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

[Ahimsa]

benedictus2:
And where’s there rest of your reply to the the core of my post.

You are trying to evade this but I am not letting you.

So here it is again, you said that re-incarnation started because we made separation from God…Another topic; another thread – which is not to say I will enter that thread, because my claim on this thread is quite simple: reincarnation and resurrection are not inherently incompatible.

 

[benedictus2]

All this is in chapter 43 of Autobiography of a Yogi. If you don’t want to believe that what Yogananda said, actually happened, you don’t have to. I’m not here to convince you. I wanted only to correct the Sister’s statement.

You are giving me an interpretation. If you have the book, why the reticence about writing the extract here?

 

[benedictus2]

Another topic; another thread – which is not to say I will enter that thread, because my claim on this thread is quite simple: reincarnation and resurrection are not inherently incompatible.

I knew it! You don’t really know either. That’s is why you have been trying evasion tactics for the last several posts.

What else needs to be said.

 

[Ahimsa]

You are giving me an interpretation. If you have the book, why the reticence about writing the extract here?

If you wish to know if the Sister is correct in her claims about Yogananda, Sri Yukteswar, and Jesus, then you now have the reference to go check up on her claim. If you don’t want to know, that’s fine too.

 

[benedictus2]

If you wish to know if the Sister is correct in her claims about Yogananda, Sri Yukteswar, and Jesus, then you now have the reference to go check up on her claim. If you don’t want to know, that’s fine too.

Another one where you do not have the answer! That’s all that needs to be said.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Conor 7,

Sounds like you have gotten a solid grip on the situation. Good for you! Sometimes people can become easily moved when they hear some thing for the first time and do not know just how to respond.

I think when it comes to New Age movement(s) you have a series of waves all consisting of individuals focused on themselves (“It’s all about me - deal with it” quote from Happy Bunny [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It’s_Happy_Bunny]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It’s_Happy_Bunny]) who looks cute, but is incredibly self-centered with an attitude.) encouraging others to jump into this ocean of self-involvement. Sounds great … and then many eventually realize that God has been totally excluded - and things just fall apart. Besides, the Devil is such a ‘killjoy’ and a real ‘downer’ that anyone who would speak about him is just out to kill the party - so, best to simply ignore the Devil. Better yet, deny his very existence! That should do it … at least in this life time.

Oh, I was intrigued by what you said about Catholic Priests knowing so much about demonic possession and how to help people in this area - but, obviously do not know enough when it comes to selecting the True Church. That is truly an interesting observation… just curious on what you based that on.

God bless

To be fair, they would seek out a Catholic Priest because these priests are knowledgeable and trained in such matters, where priests in other traditions aren’t necessarily trained. Don’t make the error of assuming (and I don’t know that you are) that because one would seek assistance from a Catholic Priest that they are also acknowledging that the Catholic Church is the “true” church.

I used listen to radio interviews with Father Malachi Martin on “perfect possession.” That stuff will curl your hair, or in my case, straighten it.

 

[boncrayon]

New age discounts the past traditions of religious culture. It grabs the simple minds and ends up some day on Oprah! Beware of “false prophets”! with feel good messages. Keep focus on the Word in Jesus Christ!

 

[tqualey]

Now, Benedictus2 … this is getting tedious…

Maybe you could gather these assorted evasions into groups of 5. At the way they are coming in … it won’t be long before I ask you to package them in groups of 10!!!

But, enough of my teasing … After reading these numerous posts, it really is painfully obvious that there are no answers from those who deny Christ.

God bless

Another one where you do not have the answer! That’s all that needs to be said.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Boncrayon,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this a truly educational and inspirational list.

Great post!

God bless

New age discounts the past traditions of religious culture. It grabs the simple minds and ends up some day on Oprah! Beware of “false prophets”! with feel good messages. Keep focus on the Word in Jesus Christ!

 

[stevekehl]

Another topic; another thread – which is not to say I will enter that thread, because my claim on this thread is quite simple: reincarnation and resurrection are not inherently incompatible.

