Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Interesting.

  I Cor 1:23-24

  "...but we preach Christ crucified:  a stumbling block to Jews
   and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called,
   both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom
   of God."

Is Christ crucified foolishness to Hindus?  Or is the Christianity
that is preached (reconciled with Hinduism) not "Christ crucified"?
Or do these two meet?

Collis

    RE 1 & Basenote
    
    I've studied into this a little.  I'd like to respond in my own
    perception to the specific question raised by Collis in #1...correct me
    if I'm wrong, expand on it if that's more appropriate.
    
    I believe according to the Hindu faith, "They've never crucified a
    Saviour, but have always received him and afforded him all the honor
    due a man of God".  In contrast, we find that this emphasizes the
    relativity of Christian, to a specific group our type of people,
    specifically the Gentiles and Jews, who either received not the Saviour
    or knew not the Saviour.  
    
    Christianity, asks that we be born again, and that be done by
    "confessing Jesus as our Saviour", and from there we enter in as babes
    in the knowledge of God and progress from there.  
    
    With the Hindu, it's somewhat different.  They've always received the
    saviour and the follow his words and they confess him.  They don't need
    the doctrine of the crucified saviour to become saint/children of God. 
    A Christian might say this is not true, but in the eyes of God I don't
    think so.  Why would God ask the Hindu, who receives the sent Saviour
    and never knew the disobedience and sense of rejection of the Christ
    that the Jews and Gentiles did, to suffer as and/or follow a course of
    redemption from such conduct when they haven't been guilty of it?  Is
    it like God to "bear false witness"?
    
    In other words, "Christ crucified" is neither a stumblingblock or
    foolishness to the Hindu, it is alien to them.  Why would you teach
    such a thing to a people who never would have done it, nor has done it? 
    This is, possibly, why Paul and the disciples were asked not to go to
    Asia...though they did, but the disciples made many errors in
    understanding the meaning of God's word.
    
    I'm explaining this for the benefit of the Christian.  A Hindu, may
    wish to explain it from a different point of view.
    
    Playtoe

	Having studied Raja Yoga, read the Bhagavad Gita, and possessing
a loose familiarity with Vedanta, I would say that Christianity shares
some concepts in common with the ancient paradigms which arose out of India:

	o Recognition of the sacred worth of human life (at least, in theory).

	o Affirmation of the holiness of Creation.

	o Endorsement of such virtues as integrity, humility, and service
          to others.

	o Belief that the Divine is both imminent and transcendent.

Peace,
Richard

    Those who have received personal mail from me may have noticed my mail
    personal name, which I have not changed for a long time (unlike my notes
    personal names, which change often).  It comes from a Pendle Hill
    pamphlet, "To Meet at the Source: Hindus & Quakers", by Martha Dart. 
    The pamphlet expresses a very favorable comparison between Hinduism and
    Quakerism.    One resemblance between the two faiths was found in the
    value placed on silence:

        "Out of the silence will come the vision and the voice."  When
        Gurdial Mallik was Resident Fellow at Pendle Hill in 1962-63, he
        told of hearing a camel driver in India, singing this refrain in
        his own language as he rode through the desert in the moonlight. 
        What words could better express what silence means to Friends?  It
        is in the silence that the Divine Spirit can best come to us and
        find us receptive.

    Although there are obviously many differences between Quakerism and
    Hinduism, other areas of resemblance were cited as well.  The pamphlet
    is a very respectful discussion of Hinduism.
    
    -- Mike

    re: .2
    
    That is an interesting perspective which implies that these people 
    either 1) have never sinned, or 2) are such innocents as never to
    have reached the age of accountability.
    
    In one of the Gospels, Jesus tells the Pharaises that although they
    THINK they know God the Father, they do not because if they knew
    the Father then they would know and accept the Son as being from the
    Father. Jesus fully reveals God the Father whom none have seen. 
    
