DEAR MR,GURU. IF I BEAT YOU 1/2 TO DEATH,SPIT ON YOU,THEN CRUCIFY YOU. AFTER YOU DIE,WILL YOU RISE AGAIN IN 3 DAY,S-AND BE MY SAVIOUR? OH BY THE WAY,I,LL NEED ''PROOOF'' IT,S YOU RISEN OK.?? OH and also,i,ll need to see the nailprints in your RESURRECTED-HANDS. otherwise mr. guru,i like all your teachings,but I NEED A SAVIOR. *WATCH OUT FOR SEEMINGLY NICE GUY,S* sometimes the TRUTH hurts at first. it,s nice to be nice,--better to be SAVED.

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), May 20, 2000

Answers

The world will go on like this in its ups and downs. Where shall we look for a sense of direction? Not to the prejudices roused within us by our habits, and the environmental influences of our families, our country or the world, but to the guiding voice of truth within.  Paramahansa Yogananda

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 20, 2000.

dear bingo,nice lingo. but not an answer. i know,i know--open yourself up. UP TO WHAT?? DO YOU KNOW ANY GURU,S WHO HAVE RISEN FROM THE DEAD,& WE,RE SEEN GOING INTO GLORY WITH ANGELS. AND,AND ,AND DID THEY [SHOW] YOU NAILPRINTS IN THEY,RE HANDS??

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), May 20, 2000.

Sorry al-d. I didn't realize you had phrased a question, let alone one directed to me.

My answer is no. I have no direct knowledge of such an event. I have yet to witness such an occurrence. Of course this is not something I go looking for. Several accounts of death/resurrection are on record if you do a bit of research. Im not exactly a scholar in the mold of Joseph Campbell. :^)

As you may know, some yogis are reported to have the ability to stop their autonomic bodily functions for long periods of time. If true, an unscrupulous yogi could perpetrate a fraudulent death/resurrection. So I wouldnt necessarily vouch for such an event regardless of my witnessing of said event. One must use discrimination in all matters.

Patanjali, in his Yoga Sutras, wrote of various siddhis or powers which may come to those who achieve certain levels of spiritual evolution. These powers are not to be flaunted by those not yet free from the Law of Karma  cause & effect. The display of these powers is thought to open the devotee to feelings of pride & a sense of ego gratification which are roadblocks to further progress towards achieving oneness with God.

Ive enjoyed our discussion, al-d. You force me to analyze myself, my thoughts, words & actions. This is a good thing.

BTW, I know the terminology each of us uses is a bit foreign to the other. If youd like me to clarify any particular concepts, please ask. Id be delighted. Ill be sure to do the same.

And dont forget toSmile from the Heart!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 20, 2000.

al-d, I have to admit to a kind of fascination with your postings -- and this goes back to the old TB2K as well (I lurked at times).

Having had Catholicism forced on me as a child, I have kind of a negative opinion of most so-called "organized religions". I resented being told I was wrong to question ideology. But that's not the point here; just wanted to give you a little background for my question.

As I've grown older, I've noticed that many (not all, not even most, just many that I've known) people who "subscribe" to "organized religions" are simply using them as a type of crutch for the failings in their lives. I kind of liken it to 12-step programs -- yes, they do a world of good to those who are open to them, but they are simply trading one addiction for another. While "12-step" is the (MUCH) lesser of the two evils, it still doesn't address the underlying problems of addiction. I agree that if this makes them happy or does right by them, more power to them. But I wonder if it's not just a superficial salve.

Anyway, to my question: You state above: "...I NEED A SAVIOR...". Why do you feel you *need* such? Do you not feel complete and whole without *needing* someone or something to follow or to look up to or worship or whatever it is you do? I hope you don't mind my asking, but I figured as you always post this kind of stuff, you are inviting questions. Thanks.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 20, 2000.

Al-d, I think you're getting a little too obsessed with this idea that Jesus is the solution to everything. He gave you his lesson, and you still don't get it. Hope you don't take this too hard, but he's not coming back to save you. That's the whole point, he tried to teach you how to save yourself, not wait for him to do it.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), May 20, 2000.