They are totaly incompatible. Reincarnation means a soul is reborn countless times until they work off their bad deeds and become enlightened. Do you realize the Buddha said the last life before enlightenment would be a Budhhist monk (kinda sexist).
Paul wrote that after this life we will come face to face with God, whether that is good or not depends on the individual.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

2Corinthians 5:6 Being therefore always of good courage, and knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord 7 (for we walk by faith, not by sight); 8 we are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with the Lord.
In addition, resurrection involves the raising of a perfected body to be inhabited by the same soul, which has been with the Lord. Reincarnation involves a single soul inhabiting many different bodies extending back into an infinite past.

 

[Sufjon]

In this discussion, one term that is being used vigorously by both sides is “person”. Actually there is no agreement on what it means and in fact divides us seriously. GEddie, I would not agree when you equate the person to the mind (Post#724). If the mind is the essence of the person, then all humans are not created equal, as some have higher/more powerful minds than others, and some have defective minds (as in mentally impaired persons). Your explanation completely fails when it comes to the divine persons, because here we see 3-persons sharing one mind. Christian theology does not attempt to define what the essence of the person is, but rather leaves it as a mystery. Christian theology says that there are 3-kinds of persons, and that they stand in a hierarchy, with the Divine person(s) at the top, followed by the angelic person and lastly the human person. The latter two were created by the first, who themselves are uncreated. Such being the case, there is never any possibility of any of the 3-kinds of persons intermingling/uniting at any point of time from a Christian point of view.

Living in a Hindu country, what I have understood of Hindu belief is that there is a Supreme Being (SB) or Consciousness. Some particles of the SB got separated from the main SB by accident or design, and are now trying to reunite with it. For some reason, the only route for reunion is through incarnation as a human being and doing of good karma (“works alone”). The main SB keeps creating the whole spectrum of living beings right up from amoeba to humans at various points of time and pushes the individual separated particles of the SB into them to become the life force of those creatures. Those who are unlucky to get incarnated in non-human bodies have to put up with those particular bodies till they are rid of them through death, and have to await the next shot at incarnation. Those who having once gotten the golden chance of human incarnation but botched it up through bad karma, have to await their next chance for human birth, which might take millennia, and in the interim they might get pushed umpteen times into rebirth as a lower life form. When the eastern religions use the term “person”, they are referring to the diverse separated particles of the SB. By this logic, even plants and animals should be persons for them.

So the disagreement on who or what exactly is the person goes to the root of the east-west divide, and the indefatigueable apologists on both sides should sort it out before going any further. Christianity, because of its personification of good and evil (in God and the devil respectively), see the eastern religions as deliberately misguided by the devil, whereas the eastern religions see Christianity as merely harmlessly misguided. They think that Christians, out of fear of hell, will do good karma and thus attain moksha even without accepting the theology of it (unwittingly saved). That’s why they are tolerant of all religions that promote good karma, and feel insulted when the Christians trash their theology.

If I were denovo given the choice of the two alternative belief systems – one in which salvation depended on faith plus works and the other on works alone, I’d choose the former, because I don’t want to take the pain of doing leading a good life and then losing it all just for the sake of a wrong intellectual understanding of salvation!

Great post OutofthyMercy. You live in India?

Your friend
sufjon

 

[Conor7]

Oh, I was intrigued by what you said about Catholic Priests knowing so much about demonic possession and how to help people in this area - but, obviously do not know enough when it comes to selecting the True Church. That is truly an interesting observation… just curious on what you based that on.

Patient while I work through this synaptic misfire. What I’m saying is that I would gather that seminarians in mainline Christian denominations do not receive training on demonic possession if it’s discussed at all. It is perhaps at least discussed in Catholic seminaries, and of course those priests who are singled out for further training to become exorcists receive exhaustive training. (I’m not sure how all that works, but you catch my drift.)

Therefore, if Sally suspects she is possessed she is going to seek the help of a Catholic Priest because common knowledge dictates that Catholic Priests are trained on such matters. You wouldn’t go to a oncologist for a gynecological examination. Make sense?