    The Hindu people, in effect, say they know the Father. Why, then, do
    they discount the Son?  Jesus was crowned by thorns and mocked by
    the guards; they did not recognize that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. 
    Is not the Hindu who discounts Jesus not only blind, but also mocking
    Him in a more subtle way? Is this mockery not part of Christ's Passion
    which culminates in the act of crucification?
    
    Instead of Christ, the Hindus find other gods fit for their worship. 
    I would say they have crucified their Saviour!
    
    There is no doubt that passages from the Hindu holy books and their
    religious tradition match Christianity in some respects, but as a 
    full 'Hindu gospel' there is no match. Therefore, Hinduism cannot
    be considered Christianity in a different cultural garment.
    
    Of course this same argument is applicable to every non-Christian
    religion which claims to know God the Father. The Christian response
    to this is to be steadfast as a loving witness to only Christ crucified
    (re .1) rather than to be derailed by an 'all religions are equal'
    theology. 
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
     
    
     

    
    Oh good.  This is going to be fun!
    
    My time is going to be limited, however I'll try to address all points
    as they arise.
    
    Cindy

         
    Re.5
    
    Mary,
    
    >discount the Son?
    
    Why do you believe that Hindus discount the Son?
    
    Cindy

    RE: 5
    
    I do not imply that they have never sinned, but they have not sinned
    according to the sins of the Jews and Gentiles, to whom Christ was
    sent.
    
    The Pharisees are not Hindu's, and such statements do not apply to
    them.  The Hindu says they know the Father, no problem, so should all
    Christians.  The Hindu, however, knows many Saviour's, and DO according
    to what that Saviour teaches.  They do not exalt the man, but give the
    glory to God.  I remember reading where a British man was introducing
    the bible to India and tried to imply that the British were a holy
    people for having brought the message...which the Indians denied him,
    though they believed the teachings, they told the Brit, how could you
    be holy, "You eat meat".
    
    We discussed this somewhat before.  I mentioned that Jesus asked his
    disciples to stay away from Asia...to which someone replied "Paul did
    go into Asia"...however, II Timothy 1:15 says, "Asia turned away from
    me"...he therefore returned to Rome and places in Europe.  
    
    What becomes the issue is the "Missionary" work of Europeans, yet they
    fail to control there own lives accordingly, speaking historically.  I
    mean, how can they go to India, Africa, America, etc, socalled
    spreading the gospel and then end up killing them and imperialising
    their land and lives...this is no godly example.  What about all the
    slavery, the Church sanctioned domination of men?  
    
    I think you've overlooked the fact that God has IN FACT sent messengers
    to every people, as his word says...and that according to their
    specific needs.  Jesus was sent to whom he was sent because of their
    specific needs.  I don't think you can go around treating every one
    like "Christ Crucifiers" if they've never known this conduct.  I mean
    who's gonna be stupid enough to admit to guilt of crimes they haven't
    committed, nor their ancestors...remove the mote from thine own eye and
    then thou shalt see clearly to remove that of they brother.
    
    Please don't take offend, I'm talking of history, I'm talking of
    salvation.  India, and whomever, may very well have a unique
    relationship with the father...Jesus said, I have other sheep not of
    this flock....let the Shepard handle the flock...sheep don't go around
    telling other sheep what to do!
    
    Playtoe

>  The Hindu, however, knows many Saviour's, and DO according
>    to what that Saviour teaches. 

	I have found no indication in the Bible that there are other
	Saviours. There are of course indications that there is only 
	one. John 14:6 "...no man cometh to the Father, but by me."

> I mentioned that Jesus asked his
>    disciples to stay away from Asia.

	Where in the Bible did Jesus say this? It seems in direct conflict
	with Mark 16:15 where Jesus says "Go ye into all the world, and
	preach the gospel to every creature."

	There may be similarities between Christian and Hindu beliefs but
	they are not reconciled without knowing Jesus as Savior. Can not be.

