4
4everjustjesus
Guest
What exactly is the New Age philosophy? I hear about it all the time, but I still don’t know what it is. 
- Status
W
Wesley7
Guest
philosophical junk.
K
Koopa
Guest
I’m not entirely the expert, but it pretty much says, “You alone are the God of your own reality… except reality doesn’t actually exist! Haha! But you can break free and find your inner Godhood and then manipulate reality… which totally happens… and btw did I mention, reality doesn’t exist?”
T
the_phoenix
Guest
V
Victorious
Guest
Sometimes New Age comes with a veneer of Christianity, like the teachings of New Age guru-ette Marianne Williamson, who should on no account be listened to or believed. But at heart, it is the notion that we are God, but we have to evolve or something to the point where we can change the world in a God-like manner. This way, when we fail to eradicate sickness and suffering and war and death and pestilence by thinking positive, we can just say it’s because we’re not thinking positive enough, or not enough people are thinking positive, instead of acknowledging that the New Age is rotgut.What exactly is the New Age philosophy? I hear about it all the time, but I still don’t know what it is.
D
Detales
Guest
“New Age” philosophy is what happens when teaching points used in the esoteric systems are made public and deteriorate through misunderstanding into the things people on here have called it.
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
They believe there is no hell and no such thing as evil spirits or an evil person. All spirits are good and desire the good of humanity. Everyone is in the process of being enlightened. It may not happen in this lifetime (eg. Hitler) but we will be reborn until we become totally ‘enlightened’. We chose when/how we are reborn. People that are important to us will be reborn at the same time we are so we can work out problems from past lives. The Budda, Jesus, and other great teachers are ‘avatars’ who are enlightened and return to earth to help us reach the point they have. We all have unlimited potential. Our positive thoughts affect us and the world around us. All religions have some truth. There are certain geographical locations that are spiritually powerful. etc. etc. etc. Just read Shirley MacLaine’s books.
New Agers are not ‘religious’, they are ‘spiritual’. Morality is what you want it to be. There is no ‘one way’; all rivers lead to the sea. It’s a pleasant philosophy: no demands, no guilt.
New Agers are not ‘religious’, they are ‘spiritual’. Morality is what you want it to be. There is no ‘one way’; all rivers lead to the sea. It’s a pleasant philosophy: no demands, no guilt.
B
Benadam
Guest
The founding of cultures are usually the results of individuals called to extraordinary life that become legend, myth and example that are adopted as the ideal and a people is formed. As the culture enjoys the bounty of noble life it begins to forget the kind of life that roduces the kind of success it enjoys. As it decends into destructive behavior it begins to realize it’s wayward direction and attempts to reignite it’s former virtue. Unfortunately that virtue was the product of diciplined life that has become habitually avoided and all but forgotten, but the fallen people attempt to conjur it up through other means.
That is a picture of new age spirituality.
It’s fundamental dynamic is assimilation of all religions under one spiritual umbrella. Even if a religion rejects it, it will conjur up a replica and put that in it’s place and claim that the true religion is their replica.
New age fails to recognize that spirit can be evil. Dazzled by the glitter of spiritual experience it calls it good because it feels like it is.
I should add that there is genuine spiritual practices used by sincere seekers of good that have been adopted by new agers. The good of these shouldn’t be overlooked because they are practiced by those who are seeking novelty rather than good.
That is a picture of new age spirituality.
It’s fundamental dynamic is assimilation of all religions under one spiritual umbrella. Even if a religion rejects it, it will conjur up a replica and put that in it’s place and claim that the true religion is their replica.
New age fails to recognize that spirit can be evil. Dazzled by the glitter of spiritual experience it calls it good because it feels like it is.
I should add that there is genuine spiritual practices used by sincere seekers of good that have been adopted by new agers. The good of these shouldn’t be overlooked because they are practiced by those who are seeking novelty rather than good.
G
GodIsGracious
Guest
I think it depends on who you talk to.
In the early 90’s I had contact with a “psychic” due to a radio station I was working at. She talked about “good” energies and “bad” energies. She’d keep touching me because I had “good” energies. At one point I told her to knock if off that I was tired of her “stealing all my good energies.” LOL!
I did take a look into that and tarot cards for a while. Embarassingly, I was interested in the occult - but more like psychics and tarot cards, not wicca or paganism.
At anyrate, I think the “new age” belief can be as unique as each person you ask what their “spirituality” is. The few I met did believe in “good” and “bad” “energies.”
In the early 90’s I had contact with a “psychic” due to a radio station I was working at. She talked about “good” energies and “bad” energies. She’d keep touching me because I had “good” energies. At one point I told her to knock if off that I was tired of her “stealing all my good energies.” LOL!
I did take a look into that and tarot cards for a while. Embarassingly, I was interested in the occult - but more like psychics and tarot cards, not wicca or paganism.
At anyrate, I think the “new age” belief can be as unique as each person you ask what their “spirituality” is. The few I met did believe in “good” and “bad” “energies.”
