Why are the New Age movement and other exotic ideas so attractive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spiritualwrrior
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Christianity teaches that we are sons of God by adoption. Jesus is the Son of God ontologically, at his essence.
Thanks PR Merger. That is an interesting teaching that I have never heard before. . If we are children of God by adoption, who did He adopt us from? Did we come about on our own, or did God create us? And did God not also create Jesus? Created by the same Father, yet we are adopted by the Father who created us, and that is how we are distinguished from Jesus. I’m going to have to ask if you can explain that in some detail if you would. It’s looking to me like God created me, and it would be rather disingenuous of Him to later say that He took me on by adoption, because it doesn’t sound as though He is taking responsibility for what He creates. They have laws against dads like that in most states,

Your friend
Sufjon
 
Thanks PR Merger. That is an interesting teaching that I have never heard before. . If we are children of God by adoption, who did He adopt us from?
Before we were redeemed we were children of wrath.

[BIBLEDRB]Eph 2:3[/BIBLEDRB]
 
Did we come about on our own, or did God create us?
I think you are familiar enough with Christianity to know the answer to this, yes?

When the potter creates something, is this something of the same essence as the potter? :hmmm:

[BIBLEDRB]Isaiah 29:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Or, a translation I prefer:

You turn things around!
Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay,
That what is made would say to its maker, “He did not make me”;
Or what is formed say to him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?
 
It’s looking to me like God created me, and it would be rather disingenuous of Him to later say that He took me on by adoption, because it doesn’t sound as though He is taking responsibility for what He creates
How so?

A father who adopts his children doesn’t sound as though “he is taking responsibility for what he creates”? :confused:

Your question is very confusing to me, Sufjon. Or, to quote our Sacred Scriptures: This thought of yours is perverse!

Could you explain further how God redeeming us by sending his son, adopting us and leaving us His Body and Spirit is not “taking responsibility for what he creates”?

In Hinduism do the gods take responsibility for what they create? Or do even have the power to create anything?
 
This is your belief, I understand that.
It was supposed to be your belief too when you had yourself baptised as Catholic.
What in your estimation is pure being? Please elaborate on what that is if you would.
God is Being itself.
You can’t teach something you are unaware of.
And you can teach something that you think you are aware of not knowing you have got it completely wrong. In which case what you are unaware of is the fact that you are in error.
It leaves us disagreeing.
Exactly. But not only that. It highlights that Christianity and Hinduism disagree on a quite a lot of major points, so your attempts at syncretism just does not work.
I know this was intended as an insult, and that’s okay, but it only reveals a lack of understanding of how how reincarnation works. It is not possible for a person to come back as a dung beetle. Reincarnation also takes evolution into account, before evolution was even a part of science. We evolve up the chain, not down it.
But re-incarnation is not evolution. Suppose that you are already in the lowest caste in India (the untouchables) and you are also an extremely evil person. Do you still evolve upwards?
If this is so, you are saying that all those in the upper castes are better persons than anyone in the castes below them?
You see a line, and I don’t. What can I say?
I don’t know. May be that you need spectacles?
I think I am only taking what Christ said in the context of what other Avatars have said, and I finf them to match.
First off, Christ is not an avatar. Secondly, the other so called avatars didn’t know Christ.
I know the only Avatar you believe in is Jesus, so I understand your perspective.
I don’t believe in Avatars. I only believe in God.
I’m not seeing anything revealed in what Christ said to be counter to what I believe.
Because you do not understand Christ. To understand Christ, study Judaism. Christ was a Jew, not a Hindu.
Fact remains that I am not worried about it.
Fact remains that whether you are worried or not about it is neither here nor there.
Yes, I know this is what you believe.
Yes, and it is so very contrary to Hindu belief. So there’s the fork again.
I am very sure of God;s love for me.
And I am sure of God’s love for you too.
sans your fear of his Wrath. I don’t fear Him in the least.
Who says I fear His wrath? You really don’t know Christianity. It’s horrifying to think you taught CCD.
I know this is part of the guilt thing that Christians carry around, but it isn’t something that I am carrying around.
There is guilt alright. Guilt is like our pain sensors in the body, it alerts us to the diseased state of our souls. A healthy spirit knows guilt when there should be guilt.
Only psychopaths don’t feel guilt at their wrong doing.
Another low minded insult that shows a lack of understanding of Indian culture and the concept of how reincarnation works.
Why would you be insulted at the possibility of ending up in one of the possibilities that your belief proposes? The upward reincarnation you speak of begs reason.
I will point out if I may that this is the forth time in the time that I’ve known you that you’ve suggested that I might come back as a dog.
That was not an insult. If it is a possibility for re-incarnation theology then what makes you think that you are above that possibility?
A slightly veiled insult, but low minded nonetheless.
Not at all just applying your doctrine to yourself.
I would point out however that perhaps a dog better serves the glory of God than a person who continually insults others.
What has that got to do with anything? All creation serves Him by being the best of who they are. That’s got nothing to do with the desirability of coming back in the next life as a dog.
You are not doing your best when you do that sort of thing, or using your intellect to the capacity that God enabled you to.
But I am using my intellect to the capacity that God enabled me to do.
We are supposed to expose error whenever and wherever they are perceived.
 