			Alfred

    RE: 9
    
    Let me cushion some of my thoughts, as some may feel that because I'm
    black, I'm grinding my axe!  I have truly overcome the burden of
    oppresion through Christ...and that is the primary reason that I can
    now reflect upon those situations/events/conditions without the
    emotional sensitivity that most of us bring to bear upon the
    discussion of history and race.
    
    Inspite of the bad taste race issues place upon the palate, it's not
    God's doing, but man's doing...we have to face that reality and if
    possible clear it up.  
    
    If you study Hinduism, and other religious teachings from India/Tibet,
    you indeed find an absence of the doctrine of a "Crucified Christ".  Is
    it, therefore, to say that they know not the living God?  Jesus himself
    said, "If you don't believe in me, at least believe in my WORKS", is it
    then NECESSSARY, that we judge a people by whether or not the believe
    in the doctrine of Christ Crucified?  Shouldn't we look at a people in
    terms of how closely they exact the principles of Christ in their
    lives?  
    
    Again, I say, and this is just a parable, If God comes to a dog, to
    give it a word of life, will God say to the dog, "In order for you to
    receive this doctrine you've got to first believe you are a horse"? 
    Because the word I've got here is suitable to saving horses....I don't
    think so.  
    
    The bible clearly tells from beginning to end of a limited region of
    people, namely those in the Middle-East on westward into Europe.  It
    tells of their dealings with God, how they received him.  It speaks of
    Christ as being sent to them.  It goes no further than that.  Is it
    proper to interpret "the whole world" as being ALL people on earth?  I
    think not, for there are many verses which help us to realize that
    "world" relates to the "world of the Jews and Gentile nations."
    
    That Hindu "Holy Science"  can be compared to Biblical passages, and
    Hindu's find agreement with Christianity, implies the ONE GOD concept. 
    

    
    Re.10  
    
    I'm not really sure about the absense of a Crucified Christ, Playtoe.
    
    My guru's guru, Swami Kripalvanandji wrote a fascinating book about
    Christ's crucifixion, and was known to shed tears during the times
    when he was fully realizing just what Christ went through and did 
    for us.
    
    As for Christ saving us from sins, perhaps someone can help out here,
    however from my understanding, great yogic masters (of which Christ was
    one) can take on the karma of those under their protection, and by
    dying on the Cross, that is indeed what Christ did - took away the sins
    of the world.
    
    So there is similarity.
    
    Cindy

>    If you study Hinduism, and other religious teachings from India/Tibet,
>    you indeed find an absence of the doctrine of a "Crucified Christ".  Is
>    it, therefore, to say that they know not the living God?  

    Yes, obviously. 

>Jesus himself
>    said, "If you don't believe in me, at least believe in my WORKS",

    Where did Jesus say that?

> Is it
>    proper to interpret "the whole world" as being ALL people on earth?  

    It is totally improper and irresponsible *not* to interpret  "the 
    whole world" as being ALL people on earth.

>    think not, for there are many verses which help us to realize that
>    "world" relates to the "world of the Jews and Gentile nations."

    Point me to a few of them please. I have never ever heard anyone
    before suggest that "the whole world" excluded anyone.

re:11
    Cindy
    
>    As for Christ saving us from sins, perhaps someone can help out here,
>    however from my understanding, great yogic masters (of which Christ was
>    one) can take on the karma of those under their protection, and by
>    dying on the Cross, that is indeed what Christ did - took away the sins
>    of the world.
    
    
    Cindy, are you saying that yogic masters (human beings) are capable of 
    giving salvation to others ?

    In Christian beliefs, only God through Jesus
    Christ, is capable of saving anyone. Any other
    belief is heresy.

    Peace
    Jim

    Re: 11
    
 >   I'm not really sure about the absense of a Crucified Christ, Playtoe.
 
    I mean it is not a Christ whom the people of India/Hindustan themselves
    have crucified.  I can relate to Swami Kripalvanandji's empathy,
    perhaps, much like "Jesus wept."
    
    In effect I would say your concept of "take on the karm of those under
    their protection" is very much what Christ does for Christians.
    