S
Snerticus
Guest
Just watch Oprah and listen to her philosophies and those of her guests and you’ll get a pretty good idea of what New Age Philosophy is about.
Snert
Snert
D
Detales
Guest
Well, Clair, if you really think about it, and can stop thinking of all “New Agers” being exactly the same, and if you can stop for a moment thinking of all of them using such ideas as an excuse, even on the face of it there is an aspect of their philosophy no one so far has brought to the fore.
I know some “New Agers,” and here is what I think about their interpretation of some of the incomplete ideas put forth on this thread: If one accepts such ideas as reincarnation, which in fact the early fathers did not contradict, and if we each make our own way, and there is a law of karma, and interrelationship of all life, then what you so easily discount becomes a path of ultimate responsibility. It is so easy to negate someone’s way of thinking by means of generalities. That is done here by many Catholics, sometimes to the point of outright bigotry. A Catholic aquaintance of mine was banned from here for that reason.
But back to the responsibility. Look at your signature line. Who there is responsible for making you become the person your dog thinks you are. On the face of it, as stated, it sounds like it is God’s job to make you into that person, as if you had nothing to do with it. A New Ager of the stripe that I am personally aquainted with, would laugh at that, and say, “Where is she in that equation? Can’t she think? Isn’t she responsible for what she does and what happens becuse of it? She’s taken this imaginary ideal, projected the ability to think of her in that way on to an animal, wonderful as it might be, and made her imaginary god responsible to make her that way according to the dog’s perception.”
I know dear, it is a far “fetched” comparison, but what if you are doing the same thing to a “new ager” as I just did with your signature, which I am sure was put there with the best of intentions. Are you doing what so many on here do? Are you speculating without going to the horse’s mouth? (animals, again) Why don’t you all just go find a new ager and talk for a while and see what they actually say themselves, instead of acting like biddies across the back fence? Of course, you might then have an actual conversation and have to make concessions, as might they. Such a risk! Bon chance!
BTW, what do you get if you cross an agnostic, a dyslexic and an insomniac? You get someone who stays awake all night wondering if there really is a dog.
I know some “New Agers,” and here is what I think about their interpretation of some of the incomplete ideas put forth on this thread: If one accepts such ideas as reincarnation, which in fact the early fathers did not contradict, and if we each make our own way, and there is a law of karma, and interrelationship of all life, then what you so easily discount becomes a path of ultimate responsibility. It is so easy to negate someone’s way of thinking by means of generalities. That is done here by many Catholics, sometimes to the point of outright bigotry. A Catholic aquaintance of mine was banned from here for that reason.
But back to the responsibility. Look at your signature line. Who there is responsible for making you become the person your dog thinks you are. On the face of it, as stated, it sounds like it is God’s job to make you into that person, as if you had nothing to do with it. A New Ager of the stripe that I am personally aquainted with, would laugh at that, and say, “Where is she in that equation? Can’t she think? Isn’t she responsible for what she does and what happens becuse of it? She’s taken this imaginary ideal, projected the ability to think of her in that way on to an animal, wonderful as it might be, and made her imaginary god responsible to make her that way according to the dog’s perception.”
I know dear, it is a far “fetched” comparison, but what if you are doing the same thing to a “new ager” as I just did with your signature, which I am sure was put there with the best of intentions. Are you doing what so many on here do? Are you speculating without going to the horse’s mouth? (animals, again) Why don’t you all just go find a new ager and talk for a while and see what they actually say themselves, instead of acting like biddies across the back fence? Of course, you might then have an actual conversation and have to make concessions, as might they. Such a risk! Bon chance!
BTW, what do you get if you cross an agnostic, a dyslexic and an insomniac? You get someone who stays awake all night wondering if there really is a dog.
S
Snerticus
Guest
I went to the website Michelle Arnold had linked to (one of the staff apologists) about Angel Healing. It sounded benign to me (and I assume most people so I could see the allure), until I came to one of the questions in the Q&A section and I was flabbergasted that anyone who was a Christian could think this:
And he decieves with half truths to draw us in. He is a super-intelligent being and can confound the smartest of men. Clearly the above is lies mixed with truth and the sad part is, the person who believes these things has no idea they are being decieved. I pray for all New Agers, but especially my friends who have fallen into this line of thinking. I think we all should.
Snert
As Jesus himself clearly said in the Gospels, Satan can even appear as an Angel of Light in order to decieve .
And he decieves with half truths to draw us in. He is a super-intelligent being and can confound the smartest of men. Clearly the above is lies mixed with truth and the sad part is, the person who believes these things has no idea they are being decieved. I pray for all New Agers, but especially my friends who have fallen into this line of thinking. I think we all should.