Firstly because you have spent a good amount of time insulting things you don’t understand, and secondly because some of your remarks suggest that you might not be able to comprehend certain things anyway.
No doubt there are many things that I don’t comprehend. But it seems you don’t comprehend what I have written since you’ve come to the conclusion that I am insulting you.
-Hindu version: Don;t trouble the ignorant with what you know.
-Christian parallel: Don’t cast your peals among swine.
Christian version is better. The ignorant can learn from what the wise know. That is how most of us learn. That is how I learn. I learn from the wisdom of the wise. If the wise do not trouble the ignorant with their wisdom then the ignorant will forever be entrenched in ignorance. Or is that what that Hindu teaching is hoping to do- leave the ignorant in ignorance so they are more malleable and easily trodden upon.?
Swines have no hope of ever comprehending the value of pearls.
Now if you are saying I am a swine then obviously I have fat chance of comprehending your pearls of wisdom. But that also makes me a cannibal because, dinner the other day was a particularly beautiful piece of roast pork.
Tell me why I should disobey these and answer you again?
Who says you should not disobey it and answer me again? Answering a post is entirely up to you.
If you want to ignore what I have written, you are free to do so. Yes, take a deep breath and relax. There is no gun pointed at your head to make sure you reply to my post.
Desire will leave you with desire.
Only according to your understanding. Not quite in Christianity. God answers our deepest desire with Himself because it was Him who placed that desire in the depth of our beings, in the first place.
We are wired for God. We were created for union with Him.
 
new age is for those who can’t chose a particular religion and therefore go for syncretism.
 
new age is for those who can’t choose a particular religion and therefore go for syncretism.

I know that many Christians have a similar problem. They can’t choose a particular tradition so they mix traditions. you can be inspired by many traditions but you can’t follow all traditions at the same time.

listen to this man: youtube.com/watch?v=akd7V-0JI6w&feature=relmfu

Unfortunately most people in the church seem to have a poor understanding of New age and Eastern religions or other nature religions and that’s why I think it hard for people who practiced these religions to become Catholics. I guess the only way to really understand a religion is to live with this religion and most Catholic don’t. I hope I’m wrong. I hope many Catholics live with other religions as well.
 
Sr Mary of the Trinity SOLT

One of my favourite conversion stories is that of Sr Mary of theTrnity SOLT.

You can download her conversion story from this link (item no 125)
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?pgnu=5&SeriesID=-6892289

What is interesting about her conversion is because she was very much into Eastern Religions particularly Hinduism and Buddhism.