Dear PAT,i say i need a saviour,because i,m aware of my need. because 'the more i see'of his beauty & holiness.the more i realize'how short i fall.THANK GOD,salvation is OF GOD. not dependant on man.[not of works-but of faith alone] JESUS said,''without me,you can,t do it.I BELIEVE THAT. SO I lean on him.---call it a crutch or whatever. he said BELIEVE,ON HIM. not in him--ON[all hope]in HIS power. not mine.''by[his]grace we,re saved[thru]faith.CHRIST MY HOPE.

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), May 20, 2000.

Dear PAT,i say i need a saviour,because i,m aware of my need. because 'the more i see'of his beauty & holiness.the more i realize'how short i fall.THANK GOD,salvation is OF GOD. not dependant on man.[not of works-but of faith alone] JESUS said,''without me,you can,t do it.I BELIEVE THAT. SO I lean on him.---call it a crutch or whatever. he said BELIEVE,ON HIM. not in him--ON[all hope]in HIS power. not mine.''by[his]grace we,re saved[thru]faith.CHRIST MY HOPE. not church,or priests,or any man.HIS BLOOD ALONE.

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), May 20, 2000.

Everyone "needs" something, al, but what you really need is to look within yourself to find the answer, because that's the only place it's going to be found. If you feel you "fall short", you are the only one who has made it that way. I have no argument with the concept of faith in and of itself. I tend to agree with Hawk; but I take it maybe a step or two farther (sorry, Hawk, don't mean to "assume" anything here).

I believe that Jesus, God, the Bible, whatever, are guidelines for you. You are given tools to live your life (and all of them are not found in those, either; most of them are found inside you); you do with them what you wish. You reap appropriate rewards for the way you live your life. If you are genuine, and honest, you are rewarded with the richness a true life has to offer. If you're a charlatan, you are rewarded accordingly.

That's why I have to take issue with this "going to hell" stuff that I was taught. The only "hell" I believe in is the one we make for ourselves. We ultimately must assume complete responsibility for our lives. If one's life is hell, one has made it such or has allowed it to become such.

Yes, "truth" can hurt, but you allow yourself to be hurt; no one can hurt you but yourself (we're not talking "physical" here). Believe me, it took me a very long time to figure that out. The world is a much different place when you don't depend on anyone else for your happiness or your contentment or your faith. Have faith in yourself and you'd be amazed at what happens. As I said, we are the only ones responsible for our lives.

Bottom line: If you're happy and you're a good person, go for it. You're the only one who knows if that is true.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 20, 2000.

Patricia,

I too was raised Catholic until my father took us out of the church when I was 9 years old. I have since developed a jaundiced attitude toward all organized religions and at this point in my life have little faith in unproven fantasies.

Hawk,

I suspect that Mr. Driscol has a confused attachment to his faith. Based on his documented actions I doubt if he has been a practicing Christian for very long. His self-image appears to be under constant attack from within and God is the only mirror that he can stand to look into. Sure does not sound like a happy camper to me. If this is being saved, Ill pass, thank you very much.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 20, 2000.

al-d, why have you not addressed my last post? Perhaps you are undertaking the research I suggested?

Out of curiosity, why did you address me as Mr. Guru? I am not anyone's guru. A true guru has attained self-realization, God- illumination. Such a one is uniquely qualified to lead others towards their goal.

This isn't a description of me! LOL!!! I'm on the right road but have a great distance to travel, my friend.

Now I am fortunate in that I have a guru. As do you in JC, apparently. I hold the guru-disciple relationship in great reverence. I'm terribly grateful for his presence in my life. There's one caveat - the guru is not to be mistaken for the goal.

Best,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 20, 2000.

Patricia: You stated-

"While "12-step" is the (MUCH) lesser of the two evils, it still doesn't address the underlying problems of addiction"

I have enjoyed your posts, but I must point out a very serious fallacy in the above statement. Most people who criticize or have negative feelings toward 12 step programs confuse the people for the program. The 12 steps DO address the underlying problems of addiction- In the five years I have been sober I have risen from the dead, and my problems of unemployability, homelessness, spiritual death, no self-esteem, and no hope have been solved.