Snert
D
Detales
Guest
Actually, Snerticus helped me out here, as I found and repost a quote he put up, as it applies to some of the attitude I find on here regarding speculative postings on other people’s philosophies without personally checking them out:
"*These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject,[In this case a particular subject] the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world,[CAF] have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty. *
That is from a tract on the Heresy of Americanism and is abstracted from papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm
"*These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject,[In this case a particular subject] the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world,[CAF] have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty. *
That is from a tract on the Heresy of Americanism and is abstracted from papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm
B
Benadam
Guest
D
Detales
Guest
Benadam: "*‘all inclusive’. * What, like the Church?
B
Benadam
Guest
I’m not quite sure what you refer to about the Church as being all inclusive but…
The Church claims to possess the Fullness of Truth and to teach without error. This view tends to exclude . OTOH the Church behaves as one would expect an institution that possesses the truth would. Where ever it is found the Church accepts truth knowing it belongs to her. This virtue is mistaken as an ‘all inclusive’ characteristic. And it is in regards of truth. Truth is accepted wherever it is found. Christ sanctifies and asks that we not call profane things He has made holy.
D
Detales
Guest
And how is that different from the inclusivity of the philosophies or other religions based on Unity?
B
Benadam
Guest
One is relative unity founded on both common means to particular ends and particular means to common ends. This unity forms a pantheon.
the other is absolute unity founded on common means towards a common end. This unity forms a singularity.
G
GodIsGracious
Guest
Oh, I hear ya!Not to worry. I practiced witchcraft for a time. Through it I learned that I couldn’t avoid harming someone nor could I know what was good… Eventually my experiences grounded me in salvation history. It’s not a bad thing to know both sides of a story. The tree’s in the heavenly Jerusalem sprout leaves that are medicine for the pagans.
What I meant about not knowing that spirituality can be evil is demonstrated by that characteristic that makes new age philosophy ‘all inclusive’.
I say “embarassingly” because even though I had left the Catholic church I wouldn’t go to any other Christian church because I felt I was “better than that,” but! I looked into the occult.
Worse, now that I look back on it. But really, I think it was just Christianity in general that I had “problems” with. The occult, new age, paganism, a non-Christian belief system can seem and feel so “free” coming from what can feel like an incredibly “restrictive” belief system like Christianity. Within Christianity you have marriage, and babies, and “forced” chastity and turning the other cheek and! And! AND!!! and it seems like you can’t do this and you can’t do that and you can’t do what ever it is you want…when you start to take a look at some of the non-Christian belief systems they can appear to give the impression that one is “freer” because in this life you do what “feels good” for yourself. What it is that you can “get out of” what you’re doing and your relationships.
Entirely centered on the self. All of that is on the surface. It’s shiny, and pretty, and ooh! and aah! I know a few wiccan “priestesses” and one of the things they’ve told me that they see the reason for women (and they have heard themselves) wanting to join Wicca is because it “empowers” who to “be her own woman.” I can certainly see the appeal.
You get your own coven, you get to lead your own rituals, there’s a feeling of peace and well being, and because some covens are out in nature there’s a feeling of becoming “one with” nature. So, this isn’t to say why all people join a particular new age or occult philosophy or belief system. Like I’ve said above each has their own personal philosophy - which I think is why new age philosophy can appear to be all inclusive. Because it generally is.
However, I have found that in all the “freedom” to do as one pleases - abandon responsibilities if it means being responsible for your own happiness and growth even! - is that there is a certain restriction, constraint, that it is all on your shoulders. Sure you can go to a guru and learn to work on your chakra, and meditate to open it up … but the responsibility, ALL of it, without help from anyone, is yours and yours alone. I see a friend who practices (I forget what type of) Buddhism combined with some sort of Hinduism and she’s always searching (she also used to be Catholic - I recently found out) and claims to have more peace and can find more serenity - if she can just get to practice yoga more! Now, one datapoint does not a study make, to be sure, but I think, for me, it’s a close up example of this complete responsibility on the self, and Self, can be draining. She’s recently told me that in my search for God Himself (even though I hadn’t been practicing my Catholicism then -i.e. going to mass, and other things we do) she’s always felt I was so spiritual and wished she had what I had. And I wasn’t even being Catholic! Simply, searching for God. Coming back to the faith I have never felt such real solid peace and happiness as when I was “out there” searching for so long.
These are just some observations I have from various friends of various “belief systems.”
And for those who are critical of “Catholic attitudes,” I’m not saying that these aren’t nice people, or irresponsible people, nor am I saying they are more responsible than Catholics either.
One of the wiccan priestesses I know has a deep commitment to her atheist husband as he does her, they’re responsible, hold down jobs, pay the mortgage and bills on time and have good credit, help friends and family when they can and are kind to creatures. (To counter the datapoint of my other friend earlier. )
D
Detales
Guest
OK, given the vagaries of English grammar any your unusual use of “forms,” you admit that the Church is properly a pantheon, and that the “New Agers,” (genuine ones not using diluted teaching) are founded on Unity. So what’s your problem with them?
I would also like to know why you correctly state that myth can only point, Yet truth is past tense. Why not say Truth IS? Do we not have Truth now?
- Status