A
Ahimsa
Guest
No more alien than Neo-Platonic philosophy.
Why are the New Age movement and other exotic ideas so attractive?
- Status
A
Ahimsa
Guest
The reason a person re-incarnates in the first place, is because that person has created separation between himself and God.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Of course not. That’s the very purpose of Judaism.
G
GEddie
Guest
They might say that, only because they have lost the meaning of the resurrection. Resurrection, in Latin, means “a rising again.” It is a physical term. Only what has fallen down can resurrect. Spirits do not resurrect because they cannot physically fall down (in death). Nor can moral characters. Resurrection is about living human beings who have become victims of death; it is about BODIES.
Sorry that doesn’t work. Since reincarnation could encompass both genders, various physical deformities, and even one or more animals; would you really expect the pneumatikon soma to represent such a hideous melange?
ICXC NIKA
A
Ahimsa
Guest
There was a time when Greek philosophy was not part of Christian tradition. The point is that Christianity did not adopt Greek philosophy whole-sale (that would lead to contradictions); the point is that Christianity was able to adopt certain Greek ideas, in order to better understand itself.
I posit that a similar adoption can occur with Hindu and Buddhist ideas – which is not a radical idea. However, the adoption of a form of reincarnation into Christianity, well, that may be more radical, but it can be done, and has been done, and is being done, by many Christians. It’s already been done by Judaism, so there is no inherent reincarnation-resurrection incompatibility, if you do it right.
J
jsaldar
Guest
I would strongly recommend that you read An Exorcists Tell His Story by Father Gabriele Amorth.
He is the Vaticans head Exorcist and mentions things like these lead to demonic possesion, and what you have stated about her premonitions, visions, etc… could be demonic possesion caused by her activities. You should look for a Catholic exorcist for consul.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Resurrection is not limited to ‘physical’ things. Resurrection simply means a ‘rising again’, and can refer to matter, thoughts, feelings, spirit, etc.
The human body is the culmination of billions of years of evolution, through single-celled creatures, fish, reptiles, primates – all that history can be found in the human body, and yet the human body looks pretty good, and not a “hideous melange”. Surely, the process of reincarnation would not need to culminate in a resurrected, “hideous melange” body.
G
GEddie
Guest
Not really. The NT scriptures were written in Greek, and the literate classes in the Middle East were conversant with the classical philosophy. It was inevitable that some of the things they had in common (like the eternal soul) would get run together.
There is no such commonality or common language between the NT and Oriental religions; therefore these are more alien.
ICXC NIKA
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I made no claims about a common language between the NT and India. What I claimed was that Greek philosophy was no more ‘alien’ to the NT than was Indian philosophy, in terms of philosophical ideas.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Thanks Erethorn. Whatever you decide on all that, the very best to you.
Your friend
Sufjon
S
Sufjon
Guest
P
perro_sarnoso
Guest
The attraction of new age and other exotic movements and ideologies is such because it is designed that way by Lucifer and the influence of the demons who seduce and ensnare us by appealing to our hedonistic passions. They play and prey on our demand for instant gratification and the oppotunity of doing things “our way” as opposed to the Way of the Cross.
The Way of the Cross is [bogus] to someone who is living an “enlightened life” of freedom and liberty that denies nothing to the body’s demands for pleasure - whether that be for the body or for the mind.
Knowledge is power and power is control. The Way of the Cross is surrender to the Good News of Jesus Christ and the Sound Doctrine of scripture.
E
Erethorn
Guest
I don’t understand why so many people believe all new age stuff to be about hedonism and instant gratification.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I listened to the former Anglican Sister Mary’s interview (number 127), and I recognized the section of Yogananda’s biography that she was referring to. The context is this: Yogananda’s Guru, Sri Yukteswar, had passed into the Infinite (‘died’) on 9 March 1936, and his body was buried. (Not all Hindus are cremated.) A few months later, on 19 June 1936, the physical, resurrected body of Sri Yukteswar appeared to Yogananda while Yogananda was in Bombay.