There may be an element of substitution in the beginning-the rooms for the street corner, the slogans for the quick fix, but a person who truly evolves through the program find a way to use the principles in their life-While it is true many stay attached to the rooms, hiding from life, this does not negate the choices that living the twelve steps gives to an individual.

The steps come from the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius-And the actions suggested are a wonderful way of living-I especially like step 10-Continue to take personal inventory and when wrong promptly admit it. This saves many a bad situation from becoming worse-I make mistakes, but today I admit them and get to the bottom of my behavior.

I have not experienced a greater joy in life than to see a helpless necomer walk into a meeting, beat to a pulp, and see the life come back into their eyes, to see their life come back together-and then years later seeing that say sorry piece of human flesh, now recovering, doing the same for others.

There are plenty of obsessive lunatics in 12 step programs, preaching away, who forget that we are a program of attraction, not promotion. I just ask you to distinguish between the principles of the twelve steps and the people who misinterpret them.

I was on my deathbed. Today I am a different person. I owe most of it to the twelve steps of AA.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 20, 2000.

Future Shock, that was a sweeping generalization on my part (mistake) and it was based on three people I know, none of whom have addressed their problems of "addiction". One is addicted to the meetings (two meetings a day, seven days a week), yet he's been sober over three decades. Another is addicted to her co-dependency; this, IMHO, is the most serious of her problems as she has never been able to sustain a healthy relationship with anyone (married six times; feels any woman on earth is a personal threat to her; has delusions that all of her ex-husbands are still madly in love with her; etc.). The third (last I heard, been a while since I've seen her) is addicted to her new-found religion, yet still has not addressed her addiction problem. More on her later.

I apologize for not being clearer, but it's been my experience that "12-steps" simply swaps addictions. Yes, it is much better to be addicted to a meeting than to a drug. But where is the addiction being addressed for these people? Did they miss that part? I'm not being facetious here, I'd really like to understand how and why it worked for you but not for them.

I'm sure you feel that you owe most of it to AA and the 12-Steps, but (and this is really JMHO) I think you are wrong. I think you owe most of it to YOURSELF. The 12-Steps simply assisted you in looking in the right direction; showed you the right direction, if you will. You're fortunate because your mind is/was open and you have allowed your strong will to come through. Perhaps these people that I know have not done as much, although the simple fact that they are sober is a crowning achievement and should be treated as no less than such.

The last woman I mentioned (the one addicted to her religion) was my best friend and roommate. I watched her slowly crash into hell; a self-made hell; she went out with guys who would beat her. She slept with any guy who had "the drug of the day". She drank vanilla extract when nothing else was in the house. She beat the hell out of me one night, simply because I didn't dust in the living room. I saw all of this first-hand, and the pain I experienced for her was in that I could not help her. One day she finally woke up and checked herself into rehab. Our friendship was basically over long before this; she kicked me out of the apartment (the night she beat me), we didn't speak for well over a year. Once she got out of rehab, we became friends again. She met a wonderful man and the last I heard they were living happily ever after. Except she had traded "drugs and alcohol" for "the Bible". Better? Yes. Different? Not underneath it all. This was her new "crutch".

Please don't misunderstand me: I am NOT bashing 12-steps or any other assistance that is out there for people. But it is not the "be-all, end-all" for addictions and I think the programs might need to take a look inside and adjust accordingly. I'm glad to see it works for people as far as kicking habits such as drugs and alcohol. And maybe general "addiction" is not an arena into which an organization like AA and the 12-Steps should venture. I don't have all the answers; but I do know they are turning people out who have not addressed the very reason for their being at those meetings: Addiction. Whether or not it comes under the domain of AA is one of the questions for which I do not have an answer.

Again, I apologize for my generalizations; I certainly meant no offense.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 20, 2000.

Future, maybe your Lifes' Book met the encounter of some of my very kind relatives, who could not shake the "Devil". They were kind souls, and never harmed anyone, sans their family who were embarrased (skin) to hell. They all "fell down", and they "Got up", they were not perfect, but they were kind, to all they met.

-- We Fall (down@wegetup.com), May 20, 2000.

