you could vanish or fly through the air. You are well and truly
stuck here try as you might to leave. So what do we call someone who says
one thing but does the opposite? But let me show you how to leave alt.m.t.
Sorry boys and girls but Angelo will now demonstrate invisibility.
Angie (vanishing)
Judy Stein
> > > "Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > > news:19b3c03e.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > What does your thinking have to do with right or wrong?
> > > >
> > > > What *else* could it have to do with?
> > >
> > > So it is not "your" thinking that makes things right or wrong.
> >
> > I didn't say my thinking, or anyone else's thinking,
> > made *anything* right or wrong.
>
> OK So it is not someones thinking that makes right and wrongs.
Of course not.
<snip>
> > > OK you use the back in time sidhi and are now in 1000 AD why would you
> > > change your thinking?
> >
> > I wouldn't, obviously, if I retained my current
> > personality and background.
>
> So you would then say that rape was wrong in 1000AD as it is wrong now.
If I were suddenly transported back to 1000 AD,
I would still think it was wrong, yes.
So
> it would not depend on what society says about it. (collective thinking)
Of course it would depend on what society
says about it. Why should that change?
<snip>
> > > > The rights come from the beliefs of the culture,
> > > > obviously.
> > >
> > > And where did this US culture get them from?
> >
> > They're the product of all the various influences
> > that have gone to make up the culture, including but
> > not limited to religious beliefs.
>
> Well the Declaration of Independence clearly state where the founding
> fathers of this country claim those inalianable rights are coming from.
> From our Creator.
They were certainly entitled to their opinion.
> That is why there are absolutes.
That's why they *believed* there were absolutes,
yes indeed.
Because God does not
> change. That is why rape is wrong no matter what *one* believes or no
> matter what *ones* culture believes.
Quite possibly the founding parents would agree
with you.
Peoples unseared consciouss will
> verify that.
I don't know what "unseared consciousness"
means.
<snip>
> > > > you don't respect the struggle to do the right
> > > > thing of people who *don't* believe there are
> > > > absolute rights and wrongs.
> > >
> > > I feel sadness for them not understanding the truth. But respecting
> their
> > > struggle would seem to me to indicate respect their right to do wrong.
> >
> > No, it wouldn't. You can respect the struggle
> > and then feel sadness for them if it doesn't
> > come out the way you think it ought to.
>
> Maybe we are discussing symantics.
(Semantics.) No, I don't think so, not based
on other things you've said.
> > > > Most human beings have the *impulse* to do
> > > > the right thing,
> > >
> > > Correct. Where does that come from?
> >
> > Evolutionary biology.
>
> Aha, create something out of nothing?
Well, ultimately, yes, in the Big Bang.
> > It's a survival trait.
>
> God given consciouss.
Floor wax.
> > From "your" thinking? And why would
> > > that impulse be any different now than 1060 years ago?
> >
> > The impulse isn't different. What's changed
> > is the perception of the "right thing."
>
> Perception is in the eye of the beholder. I thought we already established
> it has nothing to do with the individual
Right, with the society, the culture.
<snip>
> > So we let him go ahead and murder millions
> > rather than taking the necessary preventive
> > steps. I see.
>
> No you don't. I say bring up the evidence convict and execute judgement.
> But don't assassinate someone because someone else has a harebrained idea
> that the person is about to commit evil acts without any evidence.
Oh, there's plenty of evidence. But there's no
way we could capture him and bring him to a court
to be tried and convicted without a full-scale war
with many casualties, including innocent civilians.
> > > > > I heard that Christian prison ministry programs are just that
> ministry.
> > > > > Why does MMY have to charge for it?
> > > >
> > > > Because he doesn't lead a religious movement.
> > >
> > > But does it not take a whole lot of faith to believe that *you* will fly
> > > like Peter Pan? What about the faith that it takes in believing that
> *you*
> > > bouncing on your buns will produce world peace?
> >
> > Well, in the first place, *I* don't "believe"
> > those things. All I can say is that I don't
> > rule them out.
>
> But are you acting on those beliefs that you don't believe?
I'm not acting on beliefs. It's more like a bet,
at least with world peace. I don't care about flying.
But I think the world peace angle is worth a try.
Besides which, doing the program has a lot of benefits
in everyday life.
> > That means *you* have to
> > > place your trust outside of our scientific world and put it in the
> > > supernatural. Bingo, you have a religious movement.
> >
> > According to MMY's teaching,
>
> Why do you think that MMY is someone to trust when it comes to scientific
> phenomenons? Why do you think that he is some sort of authority in the
> field of science?
I think he's an authority in the field of
consciousness. I don't think science has a clue
what consciousness is about.
> > flying is not a
> > "supernatural" phenomenon.
>
> The more reason to consired MMY a quack and a snake oil pusher.
Dessert topping.
> > It's made possible
> > by very subtle levels of natural law that science
> > hasn't discovered yet.
>
> Contradiction in terms. And you talk about my logic.
?? Oh, I forgot, you believe science has
discovered everything there is to be
discovered.
> ( So you really do belief that flying is possible.)
As I said, I don't rule it out.
> > In any case, we put our trust outside of the
> > scientific world many times a day just in the
> > course of ordinary living. That's not a criterion
> > for a religious movement.
>
> When it comes to the governing laws of nature (lower case "n") it is. Any
> thing outside of those laws is a miracle and thereby associated with the
> supernatural. (God)
I don't think the laws of nature are as limited
as you do.
> > TM is certainly a *spiritual* movement, but it isn't
> > aimed at converting people to a specific set of
> > sectarian religious beliefs
>
> But it does. It converts people with a Christian belief system in to a
> Hindu belief system. It did that to me.
*You* did that to you.
> > > > > > On what basis do you say Orme-Johnson's reputation
> > > > > > as a researcher is "highly tainted"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Markowsky's testimony. need I reference the URL I am sure you are
> > > > > familiar with it.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, so you know Markovsky is a born-again
> > > > Christian
> > >
> > > No I don't
> > >
> > > > and thus is able to discern
> > > > absolute right and wrong where Orme-Johnson
> > > > is concerned?
> > >
> > > Even you are able to discern right from wrong.
> >
> > Really? Then I'm here to tell you you are doing
> > very serious wrong, all the more so because you do
> > it in the name of Jesus.
>
> Well what is the wrong that I do? I take that accusation very serious.
>
> > Now, why do you take Markovsky's claim about
> > Orme-Johnson seriously but not the claim I
> > just made about you?
>
> LOL, You will probably not believe that I wrote the above before I got to
> this one but it is the truth.
> I guess that is where the absolute right and wrong comes in again.
