SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Non-SRF Teachings and Ideals
        > Govindan
New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2 3

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
Registered User
(9/4/03 10:35 am)
Re: Jesus and religeon
Reincarnation is discussed in the Talmud. It is not an Essene doctrine, but a more universal Jewish belief that is still prevelent among religious Jews and I'm talking about the whole spectrum of "religious" Jew, including the spiritual ones. It's called Gilgul, as I keep pointing out. It never left Judaism. It was a central teaching of Isaac Luria, who was not an Essene, and not Ancient, but lived during the Renaissance. The Chasidim believe in it and anyone who is at all familiar with Kabbalah is familiar with it.

We know very little about what the Essenes actually believed. There are only a view paragraphs about them in the historical sources that actually mention them. It is not a settled matter within the community of scholars who are actually working with the Dead Sea Scrolls that they were Essenes. Their laws reflect, exactly, the laws of the Saducees recorded in the Talmud, leading many scholars to conclude that they were a group of Saducees who left the larger group when it began to become corrupt.

The Chasidic beliefs I was sharing do not in any way try to remake a historical figure into a new ideal as the New Age movement does with Jesus. They are using age old techniques like the Yogis in India and have developed their ideas have developed over a long period of time, like the Yogis in India, and they base their beliefs on a theology that has survived time and several attempts to eradicate it. Even the Kriya groups in India differ quite a lot from the American schools of Kriya Yoga, SRF being one of the more 'American'. It was not the Chasidic teachings that I was comparing the New Age conceptions of Jesus to. They make no comments about Jesus.

I guess I separate my personal beliefs from discussion about historical evidence and analyses of traditional religious beliefs. I dissagree with both the traditional Christian and the traditional Jewish point of view, but I've found that many of the Chasidic teachings are very similar to Yoganandas teachings and I've started to adapt them to what I think is a more universal perspective. That's why I was mentioning them.

I can assure you that your "Christian" beliefs about Jesus are far different from the average Christian and are more Hindu influenced than anything. There is nothing wrong with that, but when I was saying the word "Christian" I was referring to what is normally considered Christian, not the New Age version of Christianity, which has a variety of influences in it that are coming out of the modern "marketplace" of ideas, rather than the traditional Christian view - which also varies from group to group.

To give you an example of just how "Jewish" the original Christians were, in James church, if a non-Jew wanted to become a Christian, he or she had to convert to Judaism first, and then become a Christian. Paul changed this. It's quite clear in his letters.

My take on the whole Jesus issue is that he works quite well as an Ishta Devata, and I would never tell anyone that he does not and that they should abandon their belief in him.

When it comes to whether Jesus behaved and taught "like a Jew", I will argue that one. I'm very familiar with the historical evidence from the time period, though there is precious little about him, except what is recorded in the New Testament and the Gnostic scriptures, none of which shows that he was acting radically non-Jewish - there being several shades of what it meant to be a Jew at that time. The Pharisees only gained ascendency after the Temple was destroyed. All of the groups at that time were arguing with each other, much like the many types of Judaism today. They happened to be the ones who managed to survive the best, and that was because there were certain Rabbis who managed to form schools that flourished instead of dying out. The title "Rabbi" comes from the root R-V which mean "great". Only the Pharisees were using it in that time period. The Aramaic is Rav. It's come to mean something like 'teacher' but the word for teacher is actually from the root M-R-H. Teachers are called moreh, or morah. There is an ordination called 'smichah', which was an institution put into place by the Pharisees, not the other groups, which had there own systems, no doubt.

Edited by: etzchaim at: 9/4/03 11:11 am
Registered User
(9/4/03 11:27 am)
Re: Jesus and religeon
Well, and I am very proud of that. I guess I consider myself a New Age Christian or a Christian Yogi or a Hindu Christian or whatever...

I know you don't like Edgar Cayce, but many people do put a lot of faith into what he has said, mainly because of the accuracy of his remedies and readings. He has never been disproven as far as I know. He was asked at one time why the Essenes weren't mention more often in the New Testament and he replied that it was because "they were doing most of the writing."

Now this is a field of study that my husband and I have been interested since before our interest in yoga. It has actually helped alot of people become interested in yoga. Many of the people I know on the east coast who were devotees, were current or former members of the ARE (Association for Research and Enlightenment). For many people, the ARE is a bridge between Christianity and yoga and helps them to make the transition. I know it helped me.