    Playtoe

    
    Re 12
    
    Do you study the bible or just contend with those who do?  
    
    Where's the brotherly love?  Jesus has not given us doctrine by which
    we may exalt ourselves over the rest of men, but he died for sinners,
    those who knew him or his father not, that they might join the common
    brotherhood...
    
    Playtoe

    
    Re.13
    
    Jim,
    
    No, yogic masters don't go around saving anyone.  In the way that you
    are referring to 'being saved/salvation', they (and I) don't subscribe 
    concept anyway.
    
    Yogic masters can, and do, choose to take on the karma of a disciple or 
    many disciples, and work it out through their own body so that the 
    disciple does not have to face it later in life (their current or other 
    lives).  In this way, the master is 'saving' the disciple the trouble 
    and pain from having to go through it.  From what I understand, Christ
    took this to an extreme by being crucified.  It is important to note
    that while you may not agree with the 'saving' terminology, the highest
    form of Love is present whenever a master chooses to do this for a
    disciple in whatever degree.  At least on this we might be able to agree.  
    
    Yogananda has an amusing story about being saved in his book on 
    Self-realization - I'll bring it in and post it here.
    
    Cindy
                               

    
    Re.14
    
    Playtoe,
    
    Yes - it appears we agree.
    
    Cindy

>               <<< Note 398.15 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST "PLAYTOE" >>>
>              -< You find the answers for yourself...or ask God >-
>
    I have found many answers. The answers that God has given me
    differ from what you have stated. It seems reasonable to ask
    for help to find things that God has not shown me in my own
    studies. I have shown you where I believe God has shown me
    these answers that you may study them. I trust you will return
    the favor that we may reach understanding.

>    Re 12
>    
>    Do you study the bible or just contend with those who do?  

    Both. :-) It is *because* I study the Bible that I seek pointers.
    This will allow me to study things in context. And from there with
    prayer find understanding. Would you deny me your help? Where is
    the love in that?

>    Where's the brotherly love?  Jesus has not given us doctrine by which
>    we may exalt ourselves over the rest of men, but he died for sinners,

    Indeed I exalt not. There is nothing special or better about me than
    anyone else. It is, of course, because of love that I wish others to
    know the way (the only way) to the Father. All are sinners. Believing
    alone does not change that.

>    those who knew him or his father not, that they might join the common
>    brotherhood...

    All may join the brotherhood with the Father though the Son. Only
    hate withholds the knowledge of the Son. There is no more love in
    saying that a Hindu needs not the Son than in saying a starving man
    needs not food. There is no evidence in the Bible or in God's messages
    to me that I can find to support the idea that there are other paths.

    			Alfred

    
    RE: .16 Cindy
    
    
    >Yogic masters can, and do, choose to take on the karma of a disciple or 
    >many disciples, and work it out through their own body so that the 
    >disciple does not have to face it later in life (their current or other 
    >lives).  In this way, the master is 'saving' the disciple the trouble 
    >and pain from having to go through it.  
    
    Cindy, I find this a rather odd concept.  What happens to the disciples
    taking responsibility?  How can someone else integrate another person's
    'lost will' (in other terminology).  To me, it won't be in right place
    if the yogic master does this.
    
    Carole

    Hi Carole ;')
    
    I would tend to agree with Carole, it does appear that the disciple
    would not learn whatever lesson he/she needs to learn by someone else
    saving them.  The master might be a good model, but I believe the
    disciple needs to experience for himself if it is his/her 'karma'.
    
    Ro
    

    Re: 18
    
    Thank you for your kind reply.  I didn't know where you were coming
    from on that last reply, so many questions, it seemed more like you had
    your mind made up already...and would only contend more if I should
    present my supports.  But if you are really interested in why I say
    these things, in order that you MIGHT grow (if my supports are valid),
    then indeed I shall answer you to the best of my ability...God bless.
    