You're contradicting yourself. According to you,
I can't discern right from wrong becuase I'm not
born-again.
And no, I don't believe you didn't read down first.
> > > > In any case, Markovsky is as biased against
> > > > TM as Orme-Johnson is biased in favor of it.
> > >
> > > Bias makes no difference. Fact are facts, mam.
> >
> > That the TMers didn't give Markovsky their data
> > is a fact.
>
> Correct
>
> > That it was *wrong* of them not to
> > do so is not a fact but an opinion that may be
> > colored by bias.
>
> From what I gather in the scientific world, it would invalidate anything
> that they have proposed in their scientific research.
Now you think *scientitists* are capable of
distinguishing absolute right and wrong.
You do realize that, hypothetically, their data
could be pure as the driven snow and their
conclusions absolutely sound statistically even
if they *didn't* give their data to Markovsky,
don't you? Not making their data available
doesn't invalidate anything.
> > > > Markovsky also believes the TM researchers
> > > > behaved unethically in studying the effects
> > > > of large gatherings of TM-Sidhas on crime
> > > > since they didn't first obtain the informed
> > > > consent of the entire population they believed
> > > > the gathering was likely to affect.
> > >
> > > Really. It that your strawman du jour?
> >
> > Some people, on hearing that belief of Markovsky's,
> > would wonder not just about his credibility and
> > rationality but about his very sanity.
>
> Yup that is a straw man.
> (Some would have the same feeling about people bouncing on their buns for
> world peace.)
Not a straw man. As for Yogic Flying, I'm not a
scientist; Markovsky is.
> > > "Beyond the purview of this critique are the moral and ethical issues
> that
> > > arise when meditators purport to alter experimentally the moods, thought
> > > processes, and behaviors of others without their informed consent, and
> when
> > > the TM movement assigns itself the responsibility of manipulating the
> > > substrate of all existence. "
> >
> > Do you pray for God to heal someone of a terminal
> > disease without their informed consent?
>
> No, I would ask God to heal them if it was His will. I do not alter any
> moods, thought processes or behaviors.
But you ask God to manipulate the substrate of
existence when you pray for God to heal someone,
without their informed consent.
> > Do you pray
> > for God to touch a sinner's heart and bring him to
> > the light without the sinner's informed consent?
>
> Yes. Because I know that to be His will. For God does not wish for any to
> perish, but for all to come to repentance.
Right, so you're asking God to alter the person's
moods, thought processes, and behaviors,
without their informed consent.
> > > "The third set of studies correlated changes in the level of serotonin,
> a
> > > neurotransmitter, in non-meditators living in Fairfield, Iowa, with the
> > > number of people collectively practicing the TM-Sidhi program at MUM.
> Low
> > > levels of serotonin in the brain are associated with behavioral
> problems,
> > > such as increased aggression and depression, and high levels are
> associated
> > > with experiences of well-being."
> > > http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/methodology.html
> > >
> > > If that were to be true, I would expect a whole bunch of lawsuits.
> >
> > For elevating their serotonin production and giving
> > them experiences of well-being?
>
> Serotonin overdose is a serious problem.
Serotonin overdose in connection with TM is
a fantasy you've dreamed up. I've pointed out
to you at length why it's a fantasy.
<snip>
> Judy I do enjoy discussing things with you, and want to thank you for
> keeping the personal insults out of this thread.
If you stay respectful, I'll stay respectful.
See, what I perceive in this exchange is that you're
unable to maintain a consistent position when it gets
down to the nitty-gritty; you end up in all kinds of
contradictions. There's nothing wrong with that; the
same thing happens when you take MMY's teaching down
to the nitty-gritty.
That's the case with *any* teaching that can be
expressed intellectually. If you can express it
in words, when you take it as far as it can go,
it begins to break down, because Reality cannot
be captured in words.
And that's why I don't believe in absolute right
or wrong. Or to put it another way, I think
your God is too small.
Petrus
"Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.02080...@posting.google.com...
> "Petrus" <NOS...@NOWAY.NOWHERE> wrote in message
news:<ul86h5n...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:19b3c03e.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Petrus" <NOS...@NOWAY.NOWHERE> wrote in message
> > news:<ul5ssd9...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > > "Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:19b3c03e.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Petrus" <NOS...@NOWAY.NOWHERE> wrote in message
> > <snip>
> > > > > > What does your thinking have to do with right or wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > > What *else* could it have to do with?
> > > >
> > > > Because different people think different about it. See Avila again.
> > > > So it is not "your" thinking that makes things right or wrong.
> > >
> > > I didn't say my thinking, or anyone else's thinking,
> > > made *anything* right or wrong.
> >
> > OK So it is not someones thinking that makes right and wrongs.
>
> Of course not.
We are in agreement.
>
> <snip>
> > > > OK you use the back in time sidhi and are now in 1000 AD why would
you
> > > > change your thinking?
> > >
> > > I wouldn't, obviously, if I retained my current
> > > personality and background.
> >
> > So you would then say that rape was wrong in 1000AD as it is wrong now.
>
> If I were suddenly transported back to 1000 AD,
> I would still think it was wrong, yes.
Agreed.
>
> So
> > it would not depend on what society says about it. (collective
thinking)
>
> Of course it would depend on what society
> says about it. Why should that change?
You just said that is you were transported back to 1000AD it were still
wrong. Would it not follow that even if the society you ended up in 1000
years ago rape was accepted, it would still be wrong.
>
> <snip>
> > > > > The rights come from the beliefs of the culture,
> > > > > obviously.
> > > >
> > > > And where did this US culture get them from?
> > >
> > > They're the product of all the various influences
> > > that have gone to make up the culture, including but
> > > not limited to religious beliefs.
> >
> > Well the Declaration of Independence clearly state where the founding
> > fathers of this country claim those inalianable rights are coming from.
> > From our Creator.
>
> They were certainly entitled to their opinion.
>
> > That is why there are absolutes.
>
> That's why they *believed* there were absolutes,
> yes indeed.
If it is not the society and not the individual, what is left?
>
> Because God does not
> > change. That is why rape is wrong no matter what *one* believes or no
> > matter what *ones* culture believes.
>
> Quite possibly the founding parents would agree
> with you.
>
> Peoples unseared consciouss will
> > verify that.
>
> I don't know what "unseared consciousness"
> means.
I believe that God gives everyone a conscious which you can compare with the
little angel on you shoulder whispering warnings when you are about to do
wrong. But if people ignore it, soon the other guy on the other shoulder
will take over to the point that it becomes easier to do wrong. People can
become hardened to the inner voice that something is wrong to the point that
they no longer hear it. That would be a seared conscious. A first time
crime is always harder than ths second and third.