At around 19 minutes into the interview with Marcus Grodi she mentions of how she and her friend went to see this Hindu Holy man and expressed the wish to follow him because they were looking for the truth. They wanted to be disciples of this Hindu holy man. However this guru told them “Jesus Christ has everything you’re looking for. Go to him”. When they protested, all he said was “I have spoken.”

She also spoke of how in Yogananda’s biography, he said that his master told him that Jesus Christ is the only totally, fully enlightened being to ever come down from the seventh heaven.

If Christ is the only truly enlightened being then what He says is the fullness of Truth.

I would highly recommend downloading Sr Mary’s conversion story. It is quite amazing.
 
New age is for those who can’t choose a particular religion and therefore go for syncretism…Unfortunately most people in the church seem to have a poor understanding of New age and Eastern religions or other nature religions…I guess the only way to really understand a religion is to live with this religion and most Catholic don’t. I hope I’m wrong. I hope many Catholics live with other religions as well.
Can you please clarify what you mean by “live with that religion”? I don’t think there is any scope for dilution at a fundamental dogmatic level, and yes, in this respect Christianity is pretty rigid (and rightly so). If anybody has to cross over from one side to the other, it has to be after completely jettisoning the previously held belief system. I don’t think there is any scope for any dialogue beyond a point either, because at some stage we have to drop the polemic and say “lets agree to disagree”. I think that stage has been reached on this thread vis-a-vis the eastern religions represented by Sufjon and Christianity represented by benedictus2, tqualey, PRmerger et al. Both sides have put forward their positions forcefully, and are nowhere near any agreement. 🙂
 
Can you please clarify what you mean by “live with that religion”? I don’t think there is any scope for dilution at a fundamental dogmatic level, and yes, in this respect Christianity is pretty rigid (and rightly so). If anybody has to cross over from one side to the other, it has to be after completely jettisoning the previously held belief system. I don’t think there is any scope for any dialogue beyond a point either, because at some stage we have to drop the polemic and say “lets agree to disagree”. I think that stage has been reached on this thread vis-a-vis the eastern religions represented by Sufjon and Christianity represented by benedictus2, tqualey, PRmerger et al. Both sides have put forward their positions forcefully, and are nowhere near any agreement. 🙂
Because there isn’t and there couldn’t be any agreement.

If anything, the value of arriving at this point is to highlight the folly of so called Buddhist Catholics or Hindu Catholics or whatever kind non Christian -Catholic one is supposed to be. They are different religions and never the twain shall meet. Catholics who dabble in New Age delude themselves and fall prey to the lies of the evil one.
 
An Avatar is God in human form. Was Jesus not God? I am of the belief that He was.

Your friend,
Sufjon
If an Avatar is God in Human form then there ever was only one Avatar and every other so called avatars are impersonators.
 
Hi, Sufjon,

If you are looking at followig Chrst, then it must be on His terms and not yours. There is no other way.

God bless
Yes, it must be on Christ’s terms. It cannot be any other way.
 
Because there isn’t and there couldn’t be any agreement. If anything, the value of arriving at this point is to highlight the folly of so called Buddhist Catholics or Hindu Catholics or whatever kind non Christian -Catholic one is supposed to be. They are different religions and never the twain shall meet. Catholics who dabble in New Age delude themselves and fall prey to the lies of the evil one.
I agree, but does it mean then that “inter-religious dialogue” will never progress beyond an airing of views, and will mostly culminate in a hardening of positions? The complaint of the other religions is that we are sitting on a perch and “talking down” at them. Are we even sensitive to this perception, or do we say “too bad, but that’s it way it is”?
 
OP :

I arrived at Catholicism in, I suppose, an untypical way ; by studying history .
So my reply will come from that direction.