    Playtoe

    re 18  cont'd
    
>    All may join the brotherhood with the Father though the Son. Only
>    hate withholds the knowledge of the Son. There is no more love in
>    saying that a Hindu needs not the Son than in saying a starving man
>    needs not food. There is no evidence in the Bible or in God's messages
>    to me that I can find to support the idea that there are other paths.
    
    I believe this is a misunderstanding of what I am saying.  True, "all
    may join the brotherhood with the Father through the Son", ok.  But the
    "knowledge of the Son", is not merely knowledge of the history of the
    Son, but involves his actual commands and principles and standard that
    he taught to us.  According to Bible history, we see that the message
    from God came first by is own voice (Adam in the Garden), then through
    various types of men (kings and prophets), then his only begotten son,
    then in written form.  And apparently the only form which God has been
    able keep in circulation among men is the written form.  Men killed the
    prophets and killed his Son, they burned books too, but God somehow
    always managed to hide a few away to be revealed again at some more
    acceptable time (like Nag Hammadi).  Now, had men believed and
    reverenced God's word through the prophets, Christ would not have had
    to come to save them.  But "God so loved the world that he gave his
    only begotten son", after all else had failed.  Christ crucified was an
    act of rebellion against God by the wicked.  Jesus didn't WANT to be
    crucified, "not MY will but THY will be done", "If I could remove this
    cup from me"...Jesus was always talking about how sad a case man was
    for requiring his blodd for their salvation...but understand that this
    was JUST in Judea!  And not all nations to whom the message was sent,
    for God has sent his message to ALL nations, have rejected that
    message, and killed the messengers...I will present the scriptural
    supports for all that I say.
    
    The point I'm making is that I don't advocate MANY paths, it's all just
    ONE path, but some have a harder time getting on the path than others,
    you must agree with that.  Surely you can see the injustice of treating
    everyone like hardheads, when some clearly aren't resisting at all. 
    And also the necessity of using different methods to get the varieties
    of people on the path...and that's all I'm eluding too...I think the
    first paragraph of this topic-basenote speaks to the reasons for the
    Hindu Master coming to America was to show the capatibility of Hindu
    and Christian religious beliefs, that the two can be ONE...an act of
    love on his part wouldn't you say?
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 19
    
    I have many contend with Christianity saying "How can another man die
    for our sins?"  Questioning the idea of Jesus dieing for our sins,
    bearing our sins and infirmities...they wonder how?  If you can explain
    that then you have the answer to the yogic masters ability as
    well...IMO.
    
    I think it would be good, however, to know the process the disciple
    must go through in order to attain this sort of redemption.  For
    instance, in Christianity, Christians must repent and believe in Jesus. 
    Does the disciple in yogic practices have any conscious affirmations to
    make or realizations to achieve or implements of faith to apply in
    order to have his karma absorbed by the master?...I want to learn
    something new too!
    
    Playtoe

    re 20
    
    So Jesus should have left the thief on the cross, to work out his
    karma?  God should let all us sinners go to hell til we learn better? 
    What about repentance, what if we're really, sincerely sorry, what
    about forgivenes?  
    
    So when a likeness is shown between Hinduism and Christianity, you ask
    that they stop doing that...why?
    
    Don't take this personally, it's just my impression of the statement,
    and I only say this to inspire second thoughts and not to offend.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 0
    
    As a side note.  Not only do I read about a different religion I go out
    and visit with the particular group and ask questions of them to gain
    a better understanding...I've experienced some great things for
    fellowshipping like that, for simply showing the interest!
    
    I once had a buddhist housemate, a female.  She had her chant box, and
    chanted regularly, I read her books and visited her temple and attended
    several group meetings, I learned alot.  But my final and most realized
    conclusion was this.  If Christians prayed as much as Buddhist chanted,
    I wonder you much more Christianity would work in our lives?  I mean
    the average Christian doesn't prayer half as much as a Buddhist.  I'm
    speaking of the length of time a Buddhist spends at any ritual sitting
    of prayer, as opposed to time a Christian might spend saying their
    evening prayer.   I from that point determined to spend more time each
    time I prayer, and not be in such a rush or cut it short...I stayed
    Christian and she remained Buddhist...I don't seek to change anybody
    and appreciate any one's faith if it is centered around loving one
    another.
    