So in my previous post, I was making the argument to the person who’s post I was replying to that specialization in one field, doesn’t necessarily mean one can make the leap in logic that that person is an expert in all fields.

So in short, because Catholic Priests perform a darn-good exorcism, one cannot logically state that this proves that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church.

 

[Ahimsa]

Christian theology says that there are 3-kinds of persons, and that they stand in a hierarchy, with the Divine person(s) at the top, followed by the angelic person and lastly the human person. The latter two were created by the first, who themselves are uncreated. Such being the case, there is never any possibility of any of the 3-kinds of persons intermingling/uniting at any point of time from a Christian point of view.

If there is no possibility of the Divine Person uniting with the human person, then that would seem to make divinization/theosis (“becoming one with God”, the ultimate goal of the Chrisitan life) impossible.

 

[benedictus2]

Patient while I work through this synaptic misfire. What I’m saying is that I would gather that seminarians in mainline Christian denominations do not receive training on demonic possession if it’s discussed at all. It is perhaps at least discussed in Catholic seminaries, and of course those priests who are singled out for further training to become exorcists receive exhaustive training. (I’m not sure how all that works, but you catch my drift.)

Therefore, if Sally suspects she is possessed she is going to seek the help of a Catholic Priest because common knowledge dictates that Catholic Priests are trained on such matters. You wouldn’t go to a oncologist for a gynecological examination. Make sense?

So in my previous post, I was making the argument to the person who’s post I was replying to that specialization in one field, doesn’t necessarily mean one can make the leap in logic that that person is an expert in all fields.

So in short, because Catholic Priests perform a darn-good exorcism, one cannot logically state that this proves that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church.

I read your earlier post and I do not see the need for this disclaimer. I don’t think anyone would have used that as a premise to come to that conclusion.

 

[Sufjon]

Interestingly, I just read this:

[SIGN1]
The typical Hindu exorcism practices consist of blowing cow-dung smoke, pressing rock salt between the fingers, burning pig excreta, beating or pulling the victim’s hair, reciting prayers or mantras, and offering gifts of candy and other presents to get the evil or troublesome spirits to depart from the persons. source[/SIGN1]
It seems Hinduism actually has exorcists.

How 'bout that, Sufjon?

I looked up that article. It’s by Rosemary Ellen Guiley, author of “The Encyclopaedia of Ghosts and Spirits.” Some other topics that she covers on her web page are:

Angels and Faeries
Demons & Demonology
Djinn
Dreams
EVP & ITC
Ghosts & Hauntings
Magic and Alchemy
Mysterious Creatures
Ouija
Psychic Skills
Shadow People
Spirituality
UFOs and ETs
Vampires & Werewolves
Witchcraft & Wicca

Impeccable credentials.

Shadow People sounds interesting. Anyway, I have never heard of such practices in modern times, although you might find them in a village somewhere, much the same as you might find some interesting Christian practices involving snakes, dancing and stills somewhere in the Ozarks. So it sounds like perhaps the most uneducated of Hindus, lacking in scriptural learning may have something in common with you, but your source is kind of shaky. There are no formal exorcists in Hinduism. Of course, there’s no formal structural organization called Hinduism anyway.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Conor7]

I read your earlier post and I do not see the need for this disclaimer. I don’t think anyone would have used that as a premise to come to that conclusion.

Are you trying to bait me into an argument? So far, I haven’t made any real statements of personal belief. I’ve played a little devil’s advocate and asked a few, what I thought were, critical questions.

I was specifically asked to clarify my logic, so I did to the best of my ability. Again, if you are trying to lure me into argument, look elsewhere. I’m a peaceful guy.

