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

[PRmerger]

No, in both situations, being remains; although stuations severe enough to end one’s being would also abolish consciousness:shrug:

ICXC NIKA

Exactly.

So consciousness is not required for being.

 

[PRmerger]

That still does not get you out of the flaw in the “upward evolution” that you equate re-incarnation with. For the fact remains that the caste system exists because of this doctrine. And if the lowest caste is there because of some evil that they are paying for then that means that somehow, those in the higher castes have moved upwards because they are better as persons than those in the lower caste.

And again, suppose you have reached the bottom of all bottoms in the “human sphere” and still you remain evil, where do you go to in the next life if reincarnation is upwardly mobile?

You are taking it for granted that having experienced hardship, people will be come better persons. But some don’t. Will these who remain evil and perhaps worse than their previous life still move upward?

You gave the example of Himmler. You said that he will be sent to do some kind of hard labour in Korea. But Himmler was actually in a better position whilst being German so therefore the movement is downwards for him.

The upward movement would therefore apply only if one continuously becomes a better person. But how do we know that that is indeed the case.

And if begin a good dog is better than being a bad human being, then why move upward at all?

Yeah! This makes no sense in your paradigm, Sufjon.

If there is indeed “upward evolution” and no one comes back as a gnat, then logic dictates that the higher castes are superior to the lower castes.

 

[benedictus2]

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? **

Your friend
Sufjon

As I said before, it is horrifying to think that you taught CCD and this just about illustrates it.

Or don’t you know the Creed- “Begotten not Created, one in Being with the Father”?

 

[benedictus2]

This is kind of like waving the “Number One” finger for your team at a football game is it not? Of course on the other side of the stadium there are thousands more waving a number one finger for the other team. That makes it an opinion or a vote and not a fact in substance. What you are saying takes into account the experience of one group of people and gives it preference over the experience of other people, rather than to see the experiences of all people as components of a larger whole.

Your friend
Sufjon’

This is not about votes.

This is about you continually claiming that Hinduism can be syncretized when this just illustrates that it cannot be.

If you think he is AN Avatar and we say He is the ONLY Avatar then Hinduism and Christianity are poles apart.

The sum of the experiences do not make for truth. Truth is independent of experience even though it may be experienced. You are muddying the water.

 

[Sufjon]

That still does not get you out of the flaw in the “upward evolution” that you equate re-incarnation with. For the fact remains that the caste system exists because of this doctrine. And if the lowest caste is there because of some evil that they are paying for then that means that somehow, those in the higher castes have moved upwards because they are better as persons than those in the lower caste.

And again, suppose you have reached the bottom of all bottoms in the “human sphere” and still you remain evil, where do you go to in the next life if reincarnation is upwardly mobile?

You are taking it for granted that having experienced hardship, people will be come better persons. But some don’t. Will these who remain evil and perhaps worse than their previous life still move upward?

You gave the example of Himmler. You said that he will be sent to do some kind of hard labour in Korea. But Himmler was actually in a better position whilst being German so therefore the movement is downwards for him.

The upward movement would therefore apply only if one continuously becomes a better person. But how do we know that that is indeed the case.

And if begin a good dog is better than being a bad human being, then why move upward at all?

Benedictus, you should really do some reading on this topic. There is a lot of ground to cover. You do not as a rule go backward in evolution, but you do accrue what is called samskara, which is habit and certain proclivities. These, as well as the weight of past actions follow you into the next life. You have to work them out, but you will likely work them out as a human, because that is the level of consciousness you are now operating on. You have in the course of countless lifetimes developed as a being with certain characteristics, and that being has evolved. As is the case with physical evolution, most species or creatures do not devolve. They can pick up new characteristics or even mutate, but it is not normal to devolve back to an earlier form of something. Your spiritual evolution follows your physical evolution and your physical evolution follows your spiritual evolution.

As for the Caster system, which you keep bringing up, it was originally based on just being in your place for a given lifetime and it was not a product of family birth. That was a later development and not devised in the original system. As I have said before, this system is not accepted by Hindu saints or leaders at this point. You also made a connection between being rich and poor in regards to caste. That is also wrong. There are many poor people of upper caste and rich people of lower caste. There are subtle nuances to other cultures that you really need to look into before you start making statements about them. When I say something about your faith I can do so with 20 years of experience practicing it. You seem to be dealing with mine using Wikipedia.