Yukteswar had become one with God, and since he had become one with God, Yukteswar could have, potentially, fully entered into God’s Being, never having to take up a body ever again. However, God gave Yukteswar a new job, to give help to those beings in the spiritual/astral worlds.
(In Hinduism, there are three groups of realms or worlds: the physical; the spiritual/astral; and the causal; with each one finer, subtler, and more blissful than the one before it. And in order to live in those realms, one has to have a physical, spiritual/astral, or causal body, respectively. Yukteswar, since he was going to the spiritual/astral world, had to assume a spiritual/astral body, which was “an exact counterpart of the last physical form”. That is, Yukteswar’s spiritual/astral body looked just like his last physical body, except that it consisted of spiritual/astral substance.)
Since Yukteswar had become one with God, he could leave the spiritual/astral world for a time, and materialize a physical body, which looked just like his pre-death physical body, in the presence of Yogananda, and Yogananda could touch and feel and smell this resurrected body just as he had in times past, before his Guru died. (Then, after a few hours, Yukteswar de-materialized his physical body, and returned to the spiritual/astral world.)
Yukteswar told Yogananda that one who is one with God, “a free soul”, could choose to return to any of the three realms and give help to the beings in those realms. A free soul could choose to take birth in the physical world, for the sole purpose of helping people; or he could take birth in the spiritual/astral world, or the caual world. Yukteswar said that God wanted him to take birth in the spiritual/astral world and do some work there. Yukteswar also said that other free souls, like Jesus, chose to return to earth, and take a physical body and do work in the physical realm:
“When a soul finally gets out of the three jars of bodily delusions,” Master continued, "it becomes one with the Infinite without any loss of individuality. Christ had won this final freedom even before he was born as Jesus…A master who achieves this final freedom may elect to return to earth as a prophet to bring other human beings back to God, or like myself he may choose to reside in the astral cosmos. There a savior assumes some of the burden of the inhabitants’ karma and thus helps them to terminate their cycle of reincarnation.
I think it’s likely that the Sister misunderstood what Yogananda was trying to say regarding Sri Yukteswar’s statement on Jesus. It’s true that Sri Yukteswar said that Jesus was one with God, fully enlightened, and that Jesus relinquished his free condition in order to take birth in this physical realm, but it’s not true that Sri Yukteswar said that Jesus was the only fully enlightened person to take birth in the physical realm; in fact, Sri Yukteswar clearly says otherwise.
Notice, also, that Yogananda’s experience of Yukteswar’s resurrected body, means that resurrection and reincarnation, at least for Yogananda, are not inherently incompatible.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Answer to Thread Question:
Because none of those ‘movements’ require decisive responsibility for our actions and the consequences of those actions, and because the definitions of immorality are vague, changing, and subjective. There is nothing more attractive than rationalizing or explaining away our personal responsibility. It’s the funnest thing ever, as self-deceptive as it is: it is attractive, comforting, and validating.
That holds for single-school movements, for combined varieties of them followed, and for the illegitimate syncretism which pretends to combine Catholic Christianity with one or more such ‘movements.’ It’s an illegitimate and unauthentic combination which has no validity within the Roman Catholic Church. The Church has spoken on this many times, including recently, including from the lips of our current Pope. There is no excuse for not understanding the clear demarcation, and no excuse for continuing to label onself as a hyphenated Catholic with an individualistic definition of that "Catholicism.’ It’s not accurate, it’s not truthful, and it’s also not charming.
Because none of those ‘movements’ require decisive responsibility for our actions and the consequences of those actions, and because the definitions of immorality are vague, changing, and subjective. There is nothing more attractive than rationalizing or explaining away our personal responsibility. It’s the funnest thing ever, as self-deceptive as it is: it is attractive, comforting, and validating.