Patricia:

Thanks for responding. It is hard for me to say why it has worked for me differently than others. I started therapy in my second year as a result of a relationship I had been in(I eventually married this women) because I had discovered how debilitating co-dependence was. It was in therapy that I quickly discovered that I was reacting to life as I thought others in the program thought I should; after two years I had not discovered what I believed. That was really an eye- opener.

Through therapy and voracious reading of varied texts, I developed a belief system of my own, while still taking what was useful from AA. I was smart enough to see the trap many fell into-you are right, there is a substitution of addictions. But rigid thinking in any group of people has always been an anethma to me-and I saw a lot of rigid thinking in the program. I have learned to seperate the wheat from the chaff. It comes with time, and with the growth of wisdom.

The steps CAN treat the underlying addiction-used correctly they are a stairway to the god of your understanding, and a very good technique to change behavior. It is my open mind that has kept me sane and has kept me searching, never taking anything for face value.

I truly believe we only have today, and it is my actions today that count. Today's truth could be tomorrow's bullshit. If I do not stand ready to completely change my mind about what I believe today it will be very easy to miss that thought expressed by someone else that could lead to the next level for my soul.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 21, 2000.

"I have not experienced a greater joy in life than to see a helpless necomer walk into a meeting, beat to a pulp, and see the life come back into their eyes, to see their life come back together-and then years later seeing that say sorry piece of human flesh, now recovering, doing the same for others." --Future Shock

FutureShock,

This reminded me of a book I read years ago. It was one of the best I've ever read. The title is "The Greatest Miracle in the World" and it was written by Og Mandino.

It's about a "ragpicker" who rescues humans after they quit on themselves and contains the secret of regaining the self-esteem we have lost.

If you have never read it, you should pick up a copy and do so. It is a very small but very powerful book.

-- Debra (theglass@geranium.com), May 21, 2000.

Ask any Guru You happen to see What's the best tuna Chicken of the sea.

-- Charlie (merm@id.underthe.sea), May 21, 2000.

Patricia---

Interesting how what works for one person does not work for another. You say you are able to find answers within yourself; you say "the world is a different place when you don't depend on anyone else.....".

When I look within, I do not find answers. I find emptiness. For a long time, I thought I was self-reliant and didn't need a "crutch". But eventually I found that I was a Wiley Coyote---running on air, defying gravity. I crashed.

As you identify them, your coping skills are too Ayn Randian, too borderline solipsistic for this old fool. I can't cope on my own. I couldn't even do it with a wife. So I have opened to God; God as revealed by Christianity. It isn't a crutch. It is a rejuvanant. It has brought me to humility (I hope I am not saying that out of Pride). It has brought me to spiritual Love. I can't recommend it enough.

FS--So glad to hear that AA has helped you. I have never been alcholic but I have seen it kill. AA may be too cook-booky for some but no one has improved on it in (what? 70 years?).

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 21, 2000.

Chicken?? of the SEA????

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 21, 2000.

But seriously. To address the issue of this thread, here are some thoughts about the difference between Jesus and all other religious leaders/"avatars": Jesus made claims far beyond those that could be made by merely a "great moral teacher". "And when He saw their faith, He said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" -- Luke 5:20-21. "Then said the Jews unto Him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." -- John 8:57-59. The Jews plainly understood that Jesus was claiming deity. The Hebrew words "I am" were not to be spoken by ANYone; this was the name God had given Moses from out of the burning bush (Exodus 3:14). C.S. Lewis put it this way: "On the one side clear, definite moral teaching. On the other, claims which, if not true, are those of a megalomaniac, compared with whom Hitler was the most sane and humble of men. There is no half-way house and there is no parallel in other religions. "If you had gone to Buddha and asked him 'Are you the son of Bramah?' he would have said, 'My son you are still in the vale of illusion.' If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'Are you Zeus?' he would have laughed at you. If you would have gone to Mohammed and asked, 'Are you Allah?' he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, 'Are you Heaven?', I think he would have probably replied, 'Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.' "The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produced mainly three effects -- Hatred -- Terror -- Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval." -- God in the Dock: Essays on Theology, Part I, chapter 19, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" So there really are three, and only three, rational conclusions one can draw about Jesus. He was either (1) an incredible liar, or
(2) a incredible lunatic, or
(3) a member of the Godhead in human flesh, as He claimed to be. There is no other rational alternative. The idea of His being "a great moral teacher, but no more" is a middle ground that the facts quite simply will not allow.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 21, 2000.