It is not better to be a good dog than a bad human. It serves God best when you are doing your best at whatever you are. You asked what the point of moving forward is if you are bad. That is because badness is a state of being and all states of beinga re in flux and constantly changing. No one is 100 percent consistently bad or good, and it is our belief that everyone eventually makes it. The learning and growing process is long and there is no hurry because we don’t see the 2 minute clock on a Second Coming ticking away. Why do it at all then? It’s about the experience.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

If you think he is AN Avatar and we say He is the ONLY Avatar then Hinduism and Christianity are poles apart.

This is simply because by reason, by faith or by choice you have chosen to see only one incarnation of God. I, by using the same processes, see them all. Since there were incarnations of God long before Jesus and after as well, I see Him in the context of a broader continuum. It doesn’t imply that your path is wrong or won’t get you there. It implies that it is one of many. Because you believe it is the only one is only your conviction. It is a conviction shared by many and rejected by many as well. I have not questioned the veracity of your faith. I have only explained how it fits in the context of mine. My faith says that there are those walking the path to God and are able to see the others paths around them. There are those who walk it with blinders on. I am the former and you are the latter. Both get you to the same place and one is not better than the other. They are different states of being and perception. God didn’t make one state of being or perception, evidenced by the different states that are observable. Therefore, having made these different states, it follows that they are in accordance with God’s intent. If not, then He is something like a blind watch maker.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

As I said before, it is horrifying to think that you taught CCD and this just about illustrates it.

Or don’t you know the Creed- “Begotten not Created, one in Being with the Father”?

And that creed says that we are adopted? I asked a simple question. Throwing insults about my having participated in your faith does not answer the question. Can you answer the question? How is it that we are adopted? I understand the difference in what you call begotten not made. Both are begotten and made are brought about by the same God. Where are we called adopted children? If God had to adopt us, who did He adopt us from?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[PJM]

=janszki;8040282]Hi Sufjon,
Generally to choose Christ, yes, in this world his way is the narrow gate…his cross and his suffering…which is usually unattractive (suffering hurts us and makes us look poor and alone), unfriendly (generally proclaiming Christ and his message results in the loss of friends and acquaintances) and cold (generally it is not supoposed to be a feel good emotion as most worldly pleasures are).

I am not in anyway implying how YOU Hindus, Buddhists and New-Agers tricked anyone as my post was not in a reply to any of your previous posts. Besides, Blavatsky’s doctrine is not 100% Buddhist or Hindu. It is a mixture of the two along with newer revelations (Satanic). Purely our label of faith, regardless of Christian, Buddhist or Hindu etc. doesn’t stop the devil from acting through us…hence the crimes and attrocities of the NAZIS, can easily be replicated by any group of people at any time in this world’s history.

God Bless

I’m responding to th OPQ…

The reason is that like Adam and Eve who had a PERFECT existence. Everything was Perfect, supplied and FREE. ONLY one thing was wanting: they themselves were not god.

Gen. 3:1-5 "Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” ** But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” **

New age and many other contemporary religions either by intent and design or by the consequences of their actions make themself “god.”

“Don’t judge me and I woun’t judge you” ; “Its ONLY wrong if I say its wrong” and “there are No absolutes” makes lifes choices pleasurable, easy and without sacrifice or stress.

This GATE is VERY WIDE and downhill for easy access and comfort.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Sufjon]

I’m responding to th OPQ…

T
New age and many other contemporary religions either by intent and design or by the consequences of their actions make themself “god.”

“Don’t judge me and I woun’t judge you” ; “Its ONLY wrong if I say its wrong” and “there are No absolutes” makes lifes choices pleasurable, easy and without sacrifice or stress.

This GATE is VERY WIDE and downhill for easy access and comfort.

God Bless,
Pat

Hi PJM - if this is true, then some of this would not be like Hinduism. There are many austerities in Hinduism and it is a most difficult path if followed correctly. As far as judging other people is concerned, I have tried not to make that my business. I have my hands full watching me.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Ahimsa]

Sufjon, how did you get to teach CCD?