    Playtoe

    Hi Playtoe, re 24
    
    Just when I thought your style had softened, you seem to be asking me
    questions that don't apply to what I said!  ;')  But I'll try to
    address them anyway.
    
    >>So Jesus should have left the thief on the cross, to work out his
    karma?  
    
    My comment was about yogi masters, not about Jesus.  I believe Jesus
    did what he came here and was destined to do.
    
    >>God should let all us sinners go to hell til we learn better? 
    
    Not to go into a big discourse on my beliefs (because they are personal
    and I don't care to use this public forum to discuss them), however
    basically since I believe Earth is a school in which we learn lessons,
    I don't think there is a 'hell to go to'.
    
    >>What about repentance, what if we're really, sincerely sorry, what
    about forgivenes?  
    
    I believe that's where Grace comes in.  But we're not talking about
    forgiveness here, we were talking about yogi masters taking on someone
    else's karma.
    
    >>So when a likeness is shown between Hinduism and Christianity, you ask
    that they stop doing that...why?
    
    I never made any such statement?!?!?  Where did you get that? 
    Actually, Playtoe I belong to a couple of groups whose focus is on the
    Oneness in all religions (although each are basically Christ-centered).
    I was agreeing with Carole, that each person needs to take
    responsibility for their own 'will'.
    
    >>Don't take this personally, it's just my impression of the statement,
    and I only say this to inspire second thoughts and not to offend.
    
    No offense taken.  But I think you're barking up the wrong tree here
    Playtoe as I'm already fairly open-minded about these subjects.
    
    Ro
    
    

    
    Re. karma and yogic masters
    
    Such wonderful things to think about!  This is all imho....and from
    stories I've read and heard...          
    
    The 'goal', if there is such a thing, is to know God...to become One
    with the Love.  This, as a consequence, allows one to consciously
    choose whether to incarnate or not - so one end result is mastery over
    the birth/death cycle.  Christ showed the world that this was possible.
    
    How do we do this?  There are many ways, and many paths (even in yoga).
    There is the intellectual approach and the devotional approach (very
    basic and from memory).  You can achieve Oneness without a guru. 
    However, life is much easier with a guru, because a Self-realized
    teacher has already been through it and can assist you - even from a
    distance and even if the guru is not in the body (Christ, for example.)
    You can learn anything on your own, but a teacher can assist you in
    trimming years off your time to learn.
    
    From Hinduism:
    
    There is a story about Krishna and his consort having dinner one night.
    Suddenly Krishna got up and went to the door and looked out.  Then he
    came back to the table.  His consort said, "Krishna, why did you do
    that?"  Krishna replied, "Oh, one of my disciples was being given a
    hard time by the crowd out there, so I went to help, but then he picked
    up a weapon, so seeing he was choosing to do it on his own, I came back
    to the table."
    
    This is how I see our state - that we can do it on our own, but with
    masters/teachers, if we call upon them, they, from their more conscious
    awareness, will help us through.
    
    The question about taking on another's karma - even, or especially,
    masters realize what the disciple/devotee has to experience to learn
    their various lessons.  The image comes to mind of the small child
    running out in front of an oncoming truck.  The adult, seeing the
    situation more clearly, chooses risk their life to save the child.
    The adult makes the choice, and perhaps it was part of the adult's
    karma to do just that...save the child from certain death.  Yogic
    masters choose to come back to Earth to assist humanity in any way they
    can on their journey Home...including choosing to take on appropriate 
    karma of others - particularly disciples - when necessary.  
    