Hmmmm....let's try that again, with some formatting --


Some thoughts about the difference between Jesus and all other religious leaders/"avatars":

Jesus made claims far beyond those that could be made by merely a "great moral teacher".

"And when He saw their faith, He said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" -- Luke 5:20-21.

"Then said the Jews unto Him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." -- John 8:57-59.

The Jews plainly understood that Jesus was claiming deity. The Hebrew words "I am" were not to be spoken by ANYone; this was the name God had given Moses from out of the burning bush (Exodus 3:14).

C.S. Lewis put it this way: "On the one side clear, definite moral teaching. On the other, claims which, if not true, are those of a megalomaniac, compared with whom Hitler was the most sane and humble of men. There is no half-way house and there is no parallel in other religions.

"If you had gone to Buddha and asked him 'Are you the son of Bramah?' he would have said, 'My son you are still in the vale of illusion.' If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'Are you Zeus?' he would have laughed at you. If you would have gone to Mohammed and asked, 'Are you Allah?' he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, 'Are you Heaven?', I think he would have probably replied, 'Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.'

"The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produced mainly three effects -- Hatred -- Terror -- Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval."

-- God in the Dock: Essays on Theology, Part I, chapter 19, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?"

So there really are three, and only three, rational conclusions one can draw about Jesus. He was either

(1) an incredible liar, or
(2) a incredible lunatic, or
(3) a member of the Godhead in human flesh, as He claimed to be.

There is no other rational alternative. The idea of His being "a great moral teacher, but no more" is a middle ground that the facts quite simply won't allow.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 21, 2000.

FutureShock,

"If I do not stand ready to completely change my mind about what I believe today it will be very easy to miss that thought expressed by someone else that could lead to the next level for my soul."

Funny you should say that. My SO and I had a rather long discussion about addiction and it would seem I was/am looking at it from a rather narrow perspective. What he said makes a world of sense and to be honest, I hadn't even considered this aspect.

In a nutshell, "addiction" is presented in a rather negative light, yet there are degrees (wrong word, but I think you know what I mean) of addiction. For example, alcohol/drugs would be a "bad" addiction, while the scientist whose life's work is research and who is at it 90 hours a week is a "good" addiction. However, society paints all addiction in the same negative light, not really making such distinctions. I made this same mistake.

One point you made that I also overlooked was the point about rigid thinking. The first woman I mentioned (of the co-dependecy) has pretty much always lived her life "crisis to crisis". IOW, she cannot function unless she has a "crisis of the moment". I used to be like that, so it's pretty easy for me to recognize it in others. While that's not her only (or her biggest) problem, it seems to make the co-dependecy even worse; almost as if one feeds off the other. She takes every point of every meeting to heart; I don't really think she can separate the wheat from the chaff.

Lars, I'm not sure I agree that I am "solipsistic", but I went through a period of my life much the same as you describe. I crashed; I was a totally miserable person. Everything in my world was *wrong*; everything I tried failed. I tried so many things to "get out of my misery" until one day I realized it was not that I had to get out of my misery, but that I had to get the misery out of me. I also realized I was the only one who was going to be able to do that. Again, though, that's what worked/works for me. I tried therapy and one-on-one I thought it helped a bit. But then I was placed in this group where these people had real problems -- psychological problems so bad it affected them physically. I ran. I figured my problems weren't so bad in comparison.

I don't mean to give the impression that I don't need anyone; on the contrary, I spent a good part of my life alone (kind of self-imposed) and that was not a good thing. I "thought" too much versus "just letting things be". (Of course I then went in completely the opposite direction, not thinking and just being, with the same fairly disastrous results. I think I finally found a happy medium.) I have recently moved to a new place, some 2500 miles from where I lived all my life, and I have no friends here. It bothers me alot more than I thought it would. I *need* to have some friends close to me. So, I have to work on that.

Thanks for the responses guys. This is an excellent conversation.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 21, 2000.