It, roughly, started with Martin Luther, whose basic position was, "never mind a thousand years of excepted tradition , never mind the verdicts of Church councils, I will decide for myself, personally. You know not so well as I. "

Fast forward 300 years, and we get , " Life Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "

The American Revolution follows, the French Revolution, 1848, the Bolshevik Revolution ( really a coup,) etc.
That is, the secular state , its power and influence always limited and diluted , becomes ubiquitous. It is everywhere and in everything.
And what is the secular state ? It is a thing of man, and only man.
" Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " whatever its original intent, has become ;
THIS life. THIS life ONLY.
Man is the measure of all things,
The pursuit of what man wants in this life becomes the goal, the only real consideration the here and now.
Morality, which is handed down by a God, will be replaced with law, the rules men themselves make up as they go along.
What is it they always say ? In the bad old days the state was in bed with bad old religion.
That is it was subject to religion, subject to morality, subject to God, if imperfectly so.
Now the state serves the people. 😃
That is it serves man, and only man , and then really only a few men, in the present.
Always to be discounted and ignored is the fact that fat ugly unloved poor girls in wheelchairs are going to be left out of the happy present.

The modern secular state is intrinsically Atheistic.

It’s eventual direction of evolution must necessarily end in an empty , " He who dies with the most toys wins. "

Characteristically it and its supporters will attack all the traditional religions. Mainly it will go harder on whatever religion is most prominent locally , go softer on the religion further away, or even temporarily favor the one further away.
For example, in Japan it will undermine and discredit Shinto at every opportunity.
In Sweden it won’t go so hard on Hinduism because there are like 15 Hindus in all of Sweden.
It will do so because they represent a rival power base, an alternative narrative.
It really hates them all.

In the west , typically, even Christians, will point out every error and crime of the medieval temporal church. The Papal States have ceased to exist, but they proceed to point out every error and crime in the contemporary temporal church.
To reform it they say. But no reform will ever be enough , except that the Vatican city itself be erased.
To be glossed over is the basic difference between the secular state and the temporal church. The secular state only concerns itself, can only be concerned with, temporal power. The Temporal church on the other hand, even though temporal, is finally concerned with mans soul, it is concerned not with this life , but with the one that comes after.

Why the New Age movement ? Because , " Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness " , " He who dies with the most toys wins, " is not nearly enough even for the rich.

And if you support the secular state to the hilt, flatly deny its basic illegitimacy, except its basic premises, any of the traditional religions must at least subconsciously be seen as what they are ; dangerous rivals, enemies.
You cannot serve two masters.
But there is still that great big hole in the core of your being that no amount of toys can ever fill.
So you naturally turn to the vague alternative , precisely because it is vague.
New Age dogmas , whatever they are, are always vague. The vagueness is deliberate.

I said all the traditional religions are attacked.
But especially Christianity, and especially the Catholic Church.

In Christianity exclusively, as far as I know, is found redemption and salvation.
In all others you are either lucky enough to be born into the elite that the Gods favor, you can bribe your way into the Gods favor via some ritual, or you can think your way into heaven.
The Catholic Church is a special target, as it is the direct heir of he who embodies salvation and redemption.
 
Just what is this elaborate fluff you put out with each post. Your spin on trying to combine your pagan and polytheistic approach with the Catholic faith is strictly a homespun creation that is blow away with even the most casual of inspections. But the root problem lies with insincerity - and this you must address in the mirror!

I tell you Christ is not an avitar and this is insulting and I am offended by this. You ask for an explaination so you can understand you will then apologize. I provide the explanaiton and you then dismiss it. I will not address this matter again.

Christ is the Only Son of God - and not one of the players in your list of your human-made dieties. None of these creations of the human mind came from heaven to die for our sins - only Jesus Christ.

Christ founded the Catholic Church on Peter - the teachings are really quite simple: follow Christ through His Church. There is no re-incarnation to various living states, there is no dissolution into nothingness at the end. We are unique creations by God, Who saved us from our sins and made us heirs to Heaven.

Your renunciation of your Catholic Faith is your choice, your issue and your responsibility. Many have tried to gently point out that your have chosen poorly - over and over again. You rebuff their attempts and spin out futile efforts at trying to effect congruence between paganism and the Living God. It isn’t going to happen and I have no idea who you think you are trying to deceive.