>
> <snip>
> > > > > you don't respect the struggle to do the right
> > > > > thing of people who *don't* believe there are
> > > > > absolute rights and wrongs.
> > > >
> > > > I feel sadness for them not understanding the truth. But respecting
> > their
> > > > struggle would seem to me to indicate respect their right to do
wrong.
> > >
> > > No, it wouldn't. You can respect the struggle
> > > and then feel sadness for them if it doesn't
> > > come out the way you think it ought to.
> >
> > Maybe we are discussing symantics.
>
> (Semantics.)
Sorry must be my antivirus taking over again.
> No, I don't think so, not based
> on other things you've said.
>
> > > > > Most human beings have the *impulse* to do
> > > > > the right thing,
> > > >
> > > > Correct. Where does that come from?
> > >
> > > Evolutionary biology.
> >
> > Aha, create something out of nothing?
>
> Well, ultimately, yes, in the Big Bang.
Is that scientifically possible, or would that be a miracle, to create
something out of nothing?
>
> > > It's a survival trait.
> >
> > God given consciouss.
>
> Floor wax.
Floor wax?
>
> > > From "your" thinking? And why would
> > > > that impulse be any different now than 1060 years ago?
> > >
> > > The impulse isn't different. What's changed
> > > is the perception of the "right thing."
> >
> > Perception is in the eye of the beholder. I thought we already
established
> > it has nothing to do with the individual
>
> Right, with the society, the culture.
But you said rape was wrong even if you went back 1000 years in time -
different culture & society.
>
> <snip>
> > > So we let him go ahead and murder millions
> > > rather than taking the necessary preventive
> > > steps. I see.
> >
> > No you don't. I say bring up the evidence convict and execute
judgement.
> > But don't assassinate someone because someone else has a harebrained
idea
> > that the person is about to commit evil acts without any evidence.
>
> Oh, there's plenty of evidence. But there's no
> way we could capture him and bring him to a court
> to be tried and convicted without a full-scale war
> with many casualties, including innocent civilians.
He does not to be present to be convicted.
>
> > > > > > I heard that Christian prison ministry programs are just that
> > ministry.
> > > > > > Why does MMY have to charge for it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because he doesn't lead a religious movement.
> > > >
> > > > But does it not take a whole lot of faith to believe that *you* will
fly
> > > > like Peter Pan? What about the faith that it takes in believing
that
> > *you*
> > > > bouncing on your buns will produce world peace?
> > >
> > > Well, in the first place, *I* don't "believe"
> > > those things. All I can say is that I don't
> > > rule them out.
> >
> > But are you acting on those beliefs that you don't believe?
>
> I'm not acting on beliefs. It's more like a bet,
> at least with world peace.
Bet or not you are bouncing on your buns for world peace.
> I don't care about flying.
> But I think the world peace angle is worth a try.
So you act in faith on your believe that it is worth a try, eventhough the
crime stats say another story.
> Besides which, doing the program has a lot of benefits
> in everyday life.
> > > That means *you* have to
> > > > place your trust outside of our scientific world and put it in the
> > > > supernatural. Bingo, you have a religious movement.
> > >
> > > According to MMY's teaching,
> >
> > Why do you think that MMY is someone to trust when it comes to
scientific
> > phenomenons? Why do you think that he is some sort of authority in the
> > field of science?
>
> I think he's an authority in the field of
> consciousness.
What scientific field is that? The TM0 just made that up in order to
promote MMY.
> I don't think science has a clue
> what consciousness is about.
Does that not bother you? You believe in something that is not supported by
science?
>
> > > flying is not a
> > > "supernatural" phenomenon.
> >
> > The more reason to consired MMY a quack and a snake oil pusher.
>
> Dessert topping.
Snake oil does not show up on my list of dessert toppings.
>
> > > It's made possible
> > > by very subtle levels of natural law that science
> > > hasn't discovered yet.
> >
> > Contradiction in terms. And you talk about my logic.
>
> ?? Oh, I forgot, you believe science has
> discovered everything there is to be
> discovered.
No. There are a lot of fields open for major discoveries. Human bodies
flying in mid air unsupported is not one of them. And you have to admit it
is a bit weird.
>
> > ( So you really do belief that flying is possible.)
>
> As I said, I don't rule it out.
Ok, it is a possibility to you.
>
> > > In any case, we put our trust outside of the
> > > scientific world many times a day just in the
> > > course of ordinary living. That's not a criterion
> > > for a religious movement.
> >
> > When it comes to the governing laws of nature (lower case "n") it is.
Any
> > thing outside of those laws is a miracle and thereby associated with the
> > supernatural. (God)
>
> I don't think the laws of nature are as limited
> as you do.
Sorry but that is the definition of science.
science any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world
and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic
experimentation.
http://www.britannica.com/search?query=science&ct=&fuzzy=N
By definition the supernatural (God) is not observable and thus fall out of
the category of science What you are getting confused with is the fact that
MMY calls the Will of God the laws of Nature (capital N) I hope you
understand the difference.
>
> > > TM is certainly a *spiritual* movement, but it isn't
> > > aimed at converting people to a specific set of
> > > sectarian religious beliefs
> >
> > But it does. It converts people with a Christian belief system in to a
> > Hindu belief system. It did that to me.
>
> *You* did that to you.
Eh, When I started TM, I knew nothing about reincarnation Karma, Maya, and
any and all mantras. Now where would I have gotten those religious ideas
from.
Sorry to hear that, but, no, you have a God given conscious all instructions
are included upon delivery.
>
> And no, I don't believe you didn't read down first.
>
Well, you just have to take my word for it.
> > > > > In any case, Markovsky is as biased against
> > > > > TM as Orme-Johnson is biased in favor of it.
> > > >
> > > > Bias makes no difference. Fact are facts, mam.
> > >
> > > That the TMers didn't give Markovsky their data
> > > is a fact.
> >
> > Correct
> >
> > > That it was *wrong* of them not to
> > > do so is not a fact but an opinion that may be
> > > colored by bias.
> >
> > From what I gather in the scientific world, it would invalidate anything
> > that they have proposed in their scientific research.
>
> Now you think *scientitists* are capable of
> distinguishing absolute right and wrong.
Not that hard. They set their own rules up. They should be able to follow
them.
>
> You do realize that, hypothetically, their data
> could be pure as the driven snow and their
> conclusions absolutely sound statistically even
> if they *didn't* give their data to Markovsky,
> don't you?
Absolutely, and they would have nothing to hide then.