That holds for single-school movements, for combined varieties of them followed, and for the illegitimate syncretism which pretends to combine Catholic Christianity with one or more such ‘movements.’ It’s an illegitimate and unauthentic combination which has no validity within the Roman Catholic Church. The Church has spoken on this many times, including recently, including from the lips of our current Pope. There is no excuse for not understanding the clear demarcation, and no excuse for continuing to label onself as a hyphenated Catholic with an individualistic definition of that "Catholicism.’ It’s not accurate, it’s not truthful, and it’s also not charming.
S
Sufjon
Guest
S
Sufjon
Guest
From what I have seen, most ideas that people on this thread call “new age” have their roots in some religion or another, and perhaps a mixture of a number of them. Tell me Elizabeth if you would, which of these religions lack morals, responsibility and consequences? Could you give a lost of the world’s religions that fall short of your expectations on morality and accountability and explain why you think this is the case?
I
So, if these religions are different from yours on the basis of them being attractive, comforting and validating, could you share what it is you feel is unattractive, uncomforting, and unvalidating about your religion? Or is your religion attractive, comforting and validating and therefore these are not distinctions between your religion and these others?
Your friend,
Sufjon
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
Maybe because its easier to make blanket statements about a diverse movement?
In all seriousness, I think there’s a definite tendency to see New Age as a “fast food” form of spirituality, which is where the instant gratification comes in. I’ve also found that it’s very consumer-oriented (some popular New Age teachers charge thousands for their seminars) and there’s almost this attitude of: “Read one book and presto! You’re a shaman!” There’s actually a joke about it: “What’s the difference between a Wiccan and a New Ager? A decimal point.” Since Wiccans usually don’t charge for the same things a New Ager will, or at least, they won’t charge as much.
C
Conor7
Guest
Personal religious ideologies aside (whether New Age thought is evil or not,) do you think Catholics are more apt to be interested in New Age thought because Catholicism itself is highly mystical?
What I mean is, Protestants pay little attention to Marian apparitions, weeping statues, stigmata, and the like, but there is a place for the mystical in Catholicism.
Additionally, what do you make of some “metaphysical” traditions drawing on Catholic ideas and traditions? For instance, Voodoo and Santeria rely heavily on the pantheon of Catholic saints.
Even a traditional Catholic (right or wrongly) might bury a statue of St. Joseph upside down and facing the house in order to sell said house? Is that a form of “magic?”
I’m curious what others have to say regarding this.
What I mean is, Protestants pay little attention to Marian apparitions, weeping statues, stigmata, and the like, but there is a place for the mystical in Catholicism.
Additionally, what do you make of some “metaphysical” traditions drawing on Catholic ideas and traditions? For instance, Voodoo and Santeria rely heavily on the pantheon of Catholic saints.
Even a traditional Catholic (right or wrongly) might bury a statue of St. Joseph upside down and facing the house in order to sell said house? Is that a form of “magic?”
I’m curious what others have to say regarding this.
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
I think it varies from individual to individual, different people have different reasons for embracing the New Age movement.
Well, the validity of such things (except for approved Marian apparitions) is hotly debated by Catholics themselves! But I see your point. In the Pagan community, you find anecdotes from former Protestants about how they felt there was a lack of such things in their spiritual lives, which led them to investigate Paganism. I think there will always be people who find that their birth religions don’t adequately fulfill their needs in some way.
Well, Vodou and Santeria were products of the slave trade and forced conversions, so if the slaves wanted to preserve their traditional religions, the best way to do it was to take an acceptable element of their new faith (in this case, the saints) and layer it over their older traditions. There’s even a joke in Haiti: “Haitians are 50% Catholic, 50% Protestant, and 100% Vodou followers.”
It’s my understanding that if you ask a vodouissant, they will identify as Catholic, but the church takes issue with that, obviously.
I think that’s part of why the practice is so objectionable, actually. There’s a story I recall from my Medieval Studies classes where a peasant woman thought that “planting” the Eucharist in her garden would help her plants grow, so it’s by no means a new development. Again, though, the church strongly disapproves of such things…
- Status