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon, how did you get to teach CCD?

Hi Ahisma: It’s a long story, but I explained it in another post. I married a Catholic woman, and in accordance with her wishes I did so in her church. I received all the sacraments with the exception of Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick. I raised our two sons Catholic as it was my understanding I was required to do having married her in the Catholic Church. Basically, I did the whole thing for 19 years. It’s okay with Hinduism for me to try other things. In fact Ramakrishna recommended it. It did give me a different view of things though. Benedictus is all hung up about the poor souls I must have led into oblivion by teaching CCD, since I am a ferocious cannibalistic jaywalking Voodoo Hindu, thereby unable t o follow a lesson plan.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[PRmerger]

And that creed says that we are adopted? I asked a simple question. Throwing insults about my having participated in your faith does not answer the question. Can you answer the question? How is it that we are adopted?

We were adoptable when our sins were redeemed by the atoning death of Christ, and then we are adopted when we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Where are we called adopted children?

See this search of the Catechism and “adopted” for your answer, Sufjon.

If God had to adopt us, who did He adopt us from?

Why do we have to be adopted “from” anything?

Incidentally, the “adoption” is but an icon, a metaphor, for describing us as “new creations”, so questions as to “who was the lawyer in this adoption?” and “was there a guardian ad litem?” only speak to an inability to think in the abstract.

 

[Ahimsa]

Hi Ahisma: It’s a long story, but I explained it in another post. I married a Catholic woman, and in accordance with her wishes I did so in her church. I received all the sacraments with the exception of Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick. I raised our two sons Catholic as it was my understanding I was required to do having married her in the Catholic Church. Basically, I did the whole thing for 19 years. It’s okay with Hinduism for me to try other things. In fact Ramakrishna recommended it. It did give me a different view of things though. Benedictus is all hung up about the poor souls I must have led into oblivion by teaching CCD, since I am a ferocious cannibalistic jaywalking Voodoo Hindu, thereby unable t o follow a lesson plan.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Your friend
Sufjon

Ah, yes, I remember you saying you became a Catholic. Well, I guess if you’re Catholic, you can teach CCD then.

But you don’t seem to think of yourself as Catholic anymore, right?

 

[Sufjon]

Ah, yes, I remember you saying you became a Catholic. Well, I guess if you’re Catholic, you can teach CCD then.

But you don’t seem to think of yourself as Catholic anymore, right?

Nope. I faithfully carried out the promises I made to marry in the Church and raise the kids in it. Now that they are both in college, I have a lot of catching up to do. It was a good experience though.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

My experience in Catholicism was partaking in a subset of a larger whole. There is no problem with that in my faith. I could as easily join a Muslim temple for a few years and still be a Hindu. See the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. He did the same.

Since Catholicism is not a subset of the larger whole but the fullness of Truth, it is no wonder that you got it so wrong, It also means that because of that perception, you were essentially lying when you took your baptismal vows.

Again, what is being? I only asked for a definition. What is the being of something that exists before the existence of the material world?

Not material but definitely not just consciousness either.

Can you explain how this is so? Saying that they disagree over and over again doesn’t make them disagree. It only means that you are saying the same thing over and over again, does it not? Look, I am open to discussion, but rattling back the same answer without substantiated discussion is like talking to Robo-Call.

If you go back to the part of my post you replied to you will realize that you affirmed that we disagree. Therefore you must know what we disagree about.

Yes, the two concepts are very inter-mingled, and yes, everything can move up. Remember that a lot of possibilities are open when the playing field is broadened to many lifetimes.

So even totally evil persons move upward. More possibilities do not make the conclusions true.

Again, this is like talking to a wall. The Caste system is not a religious convention in Hinduism any more than capital punishment is part of Christianity. If you want to start a thread on the evils of one society vs another, then we can do that.

I did not say that the caste system is a religious convention. However it does feed the system.

 

[benedictus2]

Explain how this is so.

He is not one of many manifestations of God. He is the Only Incarnation of God. As a supposed past Catholic, you should know by now that that is what the Catholic Church teaches.

Sorry, but many of them have made reference to Christ.

Referencing someone does not necessarily mean intimate knowledge of this Someone.