> Not making their data available
> doesn't invalidate anything.
But is does not allow for verification. And then you are left with "Who do
you trust" You seem to blindly accept anything that comes down the TM0
pike. Including levitation. Most americans are not so easily fooled.
>
> > > > > Markovsky also believes the TM researchers
> > > > > behaved unethically in studying the effects
> > > > > of large gatherings of TM-Sidhas on crime
> > > > > since they didn't first obtain the informed
> > > > > consent of the entire population they believed
> > > > > the gathering was likely to affect.
> > > >
> > > > Really. It that your strawman du jour?
> > >
> > > Some people, on hearing that belief of Markovsky's,
> > > would wonder not just about his credibility and
> > > rationality but about his very sanity.
> >
> > Yup that is a straw man.
> > (Some would have the same feeling about people bouncing on their buns
for
> > world peace.)
>
> Not a straw man. As for Yogic Flying, I'm not a
> scientist; Markovsky is.
And he called the bouncing on your bottom for world peace a joke. You take
it serious. Who is non scientific?
>
> > > > "Beyond the purview of this critique are the moral and ethical
issues
> > that
> > > > arise when meditators purport to alter experimentally the moods,
thought
> > > > processes, and behaviors of others without their informed consent,
and
> > when
> > > > the TM movement assigns itself the responsibility of manipulating
the
> > > > substrate of all existence. "
> > >
> > > Do you pray for God to heal someone of a terminal
> > > disease without their informed consent?
> >
> > No, I would ask God to heal them if it was His will. I do not alter
any
> > moods, thought processes or behaviors.
>
> But you ask God to manipulate the substrate of
> existence
Could you pleace give me the scientific definition for substrate of
existence?
> when you pray for God to heal someone,
> without their informed consent.
No I ask God to do His will. I do not minipulate anyones mood, thought
processes or behaviour. If God does that, well He is God and by definition
He has that right to do that. Not me.
>
> > > Do you pray
> > > for God to touch a sinner's heart and bring him to
> > > the light without the sinner's informed consent?
> >
> > Yes. Because I know that to be His will. For God does not wish for any
to
> > perish, but for all to come to repentance.
>
> Right, so you're asking God to alter the person's
> moods, thought processes, and behaviors,
> without their informed consent.
No, someone cannot be manipulated against their will into the Kingdom. God
does not force people to become born again. It is up to the individual to
make that decision. (which would need their consent) But the BIG
difference is that *I* do not manipulate anyone.
>
> > > > "The third set of studies correlated changes in the level of
serotonin,
> > a
> > > > neurotransmitter, in non-meditators living in Fairfield, Iowa, with
the
> > > > number of people collectively practicing the TM-Sidhi program at
MUM.
> > Low
> > > > levels of serotonin in the brain are associated with behavioral
> > problems,
> > > > such as increased aggression and depression, and high levels are
> > associated
> > > > with experiences of well-being."
> > > > http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/methodology.html
> > > >
> > > > If that were to be true, I would expect a whole bunch of lawsuits.
> > >
> > > For elevating their serotonin production and giving
> > > them experiences of well-being?
> >
> > Serotonin overdose is a serious problem.
>
> Serotonin overdose in connection with TM is
> a fantasy you've dreamed up. I've pointed out
> to you at length why it's a fantasy.
You wish to ignore the facts.
>
> <snip>
> > Judy I do enjoy discussing things with you, and want to thank you for
> > keeping the personal insults out of this thread.
>
> If you stay respectful, I'll stay respectful.
Promised?
>
> See, what I perceive in this exchange is that you're
> unable to maintain a consistent position when it gets
> down to the nitty-gritty; you end up in all kinds of
> contradictions. There's nothing wrong with that; the
> same thing happens when you take MMY's teaching down
> to the nitty-gritty.
I believe that it is you that has problem with the consistency of their
position. Reread you reaction to the question of rape.
>
> That's the case with *any* teaching that can be
> expressed intellectually. If you can express it
> in words, when you take it as far as it can go,
> it begins to break down, because Reality cannot
> be captured in words.
Could it be that your reality, does not exist?
>
> And that's why I don't believe in absolute right
> or wrong. Or to put it another way, I think
> your God is too small.
Your thought are your thoughts. I would never put God in a box or claim
that He is too small.
Judy Stein
> > > OK So it is not someones thinking that makes right and wrongs.
> >
> > Of course not.
>
> We are in agreement.
So far, so good.
<snip>
> > If I were suddenly transported back to 1000 AD,
> > I would still think it was wrong, yes.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > So it would not depend on what society says about it. (collective
> > > thinking)
> >
> > Of course it would depend on what society
> > says about it. Why should that change?
>
> You just said that is you were transported back to 1000AD it were still
> wrong. Would it not follow that even if the society you ended up in 1000
> years ago rape was accepted, it would still be wrong.
No, it would follow only that I (and the society I
came from) thought it was wrong.
<snip>
> > > Well the Declaration of Independence clearly state where the founding
> > > fathers of this country claim those inalianable rights are coming from.
> > > From our Creator.
> >
> > They were certainly entitled to their opinion.
> >
> > > That is why there are absolutes.
> >
> > That's why they *believed* there were absolutes,
> > yes indeed.
>
> If it is not the society and not the individual, what is left?
What is "it" in that sentence, specifically?
You'll have to be more explicit before I can
respond.
<snip>
> > Peoples unseared consciouss will
> > > verify that.
> >
> > I don't know what "unseared consciousness"
> > means.
>
> I believe that God gives everyone a conscious which you can compare with the
> little angel on you shoulder whispering warnings when you are about to do
> wrong.
I think you mean "conscience," right?
But if people ignore it, soon the other guy on the other shoulder
> will take over to the point that it becomes easier to do wrong. People can
> become hardened to the inner voice that something is wrong to the point that
> they no longer hear it. That would be a seared conscious. A first time
> crime is always harder than ths second and third.
But I still don't get the "seared" part. Sear is what
you do to a lamb chop when you put it in a hot skillet.
<snip>
> > > > > > Most human beings have the *impulse* to do
> > > > > > the right thing,
> > > > >
> > > > > Correct. Where does that come from?
> > > >
> > > > Evolutionary biology.
> > >
> > > Aha, create something out of nothing?
> >
> > Well, ultimately, yes, in the Big Bang.
>
> Is that scientifically possible, or would that be a miracle, to create
> something out of nothing?
Depends on how you define "science" and "miracle"
and "nothing."
But it wouldn't have had to have been a "miracle"
to attribute it to God. My inclination is not to
draw those kinds of lines.
> > > > It's a survival trait.