Also, I really don't think you can say that one doctrine must be valid because it has "stood the test of time", then dismiss Jesus and Christianity because, as far as you are concerned, Hitler is also famous so it must just be our morbid preoccupation with blood.

There is a good amount of critisizm, but the way, of the scholars conducting the research on the scrolls. Why is this "research" being conducted in such a secretive manner? It is hard to argue with "the scholars" different opinions this way and if the facts are there, why are there so many different opinions? Opinions on what?


Edited by: dawnrays at: 9/4/03 2:13 pm
Registered User
(9/4/03 12:38 pm)
Re: Jesus and religeon
Honestly, Dawnrays, I was just presenting the traditional views to bring some perspective into the discussion. If you actually read the explanation that Abulafia provides about "moshiach", Jesus is indeed a moshiach.

I'm not much on Edgar Cayce, so I have nothing to say about him.

I'm in no way comparing Jesus to Hitler, and please stop trying to imply that I am. I was merely pointing out that people tend to be drawn to violent things that they can relate their own suffering to. Look at the history of Christianity, there is an absolute fascination with the blood of Christ and his suffering. Stigmata is caused by an absolute identification with Christs suffering. In no way do I think that there can be a comparison between the two, but the fascination with Good and Evil, suffering and blood, is quite obviously there in both cases. One is good, one is evil. Almost a Christ/AntiChrist dichotomy. Both men will remain famous, but there is no comparison between them on any other level. I quite like Jesus, I just don't think he was any more unique than the other saints and sages of all the great religions. In my opinion, a saint is a saint is a saint and we should all strive to reach that level. Hitler was vile.

Also, in my opinion, without Paul, the Jesus movement would have died out before it even got started. Paul did a tremendous job of removing the Jewish restrictions from it, like having to keep kosher and be circumcised, and 'universalized' it into the larger Hellenic world, and presented it to the non-Jews is a very palatable way that allowed them to get out of the rather degraded forms of paganism that the Roman and Hellenic world had fallen in to. He gave them something much better to believe in. James was still making non-Jews become Jews first. They were the two main leaders of the early Church. It doesn't matter to me if they were originally Essenes, that in no way takes away Jesus Jewishness. It seems to me that you think it does. When I say that there is no historical evidence for his Essene connection, I mean that in the plain sense. If there is, I would like to see it. He would still be inately Jewish. I consider Reform Jews to be expressing a form of Judaism as much as I do Orthodox Jews. They happen to be very secular in their expression though, but it's distinctly Jewish.

This is a fact: Paul was originally a Pharisee.

Look at the New Testament, how much of it is Paul's writing? He was not an Essene. His is the earliest writing in it. The synoptic Gospels were written after him, by about 30 years more or less. They were definately Christians by that time, a separate group from the Essenes. It might be that the Essenes turned into the Christians, but you would think that they would make mention of their earlier version. They don't. This appears to have been a completely new movement, but I'm open to any references that show that he was an Essene, but I don't consider Cayce a reliable source, and I have that right. I respect that you do, but that doesn't mean I have to agree. I find him interesting, but I tend to use scholarly sources for the specific reason that, while it may be mundane and slow, at least there is a solid foundation to base the "proof" of something on as opposed to using a "belief" or a channelled source, which depends on your trust of that particular persons abilities. I prefer the vagueness of a bunch of scholars arguing with each other over the vagueness of a person gathering information out of the Akashic records. I get into many arguments with my Guru over this, and feel quite free to disagree with him, as well. If he cares, it hasn't affected his dedication to teaching me and he sometimes uses reversed phychology, because he knows I'm going to sit and think then come back with an argument from which I'll learn something.

Because I am presenting my opinions on this subject, you are interpreting them as me challenging your beliefs. Maybe you are just being challenged. We both have a right to present our beliefs and the knowledge that we have and we both can disagree with each other. One of my closest friends from my Temple is a Christian Gnostic. We have quite a bit of fun over dinners arguing with each other and we both respect the others opinion. Again I appologize for the comment about the "New Age". That was me being emotional.


Registered User
(9/4/03 1:17 pm)
Re: Jesus and religeon
Well, I thought of some things to say but I'm too tired to continue this right now (maybe later). I need a few days off and I know you need to get back to work.