    One yoga story - Babaji, one of the masters in Yogananda's lineage,
    suddenly takes a flaming log out of a fire and hits one of the
    disciples on the shoulder with it.  Everyone around said, "How could
    you do something so cruel?"  (From memory) Babaji replied, soothing 
    the wound, "This disciple was to die by horrible burning, but by my 
    doing this, I've saved him from having to go through that."  The 
    disciple bowed in deep appreciation.
    
    As for how to go about becoming a disciple and come under the
    protection of the guru - it depends upon which path speaks to you, 
    and whether you choose a guru or not.  When you're ready, the guru 
    will appear.
    
    Mine was fairly obvious.  My car breaking down at the exit that Kripalu
    was located at, at Christmas back in 1990, was a VERY clear sign. 
    There are many other signs as well, but this was the major one.  My
    guru, then, is Yogi Amrit Desai.  There is a formal initiation ceremony
    to become a disciple.
        
    There is something similar in the Self-Realization Fellowship
    organization that Yogananda founded, and I have several friends who
    have taken the Kriya Yoga initiation.  Yogananda is no longer in body,
    however he and his lineage offer divine protection for all Kriya Yogis. 
    Eventually I may become one as well.  It's a year's worth of self-paced
    lessons, then you are eligible to be taught the Kriya yoga technique by
    one of the staff members.  I can put you in touch with my friends if
    this speaks to you.
    
    All of the major world religions, if set up properly, can do this for
    you as well.  But the core seems to be missing, and bureaucracy has
    taken its place in most instances.  Still though, I believe that Christ
    does look after all those who are sincere and actively practice His 
    teachings. 
    
    There are all sorts of levels of gurus, yogic masters, and so on, since
    they are all evolving as well.  Sadgurus are supreme gurus, then gurus,
    then disciples, etc.  I do not know much about this at the moment, except 
    to say that I believe Christ is a Sadguru.  Even the disciple can
    become greater than the guru, as was the case of St.John the Baptist -
    when he was baptising Christ, he said that it probably should be the
    other way around...and Christ, even though he had progressed beyond
    John, still held him in the greatest respect.  
    
    All true gurus are humble, and they always bow to their gurus, even if
    they have surpassed them on the Path.  And, the greatest of gurus bow
    to all of Creation, seeking only to serve.  That's why Christ wasn't
    above washing the feet of his disciples.
    
    Let me know if there's a question or points I've left out.
    
    Cindy
                        

                                                                      
    Re.19 and .20
    
    Ro and Carole,
    
    Just looking back at your notes...
    
    I do not believe a guru can completely take away a lesson that a
    disciple has to experience if the disciple has not yet learned the
    lesson.  The guru can, however, see what is going on and choose to 
    help the disciple through the worst of it.  This is assuming that the
    person is on the path of self-realization and therefore has already
    consciously chosen the spiritual path...and therefore wants to actively 
    work out karma that is standing in the way.  Then it is similar to a
    partnership with the guru. 
    
    Also, the 'Footprints' poem  comes to mind.
    
    Cindy

    
    RE: .28
    
    Cindy, the disciple being assisted by the yogi to work through their
    karma feels more appropriate to me.  It was probably the wording in
    the other note that set off some warning buzzer for me.
    
    I have some thoughts to share on you .27 and also Playtoe's reply to
    my .19 but I've got a meeting to go to right now, so will be back
    later.
    
    Carole

    Which note in this string explains what you mean by "karma"? (Since
    I haven't read all notes carefully...)
    
    Nancy

    Hi Nancy (.30),
    
    I don't think it has been defined in this string.  The following is the
    definition I use in relation to 'karma':
    
	Cause and effect.  As you sow, so you will reap, either quickly in
    	this present life or when deeper lessons have to be learned, in
    	following earth lives.  This is also known as the Law of Karma.

    Ro

    
    I've been reading some stuff that gives a different perspective on
    karma.  I'll enter a synopsis as soon as I get the time!  Yikes, these
    project plans are killing me! 8^[......or maybe it's my karma! ;)
    
    Carole

    You mean y'all have been talking about karma for .32 notes now without
    necessarily sharing the same definition??? (gee, sounds like a
    discussion in Christian theology, doesn't it? -- :-) )
    
    Cause/effect makes a lot of sense to me, but I thought maybe it was
    like predestination, someone's aura or ...?  In other words, I have
    not idea!!
    