So you are now Jewish?

How does believing that Christ is God and is the only Incarnation of God make me Jewish?

He was an expression of God to the Jewish people, yes.

Nope. He was the only ever Incarnation of God. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, He is not that either.

But the fact remains that the only way you will understand Christ is if you understand Judaism. You have been trying to divorce Christ from His roots so it is no wonder you have a flimsy grasp of Christianity in spite of the fact that you were baptised as an adult.

Yes, He is neither here nor there, yet both here and there.

The “neither here nor there” referred to your “not being worried about it” not to a he. You’re losing your grip on this.

Really, how so? It would be helpful if you would elaborate on some of your talking points rather than make proclamations. Remember, I have witnessed the proclivity in your faith to click one’s heels to proclamations, however one should not assume that everyone will react that way, rather, they may ask you for an explanation.

If you go back to the two previous posts it is very clear there.

Suppose you tell me? You are the one who keeps talking about the need to fear things like the devil and hell. That was simply my reply to your preoccupation with these things.

Can you tell me where I ever said we need to fear the wrath of God?

As for the devil, I said we need to be wary of his lies. All you need to do is open the newspapers to see how people have bought his iles hook, line and sinker.

…and perhaps those who are not guilty of anything.

No such person exists. Those who think so delude themselves. Everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus, you should really do some reading on this topic. There is a lot of ground to cover. You do not as a rule go backward in evolution,

No, you certainly do not go backwards in evolution, but the link you are trying to make between evolution and re-incarnation is tenuous at best.

What we are discussing is re-incarnation.

but you do accrue what is called samskara, which is habit and certain proclivities. These, as well as the weight of past actions follow you into the next life.

So if you came from being a dog, the habits and proclivities of a dog follow you into your life as a human?

You have to work them out, but **you will likely **

work them out as a human, because that is the level of consciousness you are now operating on.
So there is no certainty that you will work them out as a human, only a good possibility that you will do so?

You have in the course of countless lifetimes developed as a being with certain characteristics, and that being has evolved.

But the dog is not the same human so how can that be the same being? You are therefore saying that the material part is not part of your being?

As is the case with physical evolution, most species or creatures do not devolve. They can pick up new characteristics or even mutate, but it is not normal to devolve back to an earlier form of something. Your spiritual evolution follows your physical evolution and your physical evolution follows your spiritual evolution.

So if you are a particularly evil human being (the lowest of the low if you can imagine that) with the past life of an animal, what do you become in your next life?

As for the Caster system, which you keep bringing up, it was originally based on just being in your place for a given lifetime and it was not a product of family birth.

I was not equating it with family or birth but the fact remains that according to you, your existence now was determined by your karma in the past. So thereforefore to be one of the untouchables must be a result of your previous life.

That was a later development and not devised in the original system. As I have said before, this system is not accepted by Hindu saints or leaders at this point.

But still the question remains: for the caste system, are those who are higher up in the caste thought of as more evolved or better persons than those in the lowest of the lows? I have asked that several times and you kept evading that.

You also made a connection between being rich and poor in regards to caste. That is also wrong. There are many poor people of upper caste and rich people of lower caste. There are subtle nuances to other cultures that you really need to look into before you start making statements about them. When I say something about your faith I can do so with 20 years of experience practicing it. You seem to be dealing with mine using Wikipedia.

No, you did not have 20 years of experience with Catholicism. You had 20 years of experience of a mish-mash version of your own version of Christianity. Otherwise you will not get so many things wrong with regards it.

To walk in someone’s moccasin, one must take off one’s own. You did not take of your Hindu moccassins when you slipped on what you think is Christianity, which accounts for the errors in your understanding of Christ.

It is not better to be a good dog than a bad human. It serves God best when you are doing your best at whatever you are. You asked what the point of moving forward is if you are bad. That is because badness is a state of being and all states of beinga re in flux and constantly changing. No one is 100 percent consistently bad or good, and it is our belief that everyone eventually makes it.

I am glad you said that. If no one is consistently bad or good, then everyone has guilt.

The learning and growing process is long and there is no hurry because we don’t see the 2 minute clock on a Second Coming ticking away.