Good Luck moving and unpacking (stressful).

Hope your asthma gets better soon.

Remember to take some mint tea (good for nerves).


dawnrays (Lisa)

Edited by: dawnrays at: 9/4/03 10:21 pm
Registered User
(9/4/03 11:06 pm)
I´m interested in knowing whether Jewish belief in reincarnation and karma (or ´merit´in the Jewish version) derives from non-Jewish sources. According to one encyclopedia I´ve looked at, the Kabbalah as a whole derives from non-Jewish sources. It would be interesting if it turned out to ultimately derive from Hindu yogic sources.

Registered User
(9/5/03 4:50 am)
Re: Kabbalah
Gershom Sholem argued that Kabbalah derived from Gnosticism. The current holder of the Gershom Sholem Chair at the Hebrew Univerisity is Joseph Dan. He and other scholars have refuted Sholem's thesis.

I personally don't think that anything grows in a vacuum and it isn't difficult to see the Egyptian, Babylonian and Cana'anite influences in the Torah. Maimonides brother, David, was a Merchant Shipman in the 11th century and traded with the Jewish community in Cochin, India. This was about the time that much of the Kabbalah was being developed.

The Indian Jews, do not, today, show and inordinate amount of mystical tendencies, though they have many cultural similarities with the other Indians. Most of them are now in Israel. A couple of Hindu women have converted in the last 15 years, or so, and there is a family running one of the old Indian Synogogues. It might be in Cochin, or it might be the Bene Israel, another group that was more assimilated in India, but retained a Jewish identity. I'm not sure. The "heretics" of Provence, during the 12th/13th centuries may have been an influence, as well as the Indians. In my opinion, it's not the 'origin', so to speak, of the idea, it's what's done with it. If the Kabbalah is Indian or Gnostic influenced, it is also derived as much from early sources of Jewish thinking, which is also derived from the "milieu" of thought that surrounded them various time periods, like any other group of people. There are stories about Indians visiting ancient Israel and Jews visiting India during the time of Alexander. They may be apochryphal, though. Alexander supposedly held a debate between the Israelite thinkers and the Indian thinkers. There's also a widespread belief among the Orthodox that the 'gifts' that Abraham sent with his other children when they went off to the 'East' were occult gifts that grew into the Vedas, and some believe that these were the Aryans. Every culture has quite a bit of ethnocentrism in it and there's no way to really tell at this point who's right and who's wrong. There are some really startling similarities between the Torah and the Vedas, but how to get from a Semitic language to an Indo-European one is more difficult to fathom. I don't know enough about Linguistics or the time periods involved to say anything more. The Aryans seem to have come from South-Eastern Europe and we don't really know where the Hebrew tribes originally came from - they were nomadic and possibly from Mesopotamia, but no one, at least not in the Academic world, really knows. Traditionally, it's believed that Abraham was from the city or Ur. The Iranians are Indo-European, so there's the possibility that Aryan Tribes were wandering around the deserts of the Middle-East, but I claim ignorance on this one...

You might be interested in this. It's a site about the Hyksos who were an Indo-European/Cana'anite family group:

"Cyrus Gordon in The Ancient Near East:

“The Hyksos hordes included Indo-European warriors [an Aryan ethnic group which included Hittites and Mitanni in the Near East]. With the Indo-Europeans the horse, effectively used for pulling the war chariot, entered the Near East and revolutionized the art of warfare. The Iranian plateau was to become a great stamping ground of the Aryans (as we may call the segment of the Indo-Europeans to which the Iranians belong).”[xi] [emphasis mine]

So, from this we may deduce that the ruling class and many of the peoples comprising the Hyksos were European in racial stock (ie called Indo-European or Aryan by historians).

Because they were unable to quell Egyptian nationalistic feelings, the Hyksos formed an alliance with the Nubian Kingdom of Kush to contain the Egyptians. Even so, the city of Thebes in southern Egypt commenced a war which resulted in the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose I.[xii] (Moses is a form of Ahmose)

Who were the Hyksos Apiru?

The Bible and secular history make mention of a people called the Apiru, Khabiru, Hapiru or Hebrews who were in the Middle East prior to the Exodus. Who were they ?

Let us first notice the pertinent scriptures :

“Moreover the Hebrews that were with the Philistines before that time ... turned to be with the Israelites” (I Sam. 14:21).