> > >
> > > God given consciouss.
> >
> > Floor wax.
>
> Floor wax?
Never mind.
> > > > From "your" thinking? And why would
> > > > > that impulse be any different now than 1060 years ago?
> > > >
> > > > The impulse isn't different. What's changed
> > > > is the perception of the "right thing."
> > >
> > > Perception is in the eye of the beholder. I thought we already
> > > established it has nothing to do with the individual
> >
> > Right, with the society, the culture.
>
> But you said rape was wrong even if you went back 1000 years in time -
> different culture & society.
I said I would consider rape to be wrong. And
remember, we stipulated that I would retain my
personality and background from the society I
grew up in. I'd be carrying those values back
in time with me. I'd be completely out of sync
with the society 1000 years ago.
<snip>
> > Oh, there's plenty of evidence. But there's no
> > way we could capture him and bring him to a court
> > to be tried and convicted without a full-scale war
> > with many casualties, including innocent civilians.
>
> He does not to be present to be convicted.
So all you're worried about are the formalities.
<snip>
> > I'm not acting on beliefs. It's more like a bet,
> > at least with world peace.
>
> Bet or not you are bouncing on your buns for world peace.
Well, I'm doing the TM-Sidhi program for world peace
(as well as for my personal benefit).
> > I don't care about flying.
> > But I think the world peace angle is worth a try.
>
> So you act in faith on your believe that it is worth a try, eventhough the
> crime stats say another story.
I don't think the crime stats are quite as
unequivocal as you do.
But again, we do all kinds of things "on faith"
that they're worth a try that don't have anything
to do with religion.
<snip>
> > > Why do you think that MMY is someone to trust when it comes to
> > > scientific phenomenons? Why do you think that he is some sort of
> > > authority in the field of science?
> >
> > I think he's an authority in the field of
> > consciousness.
>
> What scientific field is that?
It isn't a field science knows about, yet.
Science is working on it, though.
> The TM0 just made that up in order to promote MMY.
Oh, goodness, no. It's a very common term
among those who study consciousness.
> > I don't think science has a clue
> > what consciousness is about.
>
> Does that not bother you? You believe in something that is not supported by
> science?
You don't believe in consciousness?
Yes, it bothers me that science hasn't put
consciousness at the top of its list of things
to investigate.
<snip>
> > > The more reason to consired MMY a quack and a snake oil pusher.
> >
> > Dessert topping.
>
> Snake oil does not show up on my list of dessert toppings.
Right. It's not snake oil, it's a dessert topping.
(Although some insist it's a floor wax.)
> > > > It's made possible
> > > > by very subtle levels of natural law that science
> > > > hasn't discovered yet.
> > >
> > > Contradiction in terms. And you talk about my logic.
> >
> > ?? Oh, I forgot, you believe science has
> > discovered everything there is to be
> > discovered.
>
> No. There are a lot of fields open for major discoveries. Human bodies
> flying in mid air unsupported is not one of them.
How do you know? Are you omniscient?
> And you have to admit it is a bit weird.
It's *very* weird, no question about it.
But then, so is quantum mechanics.
(Actually, in another post you *did* say you thought
science was complete, with nothing left to be
discovered.)
<snip>
> > I don't think the laws of nature are as limited
> > as you do.
>
> Sorry but that is the definition of science.
Uh, no, it's not. Here's a good definition of science:
> science any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world
> and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic
> experimentation.
> http://www.britannica.com/search?query=science&ct=&fuzzy=N
>
> By definition the supernatural (God) is not observable and thus fall out of
> the category of science
We can't observe your thoughts. Does that mean they're
"supernatural"? Does that mean the notion of your
having thoughts should be rejected as unscientific?
What you are getting confused with is the fact that
> MMY calls the Will of God the laws of Nature (capital N) I hope you
> understand the difference.
As I said, I don't tend to draw those kinds of lines.
I think the term "supernatural" is a misnomer. It isn't
"confusion" on my part, it's a difference of opinion about
the nature of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
> > > > TM is certainly a *spiritual* movement, but it isn't
> > > > aimed at converting people to a specific set of
> > > > sectarian religious beliefs
> > >
> > > But it does. It converts people with a Christian belief system in to a
> > > Hindu belief system. It did that to me.
> >
> > *You* did that to you.
>
> Eh, When I started TM, I knew nothing about reincarnation Karma, Maya, and
> any and all mantras. Now where would I have gotten those religious ideas
> from.
You may have gotten the ideas from TM, but you didn't
have to *believe* them. And while they're elements
of Hindu belief, they predate Hinduism significantly.
They're metaphysical ideas, not religious ideas, although
religions certainly make use of them, especially in the
East. (And you know early Christians believed in
reincarnation, right?)
<snip>
> > You're contradicting yourself. According to you,
> > I can't discern right from wrong becuase I'm not
> > born-again.
>
> Sorry to hear that, but, no, you have a God given conscious all instructions
> are included upon delivery.
But I haven't followed those instructions, so I don't
get to use my conscience.
> > And no, I don't believe you didn't read down first.
>
> Well, you just have to take my word for it.
Read my pixels: I *don't* take your word for it.
<snip>
> > > From what I gather in the scientific world, it would invalidate anything
> > > that they have proposed in their scientific research.
> >
> > Now you think *scientitists* are capable of
> > distinguishing absolute right and wrong.
>
> Not that hard. They set their own rules up. They should be able to follow
> them.
They set their *own* rules up?
Oopsy. Want to rethink that? If they've
made up their own rules, they aren't The Rules.
> > You do realize that, hypothetically, their data
> > could be pure as the driven snow and their
> > conclusions absolutely sound statistically even
> > if they *didn't* give their data to Markovsky,
> > don't you?
>
> Absolutely, and they would have nothing to hide then.
Unless they thought Markovsky was going to misrepresent
their data.
> > Not making their data available
> > doesn't invalidate anything.
>
> But is does not allow for verification. And then you are left with "Who do
> you trust"
That's right, good, you understand that, at least.
You seem to blindly accept anything that comes down the TM0
> pike. Including levitation.
I do?? I just got done telling you the most I
can say is that I don't rule it out.
<snip>
> > > > Some people, on hearing that belief of Markovsky's,
> > > > would wonder not just about his credibility and
> > > > rationality but about his very sanity.
> > >
> > > Yup that is a straw man.
> > > (Some would have the same feeling about people bouncing on their buns
> > > for world peace.)
> >
> > Not a straw man. As for Yogic Flying, I'm not a
> > scientist; Markovsky is.
>
> And he called the bouncing on your bottom for world peace a joke. You take
> it serious. Who is non scientific?