Christianity teaches that transformation has a time but we don’t know that so we try to live our lives conformed to Christ.

Why do it at all then? It’s about the experience.

So the whole point of life is just about experience. No wonder your view of everything is so relative

It is also very egotistical because it centres on the self. The self experiencing all this is what life is all about.

 

[afthomercy]

I just thought I’d interrupt to say that I find this discussion interesting (if a tad removed from the original topic).

For the benefit of those who are interested, I’ve stitched together all the posts so far (upto #668) into a pdf document (size 3.06 mb), so that it can be used offline. Unfortunately, in this version the post # are not reproduced, otherwise it would have been wonderful for cross referencing!

CAF attachment size restrictions prevent me from uploading it here, so until I can find a way around it, please send me a private message, and I’ll be happy to email it across to you!

 

[benedictus2]

This is simply because by reason, by faith or by choice you have chosen to see only one incarnation of God. I, by using the same processes, see them all.

No, you don’t see them all. You think you see them all.

In a previous post you asked why I keep insisting there is a disagreement, a difference. Can’t you even see the stark staring difference here.

Christian teachings says there is only One Incarnation of God. So you lied when you professed your baptismal vows because you do not believe this to be so.

Since there were incarnations of God long before Jesus and after as well,

Only according to Hindu belief. Not according to Christian belief, not according to the Bible. So there you are again, the rift between these two beliefs stares you in the face.

I see Him in the context of a broader continuum.

Sorry but that is pure hogwash as far as Christian doctrine is concerned. Again, you only come to that conclusion because you divorced Christ from His Jewish roots.

It doesn’t imply that your path is wrong or won’t get you there.

It means that your path (or at least your understanding of Jesus ) is wrong as far as Christianity is concerned.

It implies that it is one of many.

It means that it is the true path, but God is merciful and makes available the graces of Christ’s redemption even to those who do not know him.

Because you believe it is the only one is only your conviction.

And you believe it is one of many but that does not make it so. As far as this discussion is concerned that is just an opinion even as you would label my position also an opinion.

It is a conviction shared by many and rejected by many as well.

Again, truth is not a matter of votes. Truth is truth even if only a tiny minority perceive it.

I have not questioned the veracity of your faith. I have only explained how it fits in the context of mine.

And it doesn’t. You only think it fits because you have mangled Christianity and twisted it to suit you. When you leave it the way it is, then you will see that it does not fit at all.

My faith says that there are those walking the path to God and are able to see the others paths around them.

Christ is the Only Way. All those other paths are illumined (albeit mutely) by the same light that comes from Him.

There are those who walk it with blinders on.

That indeed.

I am the former and you are the latter.

Actually you are the one who walks with the blinders because you do not see Christ for who He truly is. Since you do not know who He truly is then you go around in your Hindu blinders. And the sad part about it is that you were given a chance to know the Truth but because you cling to this blinders then you fail to see the True light. But it is hoped that through your baptism, the Holy Spirit will continue His work in you so that someday you will truly apprehend the Truth.

Both get you to the same place and one is not better than the other.

Your dimly lighted path will cause many stumbles but it will get you there because if you honestly seek truth then you will find it. But you have to seek it. At the moment, I am not sure you are even trying because you are under the illusion that you have already found it.

They are different states of being and perception. God didn’t make one state of being or perception,

Only according to you and your belief. It does not mean that the statement is true. You only believe it to be true.

evidenced by the different states that are observable.

All the evidence points to is that there are different perceptions. It does not mean that all these different perceptions are true.

 

[benedictus2]

And that creed says that we are adopted? I asked a simple question. Throwing insults about my having participated in your faith does not answer the question.

Did you even read the part of your post that I quoted? Please go back and read it then you will know what I was addressing.

Can you answer the question? How is it that we are adopted?

Because there is only One Begotten Son. We on the other hand are creations of God. Since we are mere creatures, then we only become Sons through adoption, through becoming members of His Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.

I understand the difference in what you call begotten not made. Both are begotten and made are brought about by the same God.

But begotten is not the same as created. You said Jesus was created by God.

Where are we called adopted children? If God had to adopt us, who did He adopt us from?

The word adoption is used to signify that we are not begotten and of the same being with the Father.