 

[benedictus2]

In this discussion, one term that is being used vigorously by both sides is “person”. Actually there is no agreement on what it means and in fact divides us seriously. GEddie, I would not agree when you equate the person to the mind (Post#724). If the mind is the essence of the person, then all humans are not created equal, as some have higher/more powerful minds than others, and some have defective minds (as in mentally impaired persons). Your explanation completely fails when it comes to the divine persons, because here we see 3-persons sharing one mind. Christian theology does not attempt to define what the essence of the person is, but rather leaves it as a mystery. Christian theology says that there are 3-kinds of persons, and that they stand in a hierarchy, with the Divine person(s) at the top, followed by the angelic person and lastly the human person. The latter two were created by the first, who themselves are uncreated. Such being the case, there is never any possibility of any of the 3-kinds of persons intermingling/uniting at any point of time from a Christian point of view.

Living in a Hindu country, what I have understood of Hindu belief is that there is a Supreme Being (SB) or Consciousness. Some particles of the SB got separated from the main SB by accident or design, and are now trying to reunite with it. For some reason, the only route for reunion is through incarnation as a human being and doing of good karma (“works alone”). The main SB keeps creating the whole spectrum of living beings right up from amoeba to humans at various points of time and pushes the individual separated particles of the SB into them to become the life force of those creatures. Those who are unlucky to get incarnated in non-human bodies have to put up with those particular bodies till they are rid of them through death, and have to await the next shot at incarnation. Those who having once gotten the golden chance of human incarnation but botched it up through bad karma, have to await their next chance for human birth, which might take millennia, and in the interim they might get pushed umpteen times into rebirth as a lower life form. When the eastern religions use the term “person”, they are referring to the diverse separated particles of the SB. By this logic, even plants and animals should be persons for them.

So the disagreement on who or what exactly is the person goes to the root of the east-west divide, and the indefatigueable apologists on both sides should sort it out before going any further. Christianity, because of its personification of good and evil (in God and the devil respectively), see the eastern religions as deliberately misguided by the devil, whereas the eastern religions see Christianity as merely harmlessly misguided. They think that Christians, out of fear of hell, will do good karma and thus attain moksha even without accepting the theology of it (unwittingly saved). That’s why they are tolerant of all religions that promote good karma, and feel insulted when the Christians trash their theology.

If I were denovo given the choice of the two alternative belief systems – one in which salvation depended on faith plus works and the other on works alone, I’d choose the former, because I don’t want to take the pain of doing leading a good life and then losing it all just for the sake of a wrong intellectual understanding of salvation!

The question is simple.

Which understanding of the person is correct?

And you are right, the mind is not the essence of the person. The soul is.

The explanation of how re-incarnation started is really strange to say the least. A Supreme Being is unable to keep all of himself intact such that parts of him go wandering in time and space.

Another question is if the Supreme Being is consciousness how can he possibly have particles?

Sufjon gave your post the thumbs up so this must line up with correct Hindu theology. As presented, it is rather strange as it sounds like a self- combusting deity.

 

[benedictus2]

Are you trying to bait me into an argument? So far, I haven’t made any real statements of personal belief. I’ve played a little devil’s advocate and asked a few, what I thought were, critical questions.

I was specifically asked to clarify my logic, so I did to the best of my ability. Again, if you are trying to lure me into argument, look elsewhere. I’m a peaceful guy.

Bait you? I am making an observation. Your original post - with the disclaimer - was already on the defensive when there is no need to be as such inference cannot proceed from what you have written.

There’s no need to be on the defensive.

 

[Conor7]

I looked up that article. It’s by Rosemary Ellen Guiley, author of “The Encyclopaedia of Ghosts and Spirits.”

So it sounds like perhaps the most uneducated of Hindus, lacking in scriptural learning may have something in common with you, but your source is kind of shaky.
Sufjon

For the record, Sufjon is correct. Rosemary Ellen Guiley is a New Age author and a paranormal researcher.

 

[benedictus2]

If there is no possibility of the Divine Person uniting with the human person, then that would seem to make divinization/theosis (“becoming one with God”, the ultimate goal of the Chrisitan life) impossible.

Becoming one with God does not mean becoming the same being as God.

We are not subsumed into God’s being in theosis. We become Godlike, not God.

I think the best way to explain this is the analogy of marriage where two become one.