In looking at pictures of the Hindu dieties, I am reminded of David’s criticism as recorded in Plasms 115 and 135 - “…they have eyes and see not, mouths and do not speak…”. Paganism and its slavery of the human mind has been with mankind for a very long time - Christ came to free us from such demonic bondage - but, we must use our free will to take His nail-imprinted Hand and follow Him. It is not too late to change course.

For your sake, I hope any such deceit presented to your CCD students has been corrected. You may find the following verses of specific bearing to this issue:
Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2.

I have nothing further to say.

God bless
Oh, well tqualey, that is why I didn’t see what insulted you. Calling Christ an Avatar is not in any way intended as an insult. An Avatar is a manifestation of the ONE GOD in living form. Hindus believe in One God expressed in many living forms. Was Jesus God in living form? If so, then I see the term Avatar as applying quite well. No insult even possible there. Would not the real insult here be to suggest that my praise of Jesus in calling Him an Avatar is somehow inferior to your praise of Jesus in accordance with your faith? Do you really believe that you have been given some spiritual right of way from God to look down on the earnest love that others have for God? That sounds like bigotry, but perhaps that’s not a formal sin in your faith. But it’s also probably not a path to God. Anyway, no insult was present or even intended in the use of the term Avatar/

Furthermore, it’s actually quite a term of endearment to call Jesus an Avatar. I have heard you describe Him as the son of God. But then I think to myself, that we are all children of God, so that term just makes Jesus another son of God, does it not? Regardless of unique conditions of birth, a son is but a son. How is one Son of God different than another son of God simply on the basis of the title son? Both are but children of God. Now the term Avatar, that gives a distinct place as God among us, rather than a sibling. I see the title Son, as being lesser than the title Avatar, but I understand that you didn’t mean to insult Jesus, even though I could take it that way. It’s your way of seeing Him and an expression of your love for Him, and that’s sacred to me.

I will agree that you have repeatedly told me that Hinduism and Christianity are completely incompatible, so what you said above is very true. You have indeed told me this many times. It remains, however, that I don’t feel that you have given me any compelling reason to believe that they are incompatible. I can only recall that you have insisted that this is so. You have on occasion cited your understanding of how they differ, but I have not found any of these arguments to hold up very well. .

Your friend
Sufjon
 
f this is so, you are saying that all those in the upper castes are better persons than anyone in the castes below them?
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Say it ain’t so, Sufjon! You really wouldn’t be part of a system which believes that rich people are better than the poor, would you???

It does seem that your paradigm of “we evolve up the chain” would confirm this obnoxious belief that the upper castes are superior people to the lower castes.
 
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Say it ain’t so, Sufjon! You really wouldn’t be part of a system which believes that rich people are better than the poor, would you???

It does seem that your paradigm of “we evolve up the chain” would confirm this obnoxious belief that the upper castes are superior people to the lower castes.
PR Merger, I have explained to you et nauseum in prior posts that the caste system is an outdated social convention and no longer prescribed as a religious component of Hindu society. In fact, it has formally been denounced by Hindu saints. If you would like to re-cover the numerous paragraphs wherein I explained this to you in detail, you should be able to find it in my prior post listing.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
PR Merger, I have explained to you et nauseum in prior posts that the caste system is an outdated social convention and no longer prescribed as a religious component of Hindu society. In fact, it has formally been denounced by Hindu saints. If you would like to re-cover the numerous paragraphs wherein I explained this to you in detail, you should be able to find it in my prior post listing.

Your friend
Sufjon
Whew! So glad that this is not part of your paradigm! Eek, eek, eek!
 
Hi, PRmerger,

You are at risk for seriously injuring your cheek by distending it with your tongue… 😃

I confess, I had to stop laughing just long enough to get this post out!

God bless
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Say it ain’t so, Sufjon! You really wouldn’t be part of a system which believes that rich people are better than the poor, would you???

It does seem that your paradigm of “we evolve up the chain” would confirm this obnoxious belief that the upper castes are superior people to the lower castes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top