I just said I'm not a scientist. Read more
carefully, please.
> > > > > "Beyond the purview of this critique are the moral and ethical
> > > > > issues that arise when meditators purport to alter experimentally
> > > > > the moods, thought processes, and behaviors of others without their
> > > > > informed consent, and when
> > > > > the TM movement assigns itself the responsibility of manipulating
> > > > > the substrate of all existence. "
> > > >
> > > > Do you pray for God to heal someone of a terminal
> > > > disease without their informed consent?
> > >
> > > No, I would ask God to heal them if it was His will. I do not alter
> > > any moods, thought processes or behaviors.
> >
> > But you ask God to manipulate the substrate of
> > existence
>
> Could you pleace give me the scientific definition for substrate of
> existence?
I don't know what Markovsky means by it, but
I would assume it's the realm of elementary
particles. If you can manipulate those at
will, you can do all the miracles you want.
> > when you pray for God to heal someone,
> > without their informed consent.
>
> No I ask God to do His will. I do not minipulate anyones mood, thought
> processes or behaviour. If God does that, well He is God and by definition
> He has that right to do that. Not me.
Using that reasoning, I could call up a hit man
and ask him to murder someone for me. If he
decides to do it, does that somehow relieve
me of any responsibility?
<snip>
> > Right, so you're asking God to alter the person's
> > moods, thought processes, and behaviors,
> > without their informed consent.
>
> No, someone cannot be manipulated against their will into the Kingdom.
"Without their informed consent" is not equivalent to
"against their will."
God
> does not force people to become born again. It is up to the individual to
> make that decision. (which would need their consent)
Of course. But you've asked God to give them a little
extra incentive, without asking their permission first.
But the BIG
> difference is that *I* do not manipulate anyone.
And I didn't murder my boyfriend, either. The hitman
I hired did.
<snip>
> > Serotonin overdose in connection with TM is
> > a fantasy you've dreamed up. I've pointed out
> > to you at length why it's a fantasy.
>
> You wish to ignore the facts.
No, hon, *you* wish to ignore the facts.
Ask a physician, I dare you, whether serotonin
overdose can occur in the absence of any drugs.
<snip>
> > See, what I perceive in this exchange is that you're
> > unable to maintain a consistent position when it gets
> > down to the nitty-gritty; you end up in all kinds of
> > contradictions. There's nothing wrong with that; the
> > same thing happens when you take MMY's teaching down
> > to the nitty-gritty.
>
> I believe that it is you that has problem with the consistency of their
> position. Reread you reaction to the question of rape.
You still haven't figured that one out. We'll
get there, though.
> > That's the case with *any* teaching that can be
> > expressed intellectually. If you can express it
> > in words, when you take it as far as it can go,
> > it begins to break down, because Reality cannot
> > be captured in words.
>
> Could it be that your reality, does not exist?
Even born-again Christians, at least those I've
spoken to, grant that Reality cannot be captured
in words.
> > And that's why I don't believe in absolute right
> > or wrong. Or to put it another way, I think
> > your God is too small.
>
> Your thought are your thoughts. I would never put God in a box or claim
> that He is too small.
Of course you wouldn't do that *knowingly*. My point
is you don't realize you're doing it, because you
simply lack the conception of a "bigger" God.
Your imagination is limited.
Petrus
> "Petrus" <NOS...@NOWAY.NOWHERE> wrote in message
news:<ulao732...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:19b3c03e.02080...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
> > > > OK So it is not someones thinking that makes right and wrongs.
> > >
> > > Of course not.
> >
> > We are in agreement.
>
> So far, so good.
>
> <snip>
> > > If I were suddenly transported back to 1000 AD,
> > > I would still think it was wrong, yes.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > > So it would not depend on what society says about it. (collective
> > > > thinking)
> > >
> > > Of course it would depend on what society
> > > says about it. Why should that change?
> >
> > You just said that is you were transported back to 1000AD it were still
> > wrong. Would it not follow that even if the society you ended up in
1000
> > years ago rape was accepted, it would still be wrong.
>
> No, it would follow only that I (and the society I
> came from) thought it was wrong.
OK But you still would think it to be wrong.
>
> <snip>
> > > > Well the Declaration of Independence clearly state where the
founding
> > > > fathers of this country claim those inalianable rights are coming
from.
> > > > From our Creator.
> > >
> > > They were certainly entitled to their opinion.
> > >
> > > > That is why there are absolutes.
> > >
> > > That's why they *believed* there were absolutes,
> > > yes indeed.
> >
> > If it is not the society and not the individual, what is left?
>
> What is "it" in that sentence, specifically?
> You'll have to be more explicit before I can
> respond.
The place/person where the right of wrongs are coming from.
>
> <snip>
> > > Peoples unseared consciouss will
> > > > verify that.
> > >
> > > I don't know what "unseared consciousness"
> > > means.
> >
> > I believe that God gives everyone a conscious which you can compare with
the
> > little angel on you shoulder whispering warnings when you are about to
do
> > wrong.
>
> I think you mean "conscience," right?
Yeah. My English teacher in highschool told me I would never be able to
speak a word of Enlgish.
>
> But if people ignore it, soon the other guy on the other shoulder
> > will take over to the point that it becomes easier to do wrong. People
can
> > become hardened to the inner voice that something is wrong to the point
that
> > they no longer hear it. That would be a seared conscious. A first time
> > crime is always harder than ths second and third.
>
> But I still don't get the "seared" part. Sear is what
> you do to a lamb chop when you put it in a hot skillet.
Correct. I believe that the hardened criminals become that way because the
ignore their conscience too many times. (they sear it)
>
> <snip>
> > > > > > > Most human beings have the *impulse* to do
> > > > > > > the right thing,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct. Where does that come from?
> > > > >
> > > > > Evolutionary biology.
> > > >
> > > > Aha, create something out of nothing?
> > >
> > > Well, ultimately, yes, in the Big Bang.
> >
> > Is that scientifically possible, or would that be a miracle, to create
> > something out of nothing?
>
> Depends on how you define "science" and "miracle"
> and "nothing."
science - any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world
and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic
experimentation.
Miracles- Phenomena that fall outside of the realm of science. Levitation
would fall in that category.
Nothing-
>
> But it wouldn't have had to have been a "miracle"
> to attribute it to God. My inclination is not to
> draw those kinds of lines.
>
> > > > > It's a survival trait.
> > > >
> > > > God given consciouss.
> > >
> > > Floor wax.
> >
> > Floor wax?
>
> Never mind.
>
> > > > > From "your" thinking? And why would
> > > > > > that impulse be any different now than 1060 years ago?