“And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. And Saul blew the trumpet, throughout all the land, saying, ‘Let the Hebrews hear' ...

“And some of the Hebrews went over Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead” (I Sam. 13:3,7).

These are not Israelite Hebrews, but different Hebrews altogether[xiii] who descend from Eber, grandson of Arphaxad.[xiv]

They are first mentioned c.2000 BC where they are found wandering all over the Near East: Alakh, Amarna, Boghazkoy, Babylon, Larsa, Mari, Nuzi, Ugarit and Palestine. The Khabiru appear to have been mercenaries fighting for the Hittites and Hurrians[xv]. There was even a valley of Habur between Euphrates and the Tigris. Ethnically they were Indo-Europeans of the same stock as the Hittites and the Hurrians[xvi]. Apparently they were concentrated in the general area from where Abram came from[xvii] - Northern Syria/Northern Mesopotamia[xviii]. Many of their names are Hurrian (Indo-European), and being with the Hurrians may be the reason for Palestine being known as “the land of Huru” [xix].

Later, many of them were allies of the Aramaeans and helped them rule northern Egypt as we have seen. "


According to this, then, Abraham may have been Indo-European or at least influenced, in some way, by Indo-Europeans. Some scholars are currently arguing that the Jews were originally a branch of the Hyksos. I'm not sure how strong the theory is.

Edited by: etzchaim at: 9/5/03 8:38 am
Registered User
(9/5/03 7:35 pm)
Re: Jesus and religion
Wow this is quite a thread!

May I comment breifly on a few points?

"And this is what? Sound theology and history?"

I don't think DR understands the scholarly processes. NBD (no big deal). Really, it just for scholars and interested parties:-) Makes good reading. It should not be confused with new age understandings. The two are separate entities.

Paul (not God) has spoken! Anyone who studies Christianity holds this opinion; Without Paul the religion wouldn't exist. We are our stories. He was the great story teller.

It was Paul (not Jesus) who said of himself that he sat at the feet of Gamliel. He was also a Roman citizen (impressive!) and a tent maker. Where's time for Essenes here? BTW, I love Cayce.

Even the Hindus have a legend of a crucified god. It's quite common in religion.

The Jesus in Tibet story? My favorite is the Aquarian Gospel written by Levi Dowling a turn of the century American mystic from Ohio. The swami's 1959 story may be the same one chronicled in the Aquarian Gospel. Maybe Swamis got it from us. Legends live large in India.

Other christian denominations were open to yoga even way back then. I can't name what chruches PY may have spoke in but I have visited a Presbyterian church in Detroit where Swami Vivekananda spoke. It's still serving the Presbyterian community near WSU today.

BTW, in Detroit PY spoke at a luxury hotel! I believe some of his audience appeal can be attributed to the Great Depression. When you're out of work, at least a free lecture is something to do!

Why didn't Jesus DO anything about it? Oy veh! I said it before, the book Why Bad Things Happen to Good People by Rabbi Harold Kushner should be required reading for all SRF devotees.

Who? Oh, there may not be many movies but there are lots of books. According to some research (a psychological profile of AH written during WWII) AH was an extreme sexual deviant. He also believed he was the incarnation of Klinsor the evil knight in the Parsival legend who was gelded by Sir Galahad. Read the Spear of Destiny by Trevor Ravenscroft.

IMHO, the Hyksos and Aryans were shepherds; migrating people who had to defend themselves agressively. The history of the world shows how sheep herders are usually greeted when they come to town.

Registered User
(9/8/03 9:58 am)
Re: Jesus and religion
Stermejo, thanks for the correction about who was the student of Gamliel.

On the other hand, he saying: "Love thy neighbor as I have loved you" is a remake of Rabbi Hillel's "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself". Since the Pharisees that Jesus is arguing with in the NT are much stricter than the Pharisees of today, and there were two 'camps' of Pharisees, one called the "House of Shammai" (the stricter) and one called the "House of Hilled", the more liberal group, which one out over Beit Shammai, it seems to me that Jesus was modelling himself after Hillel (who is described as being quite like Jesus) and in a sort of competition with him. According to Jewish historians writing about the period, the Natziri, the 'Church of James' of the NT, were within the Pharisee camp.