Interesting thoughts, CL. My only reply is that what you relate as facts, I see as anecdotal evidence. Can you truly speak of peoples reactions to JC while he was alive? I see the value of all texts, particularly the Bible & the Bhagavad-Gita not in the personalities, but in the lessons.

Remember, history is written/manipulated by the victorious, the powerful. The older a set of texts the more opportunity for manipulation of them. Then you have to allow for translation from the original. Isnt it nigh on impossible to translate from one language to another without changing meaning? Im not a Bible historian so my opinions are just speculation at best.

Thanks for starting this thread, al-d. It has spurred some fine discussion.

Id like to weigh in on the addiction portion of this multi-headed beast as I have much experience in this realm. Im not fully awake & I need to be in order to best address this issue. Hopefully this thread will stay active for awhile longer.

Blessings on this rainy (in VA) Sunday,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 21, 2000.

Patricia,

"solipsism" was too strong a word. I thought so before I used it but I looked it up in the dictionary and it sounded close to one end of what you were saying about "answers within" so I used it (probably to show what a neato vocabulary I have. So much for humility).

My real point was to testify what has helped me. I was too alone spiritually. (I am still too alone literally. I don't have an SO. Congratulations to you for that).

Best wishes in your new home.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 21, 2000.

Lars,

Um, yeah, well (kinda hanging my head here, which would be much easier to picture if you knew what I looked like).....I had to kind of look it up in the dictionary anyway. I thought I knew what you meant, but wanted to check. Hey, you do have a "neato vocabulary"! "Humility" isn't such a bad thing (as my first sentence would indicate :-)).

As to being alone, yep, been there. I took a couple of chances on guys in the past three years (after my self-imposed "hermitry" (is that even a word??)) but wound up getting hurt (allowing myself to be hurt) in the end. Decided I had had enough and didn't necessarily mind going through life without a mate; I had some good friends, and a good family, and my career; wasn't even going to look for anyone. Just didn't have the time or the inclination. OK, I probably had the "time", but definitely not the inclination. Besides, I'm one of those rare types who doesn't mind going to the movies or a nice restaurant alone; I did it all the time. I also loved to travel alone, and did it as much as finances would allow.

It was weird, but that old saying is true: You are never so alone as you are in a city of 8 million people (or something like that). I felt it sometimes, but mostly around the holidays. Family and friends were a huge source of support during those times.

Then I got downsized (oops, so much for the career; had to cut back on the traveling and restaurants somewhat too).

Funny thing about coming to a decision like that -- that's exactly when you meet someone. At least, that's how it happened for me. (Jeez, I hope that wasn't "preachy".) Thanks for the wishes -- much appreciated.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 21, 2000.

DEAR PATRICIA,i,ve been lonely most of my life.but i have found that some times,the thing that hurts the most'is a blessing in disguise. GOD is leading you to something-bigger & better. how about this, ''i will never leave you,nor forsake you.'' JESUS LOVES YOU,MORE THAN YOU LOVE YOURSELF. no not the jesus of religion,the REAL JESUS.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), May 21, 2000.

al, your words are very kind and are appreciated, but I have someone who loves me very much. I have a few people who do, in fact, as I have people whom I love very much. I have my "God" and s/he loves me as well.

I respect your beliefs and your religion, but my spiritual beliefs work very well for me and for those around me. I really don't like to discuss religion and politics in too much depth; even with people I don't know -- call it a quirk. I do enjoy reading/hearing what others have to say as long as they aren't "preaching" that only they and their way are RIGHT and everything else is WRONG -- call it a learning experience.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 21, 2000.

What does "Ayn Randian" and "bordeline solipsistic" mean? Is that some kind of disease?

-- not flint (speak@english.please), May 21, 2000.

i don,t have a way, i follow THE WAY.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), May 21, 2000.

Come on now al-d, you're posting AT us instead of contributing to discussion. You refuse to answer my questions - why? Is this indifference due to your foreknowledge that I'm gonna sizzle?

I see you're breaking out in a little grin. Good. Now say silently to yourself, "I will compose my thoughts in a communicative manner."

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 21, 2000.