> > > > >
> > > > > The impulse isn't different. What's changed
> > > > > is the perception of the "right thing."
> > > >
> > > > Perception is in the eye of the beholder. I thought we already
> > > > established it has nothing to do with the individual
> > >
> > > Right, with the society, the culture.
> >
> > But you said rape was wrong even if you went back 1000 years in time -
> > different culture & society.
>
> I said I would consider rape to be wrong. And
> remember, we stipulated that I would retain my
> personality and background from the society I
> grew up in. I'd be carrying those values back
> in time with me. I'd be completely out of sync
> with the society 1000 years ago.
Correct. So your conscience tells you that society would be wrong to
advocate rape.
>
> <snip>
> > > Oh, there's plenty of evidence. But there's no
> > > way we could capture him and bring him to a court
> > > to be tried and convicted without a full-scale war
> > > with many casualties, including innocent civilians.
> >
> > He does not to be present to be convicted.
>
> So all you're worried about are the formalities.
No, I am worried about the plain facts.
>
> <snip>
> > > I'm not acting on beliefs. It's more like a bet,
> > > at least with world peace.
> >
> > Bet or not you are bouncing on your buns for world peace.
>
> Well, I'm doing the TM-Sidhi program for world peace
OK. So you are acting on beliefs.
> (as well as for my personal benefit).
>
> > > I don't care about flying.
> > > But I think the world peace angle is worth a try.
> >
> > So you act in faith on your believe that it is worth a try, eventhough
the
> > crime stats say another story.
>
> I don't think the crime stats are quite as
> unequivocal as you do.
Do you find anything wrong with those crime stats, or do you find something
wrong with the definition of how the ME is supposed to work?
>
> But again, we do all kinds of things "on faith"
> that they're worth a try that don't have anything
> to do with religion.
If it would involve a statement of science you are correct. But if it falls
outside the realm of scintific verification, you are now attributing those
events to the supernatural. Whether you like it on not.
>
> <snip>
> > > > Why do you think that MMY is someone to trust when it comes to
> > > > scientific phenomenons? Why do you think that he is some sort of
> > > > authority in the field of science?
> > >
> > > I think he's an authority in the field of
> > > consciousness.
> >
> > What scientific field is that?
>
> It isn't a field science knows about, yet.
> Science is working on it, though.
So you are not that skeptical after all. You are willing to put your faith
in a person that claims to be scientific. And you think people in the past
were more gullible.
>
> > The TM0 just made that up in order to promote MMY.
>
> Oh, goodness, no. It's a very common term
> among those who study consciousness.
Besides the TM0 pseudo scientists, what other scientists are studying
consciousness?
>
> > > I don't think science has a clue
> > > what consciousness is about.
Oh I guess you already answered my question above.
> >
> > Does that not bother you? You believe in something that is not
supported by
> > science?
>
> You don't believe in consciousness?
Define consciousness. Do I believe in CC, GC, UC. No way Jose.
>
> Yes, it bothers me that science hasn't put
> consciousness at the top of its list of things
> to investigate.
Maybe they know something that you seem to have overlooked.
>
> <snip>
> > > > The more reason to consired MMY a quack and a snake oil pusher.
> > >
> > > Dessert topping.
> >
> > Snake oil does not show up on my list of dessert toppings.
>
> Right. It's not snake oil, it's a dessert topping.
>
> (Although some insist it's a floor wax.)
>
> > > > > It's made possible
> > > > > by very subtle levels of natural law that science
> > > > > hasn't discovered yet.
> > > >
> > > > Contradiction in terms. And you talk about my logic.
> > >
> > > ?? Oh, I forgot, you believe science has
> > > discovered everything there is to be
> > > discovered.
> >
> > No. There are a lot of fields open for major discoveries. Human bodies
> > flying in mid air unsupported is not one of them.
>
> How do you know? Are you omniscient?
Not needed. Just understand the law of gravity. Don't you understand that
law?
>
> > And you have to admit it is a bit weird.
>
> It's *very* weird, no question about it.
>
> But then, so is quantum mechanics.
Really?
>
> (Actually, in another post you *did* say you thought
> science was complete, with nothing left to be
> discovered.)
Can not image I would have said that, but I have been known to make
mistakes.
>
> <snip>
> > > I don't think the laws of nature are as limited
> > > as you do.
> >
> > Sorry but that is the definition of science.
>
> Uh, no, it's not. Here's a good definition of science:
>
> > science any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical
world
> > and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic
> > experimentation.
> > http://www.britannica.com/search?query=science&ct=&fuzzy=N
> >
> > By definition the supernatural (God) is not observable and thus fall out
of
> > the category of science
>
> We can't observe your thoughts. Does that mean they're
> "supernatural"?
Excellent point. And that bring us back to the Bubble diagram. If you
believe that thoughts are coming from the "Absolute" (God) you just gave
yourself the answer.
> Does that mean the notion of your
> having thoughts should be rejected as unscientific?
It is unscientific, but it is not impossible (obviously). Sometimes we do
have to rely on historical fact and witnesses. But historical facts are not
scientific. (And yes I know that they are not supernatural either)
>
> What you are getting confused with is the fact that
> > MMY calls the Will of God the laws of Nature (capital N) I hope you
> > understand the difference.
>
> As I said, I don't tend to draw those kinds of lines.
> I think the term "supernatural" is a misnomer. It isn't
> "confusion" on my part, it's a difference of opinion about
> the nature of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Ah back to philosophy.
>
> > > > > TM is certainly a *spiritual* movement, but it isn't
> > > > > aimed at converting people to a specific set of
> > > > > sectarian religious beliefs
> > > >
> > > > But it does. It converts people with a Christian belief system in
to a
> > > > Hindu belief system. It did that to me.
> > >
> > > *You* did that to you.
> >
> > Eh, When I started TM, I knew nothing about reincarnation Karma, Maya,
and
> > any and all mantras. Now where would I have gotten those religious
ideas
> > from.
>
> You may have gotten the ideas from TM, but you didn't
> have to *believe* them.
You did not have to believe in bouncing on your buns to create World Peace,
but you still did. And I don't think you can blame that indoctrination on
anything but the TM0
> And while they're elements
> of Hindu belief, they predate Hinduism significantly.
To shift the blame from Hinduism to Vedism, does not solve your religious
problem. Vedism is also recognized as a religion.
> They're metaphysical ideas, not religious ideas, although
> religions certainly make use of them, especially in the
> East. (And you know early Christians believed in
> reincarnation, right?)
Incorrect. Those were heretics, not Christians.