"Maccoby's Revolution in Judea gives the inital view that the Nazarenes were labeled as heretics in 90 C.E. His later book, The Mythmaker revises this date to the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt.
Thus a new Jewish sect arose known as the Nazarenes under the leadership of....James, based on the belief in [J's] continued Messiahship. The Pharisees did not regard this sect as heretical. Indeed, the Nazarenes were regarded as being within the Pharisee party until about 90 [C.E.].
- (Revolution in Judea, p168, italics mine for emphasis)
And more:
The event, however, that weakened the Nazarenes fatally and gave the victory to the Paulinists was the siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 [C.E.]. The Nazarenes, as loyal Jews, took part in the defense of the city, and in the ensuing massacre most of them died. A few survived to continue an enfeebled existence... The remnants of the Nazarenes ... were regarded as heretics by the main body of Christians. To add to their miseries, they now for the first time came into conflict with their fellow-Jews, the Pharisees, who regarded the development of the anti-Semitic Christianity as proof that [Jesus/Yehoshua] could not have been the Messiah, and requested the Nazarenes to give up the Messianic belief that differentiated them from their follow-Jews In about 90 [CE] the Nazarenes were finally expelled from the Jewish Synagogue and became a heretical group in Judaism as well as Christianity. The Nazarenes continued to exist until about 400 [CE] declaring to the last that [Jesus/Yehoshua] was the Messiah, that he would soon return, that he was the Son of [G-d] but not divine himself, that the Jewish law had never been abrogated by him, and that Paul was a deceiver who had perverted [Jesus/Yehoshua's] message.
- (Revolution in Judea, p 181, italics mine for emphasis)
Further evidence that the Nazarenes were labeled heretics in Judaism comes from Maccoby's The Mythmaker in footnote 10 on page 219:
The common scholarly opinion that the Nazarenes were excluded from the synagogue in about 90 [CE] at the 'Synod of Javneh' by the formulation against them of the birkat ha-minim has been refuted by Kimelman (1981). The actual exclusion of the Nazarenes did not take place until the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt, in which the Nazarenes refused to take part (see p. 80)."

As we see today, the Lubavitch movement may actually develop into a Messianic movement. Many Lubavitchers still believe that their now deceased Rebbe was the Moshiach, and that he will return. There have been attempts to declare their movement heretical but they have all failed, since it is not a heresy to believe someone is the Messiah - that alone is not enough. It takes a really firm stepping back from the people and the laws to become "heretical" in the classic sense.

It may be that there was Essene influence in the early days, but if it is true that the Natziri were Pharisaic in their early days, it takes some imagination to claim that they came out of the Essene camp (who were never declared heretical) and became Pharisees. James, their leader, must have been a Pharisee.

Yes, it's true that the scholarly approach is for scholars, but it doesn't hurt for people to be aware of actual texts and source information, much like finding out about science from a scientist - learn history from an historian.


P.S., among Jews, Paul is often referred to as an expert in PR and sales. There is a rumor wispered among the Orthodox that he was actually hired by Gamliel to 'create' a new religion that would take the Jesus movement outside of Judaism, and there by cause the followers of Jesus to be drawn from the Gentile world since they did not need to follow the Torah, and a little bit of monotheism is better than none at all. There is a mysterious passage in one of the books of the Talmud that mentions a Pharisee who sacrificed his soul for the souls of the rest of the Jews. I doubt that it really does refer to him, but he was indeed a good story-teller and salesman. Paul was actually considered the heretic in many of the earliest Christian writers. Later, he called all the shots anyway, but there is still speculation that his writing was 'tidied' up a bit by the early church to 'fit' the Christian Orthodoxy that had grown since Nicea.

Edited by: etzchaim at: 9/8/03 10:19 am
Registered User
(9/9/03 7:39 am)
Re: Jesus and religion
Well, by this time, I'm assuming I've either irritated or bored, or possibly both, most people, by my arguments, so in conclusion, this is what I've decided.

John the Babtist was most likely part of the Essene group, though only quasi-monastic and not as hung up on the purity laws, so that he interacted with the 'common' people more. He influenced Jesus, who was also influenced by the Hillel Pharisees.