Patricia,

You didn't move away from all of your friends, some just moved along with you :o)

It's interesting what you say about looking for someone, we (females) are brought up defining ourselves by our ability to attract and keep mates. I was taught that that was what I was supposed to do but I had little interest in it even in my teens. I enjoyed having male friends and that is how closer relationships developed over time with a few of them. It's kinda like the internet is now, you get to know the persons mind as apposed to being drawn to someone else strictly on looks alone as is generally done in person.

I keep bringing a lot of my posts back to the influence advertizements have on society, and this is one of them. The add media emphensizes superficial attributes that influence society, anyone remember Twiggi? If peopel would realise how easily they are manipulated they would be surprised. I think you may have been influenced by them earlier in your life, I understand what you mean when you said that when you didn't bother looking, you found what you wanted.

I've always been wierd though in what I have done in life and the way I think, I recognised manipulation one day when my Mother was cutting my hair. She said "You want it to be V shaped" in the back" as if the statement were true. I thought, no I do NOT want it to be V shaped. From that time on whenever someone said what I wanted I questioned it, and eventually questioned their reason for saying it.

If people would spend a day listening to the messages they are given constantly, on the medias, on the road, during relazation activites. There is a LOT of psychology used in the attempt to convince us to behave in certain manners and most of them know exactly what they are doing. I have taught my kids to question also, it's refresshing to hear my 9 year old look at toy commercials with scorn, saying something like "Oh yea after 10 minutes I'll be bored with that".

Patricia, you are growing. You have developed new friendships that are based on different criteria than those you learned earlier in life.

Remember that you are the only one who has to accept you, you are your only judge, opinions of others only matter when you respect the person giving them.

Enjoy.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), May 21, 2000.

Bingo1,

I certainly understand the points you make. Lots of people regard the Bible (or any other religious writings) as fictional, anecdotal, mythical, symbolic, whatever. To whatever degree.

But there's been a lot of research done on the historicity of the Bible in the past few decades that point to its being a reliable historical document. (And I'm no Bible scholar either; just read the work of others, y'know.)

Many prominent archaeologists have made discoveries that confirm the Bible record, in areas where previously they thought the Bible was in complete error. Historians have made similar discoveries. Could cite many dozens of such things, but won't, for the sake of brevity. Mountains of evidence have been uncovered, though.

The late Sir Frederick Kenyon, who was director and librarian of the British Museum and probably one of the greatest scholars on ancient manuscripts who has ever lived, said, "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case of the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, the number of early translations from it and of quotations from it in the oldest writings in the Church is so large that it is practically certain that true readings of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or the other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."

Also from Sir Frederick, "There is more abundant and accurate manuscript evidence for the New Testament than for any other book from the ancient world. There are more manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity."

The late F.F. Bruce, Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England, said, "If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."

The Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68, include a copy of every Old Testament book except for one. Comparison with the texts of a thousand years later shows little or no variation between them. The evidence goes on and on.

Scholars who have devoted their lives to studying these things are certain of the fact that the Bible is a reliable historical document, and that its integrity has been preserved through the centuries.

Where translation is concerned, I hope you realize we're talking about committees of hundreds of linguists who were/are involved in producing these translations; not just the opinions of a few people who are "sort of" fluent in the languages involved.

Not trying to come off as any great Christian here; not by a long shot. Am what they call a 'backslider'; but still believe in what that Book says, and trying to work on the 'behavior' part. :-)

(Sure exhibited some unChristian behavior in the Y2k debates last year, that's for certain. But I sure don't feel like the Lone Ranger in that department, either!)

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 22, 2000.

I sure do appreciate your post CL.

Your tone is only slightly more civil than say, a year ago! :^)

Mind you I'm not placing blame in your lap - *sigh* LOL!!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 22, 2000.

The young monk asked the master;"Master,does even a dog have the Buddha-nature?" the master replied;WOOF"!!!"

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 22, 2000.

Well Golly Gee Whillikers Bingo,

I'm endeavoring to be a good bit more civil than a year ago. Though we're all prone to slip every now and again, eh.

Maybe I'll try harder, like Avis. ;-)

-- Chicken Little (panic@isover.now), May 23, 2000.

I'm a wine guru!!! Does that count???

Just let me know what your having for dinner and I will pair the vino with the entre.No joke,that's what they call moi,and you did say ANY; )

Night all.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 23, 2000.