>
> <snip>
> > > You're contradicting yourself. According to you,
> > > I can't discern right from wrong becuase I'm not
> > > born-again.
> >
> > Sorry to hear that, but, no, you have a God given conscious all
instructions
> > are included upon delivery.
>
> But I haven't followed those instructions, so I don't
> get to use my conscience.
Does not matter, you still have the ability to discern right from wrong.
<snip>
> > > > From what I gather in the scientific world, it would invalidate
anything
> > > > that they have proposed in their scientific research.
> > >
> > > Now you think *scientitists* are capable of
> > > distinguishing absolute right and wrong.
> >
> > Not that hard. They set their own rules up. They should be able to
follow
> > them.
>
> They set their *own* rules up?
Absolutely.
>
> Oopsy. Want to rethink that? If they've
> made up their own rules, they aren't The Rules.
Not absolute rules, but rules none the less.
>
> > > You do realize that, hypothetically, their data
> > > could be pure as the driven snow and their
> > > conclusions absolutely sound statistically even
> > > if they *didn't* give their data to Markovsky,
> > > don't you?
> >
> > Absolutely, and they would have nothing to hide then.
>
> Unless they thought Markovsky was going to misrepresent
> their data.
Paranoid. Would be easy to prove.
>
> > > Not making their data available
> > > doesn't invalidate anything.
> >
> > But is does not allow for verification. And then you are left with "Who
do
> > you trust"
>
> That's right, good, you understand that, at least.
Do you?
>
> You seem to blindly accept anything that comes down the TM0
> > pike. Including levitation.
>
> I do?? I just got done telling you the most I
> can say is that I don't rule it out.
But you bounce on your buns for world peace. Faith without works is dead.
You prove your faith by your bun bouncing.
I prove my faith in the TM0 by not bun bouncing and meditating.
>
> <snip>
> > > > > Some people, on hearing that belief of Markovsky's,
> > > > > would wonder not just about his credibility and
> > > > > rationality but about his very sanity.
> > > >
> > > > Yup that is a straw man.
> > > > (Some would have the same feeling about people bouncing on their
buns
> > > > for world peace.)
> > >
> > > Not a straw man. As for Yogic Flying, I'm not a
> > > scientist; Markovsky is.
> >
> > And he called the bouncing on your bottom for world peace a joke. You
take
> > it serious. Who is non scientific?
>
> I just said I'm not a scientist. Read more
> carefully, please.
Then why do you attempt to impune the credibility of that scientist.
>
> > > > > > "Beyond the purview of this critique are the moral and ethical
> > > > > > issues that arise when meditators purport to alter
experimentally
> > > > > > the moods, thought processes, and behaviors of others without
their
> > > > > > informed consent, and when
> > > > > > the TM movement assigns itself the responsibility of
manipulating
> > > > > > the substrate of all existence. "
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you pray for God to heal someone of a terminal
> > > > > disease without their informed consent?
> > > >
> > > > No, I would ask God to heal them if it was His will. I do not
alter
> > > > any moods, thought processes or behaviors.
> > >
> > > But you ask God to manipulate the substrate of
> > > existence
> >
> > Could you pleace give me the scientific definition for substrate of
> > existence?
>
> I don't know what Markovsky means by it, but
> I would assume it's the realm of elementary
> particles. If you can manipulate those at
> will, you can do all the miracles you want.
Sorry, I don't believe that.
>
> > > when you pray for God to heal someone,
> > > without their informed consent.
> >
> > No I ask God to do His will. I do not minipulate anyones mood, thought
> > processes or behaviour. If God does that, well He is God and by
definition
> > He has that right to do that. Not me.
>
> Using that reasoning, I could call up a hit man
> and ask him to murder someone for me. If he
> decides to do it, does that somehow relieve
> me of any responsibility?
You are comparing apples with oranges.
>
> <snip>
> > > Right, so you're asking God to alter the person's
> > > moods, thought processes, and behaviors,
> > > without their informed consent.
> >
> > No, someone cannot be manipulated against their will into the Kingdom.
>
> "Without their informed consent" is not equivalent to
> "against their will."
You would have to have their informed consent, in order for it not to be
against their will.
>
> God
> > does not force people to become born again. It is up to the individual
to
> > make that decision. (which would need their consent)
>
> Of course. But you've asked God to give them a little
> extra incentive, without asking their permission first.
Their will has to be involved. No one can become born-again against their
will. By definition.
>
> But the BIG
> > difference is that *I* do not manipulate anyone.
>
> And I didn't murder my boyfriend, either. The hitman
> I hired did.
Apples and oranges. Your TM claims to directly alter the mood and thought
processes directly. I ask for God's will to be done i a certain situation.
If I were to pray for your salvation, does not mean that God will answer
that prayer. TM's philosophy does not leave any options. You mood and
thought processes will be altered without you permission.
>
> <snip>
> > > Serotonin overdose in connection with TM is
> > > a fantasy you've dreamed up. I've pointed out
> > > to you at length why it's a fantasy.
> >
> > You wish to ignore the facts.
>
> No, hon, *you* wish to ignore the facts.
Round and round we go.
>
> Ask a physician, I dare you, whether serotonin
> overdose can occur in the absence of any drugs.
We did. And he is the one that said any overdose is an overdose no matter
how it is generated.
>
> <snip>
> > > See, what I perceive in this exchange is that you're
> > > unable to maintain a consistent position when it gets
> > > down to the nitty-gritty; you end up in all kinds of
> > > contradictions. There's nothing wrong with that; the
> > > same thing happens when you take MMY's teaching down
> > > to the nitty-gritty.
> >
> > I believe that it is you that has problem with the consistency of their
> > position. Reread you reaction to the question of rape.
>
> You still haven't figured that one out. We'll
> get there, though.
>
> > > That's the case with *any* teaching that can be
> > > expressed intellectually. If you can express it
> > > in words, when you take it as far as it can go,
> > > it begins to break down, because Reality cannot
> > > be captured in words.
> >
> > Could it be that your reality, does not exist?
>
> Even born-again Christians, at least those I've
> spoken to, grant that Reality cannot be captured
> in words.
If your Reality means God, I would agree, but I was talking about your
reality.
>
> > > And that's why I don't believe in absolute right
> > > or wrong. Or to put it another way, I think
> > > your God is too small.
> >
> > Your thought are your thoughts. I would never put God in a box or claim
> > that He is too small.
>
> Of course you wouldn't do that *knowingly*. My point
> is you don't realize you're doing it, because you
> simply lack the conception of a "bigger" God.
> Your imagination is limited.
And yours is expanded?
Were you not the one that claimed to be skeptical?