Jesus does not appear to have been solidly in any group, but pulling from the many and extremely varied collection of Judaisms that flourished during his time period. There is no doubt that there were many Essenes among the early Christians, but there were also many Pharisees and people from other groups. There wasn't any one group of Jews at the time, but several who were competing with each other for adherents. The Apocalyptic literature of the Christians is most similar to the Essenes, as well as the aesetic tendencies, but Jesus' universalism and openness to all levels of humanity is definately more like Hillel and the liberal Pharisees. The Purity Laws were different for the different groups, the Pharisee being the least concerned with the inclusion of the "impure", though Jesus outdid them, the Essenes were extremely concerned with the Purity Laws and therefore were quite different from Jesus and his teachings, as well as later Christian teachings, which were essentially against the Purity Laws.

If the Dead Sea collection of scrolls are Essene, which is possible, they are very different from what Jesus was teaching (this is a guy who hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes - the very people that the Dead Sea sectarian literature was railing against, and is in line with what we know about the Essenes from the few sources that mention them). Their laws, however, reflect the Sadducees as recorded in the Talmud. This may mean that the Essenes either agreed with the Sadducees, or that they were not Essenes. They were certainly far more strict about Torah law than the Pharisees, so what is recorded of Jesus beliefs in the NT are the OPPOSITE of the beliefs of whoever this group is, he being slightly more liberal and relativist than the Pharisees, who were more liberal than both the Sadducees and the Essenes. They, the Dead Sea people, were certainly not vegetarians, but ate chicken, the bones of which were unburied by archaeologists, next to what appears to be a communal dining hall, misjudged by the earliest of those who had control over the scrolls, (the French priest who was responsible for limiting the number of scholars who could actually look at them - namely only those who agreed with him!) as the "scriptorium", now known to have been their place of eating, since more scholars actually have access now and those who agree with the original guy are being challenged.

Jesus appears to be a promoter of fish eating, which also strikes me as non-vegetarian in nature.

Paul made drastic changes to the teaching which the church of James called "lies and deceptions". James church was weakened by the death of many of it's adherents when Jerusalem was beseiged by the Romans and Pauls ideas took control of the early church, making Christianity as we know it today. He was originally a Pharisee, but after his conversion, became very Hellenist and esoteric in his interpretations, almost Gnostic, which is Greek, not Jewish and very much not Pharisaic. James was killed when the Sadducees called the Sanhedrin together and condemned him to death. The Pharisees attempted to have the Sadducees stopped and then punished for this, but they failed. This was before the Pharisees gained the upper hand of power against the Sadducees, who lost their raison d'etre with the fall of the Temple. James church was classified as Pharisaic until the Bar Kochba uprising, around 145 C.E., when they did not support Bar Kochba and were excommunicated. There is also evidence that James church had ties to the Essenes in Jerusalem. This was more tenuous than the connection to the Pharisees, but was certainly there. This may reflect a number of things - James was more of a Pharisee than an Essene, but had ties to the Essenes, the number of Essene converts to Christianity was high but not as high as the number of Pharisee converts, or they were simply universallists who allied themselves with the more universal group, which was more inclusive of all Jews, as they were inclined to be, but were influenced by all - the most likely understanding, in my opinion.

There is an interesting story from this time - the non-Christian Jews would make attempts to rebuild the Temple, and the Christian Jews would then go and remove the stones that the non-Christian Jews had put in place, so it became a bit like the feud between the McDonalds and the Campbells in Scotland. There is a pile of rocks that the Campbells add a rock to when they pass, and the McDonalds remove a rock from, when they pass. Had everyone just come to America, they would all have started large food corporations and leave the feuding to the Hatfields and the McCoys.

Etzchaim, now apparently responding to her own boredom...

Edited by: etzchaim at: 9/9/03 7:42 am
Registered User
(10/23/03 12:07 pm)
Re: Elijah's Kriya Yoga and Buddha's Kriya Yoga
etzchaim writes, in response to a posting that I put up, `prssmd, I've been thinking along the same line with Elijah.´ Unfortunately, your posting doesnt make much sense without my posting, to which you are replying. My posting was deleted by the SRF Walrus CENSOR. Obviously, the Censor deleted my posting because the Censor didnt agree with my opinions, not because of the content or topic. Unless the Censor starts behaving reasonably, these discussions arent going to make very much sense.

Registered User
(1/28/04 4:31 am)

Edited by: prssmd at: 6/12/05 9:05 pm
Page 1 2 3 << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Non-SRF Teachings and Ideals -

Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.