    (And my son is going to India in August to study for four months!)
    
    Nancy

    Hi Nancy,
    
    That's interesting about your son, what will he be studying there?
    I always enjoy hearing stories of young (or not so young) people on a
    spiritual adventure...
    
    Ro
    

    He goes to college in NY state.  Five colleges there form a consortium
    and each send 4-5 students together for a "semester in India."  The
    study 1)language and culture including the study of Hindi, 2) history, 
    philosophy, and religion, 3) social and political processes, and 4)
    and independent study (which we plans to do in art).  They spend
    half the semester in Poona and also go to Mussoorie, Ahmedabad, and New 
    Delhi.
    
    I entered a more detailed note in VAXWRK::INDIA (don't know how to do
    that KP7 business) and have received many notes of advice, offers of
    contacts, etc.
    
    My son is not well-educated in Christianity (a long story in itself).
    If they study Indian religions enough, perhaps it will awaken an
    interest in him to also study more about the Christian faith.  But they
    are to cover so much in such a short time, that I have no idea how
    deeply they will go into religious ideas.
    
    Nancy

    
    Re.35
    
    Nancy,
    
    A wonderful cross-over book - that one I've mentioned quite a bit -
    is "Autobiography Of A Yogi", by Yogananda.  Even if you read it 
    while he's gone, it will bring a lot of things together re: Hinduism 
    and Christianity.  It's kind of the Rosetta Stone between the two.
    There's also a lot about Indian life in India as well.
    
    Karma is explained too.  (;^)
    
    Cindy
    

    re: 27
    
>    One yoga story - Babaji, one of the masters in Yogananda's lineage,
>    suddenly takes a flaming log out of a fire and hits one of the
>    disciples on the shoulder with it.  Everyone around said, "How could
>    you do something so cruel?"  (From memory) Babaji replied, soothing 
>    the wound, "This disciple was to die by horrible burning, but by my 
>    doing this, I've saved him from having to go through that."  The 
<    disciple bowed in deep appreciation.
 
    Woo!  Now that takes a whole lot of faith in the master!  I don't know
    if I could go for that.  But on the other hand, this sort discipleship
    hints to me why Christianity has been given to Jews and
    Gentiles/Greeks...I hardly think any of them would have bowed down in
    deep appreciation to ANY one who hit them with a burning log, talking
    bout I just saved your life....that sort of thinking process just
    doesn't sit well with them...or me either.
    
    But then again, when I think of Jesus spitting on dirt making mud to
    rub in a blind mans eye to heal his sight...that's border line for me.  
    I don't know if I'd let someone put their spital in my face...But I
    guess if I were blind I wouldn't know that it was spit!
    
    
    Playtoe, PLAYing, but TOEing the line, or In the Spirit of Truth   
    
    Playtoe

>    I don't know if I'd let someone put their spital in my face...But I

    My wife has a coffee mug given to her by our son. It reads, "I'll
    always love you but never forgive you for washing my face with spit
    on a hanky"

    I know many mothers who similarly have washed stuff of the face of
    a child with spit on a hanky.

    			Alfred

    Re: The IDEA of Christian Faith
    
    The IDEA of Christian doctrine, for the most part, requires the
    disciple to expand beyond popular social conceptions of life.  Jesus'
    teachings transcend social realities.  All too often, however, people
    tend to limit themselves to the pace of social evolutions of ideas. 
    Which is to say that although an individual may know better they do not
    express themselves for fear of being social unacceptable.  I'm
    commenting on the fact that people talk and talk about things, going
    around and around in the same old circles, refusing to add new
    information to their conceptions unless it is sanctioned by society.
    
    I believe Christ frees us from society's embrace, "If God is with you,
    who can stand against you?"  We no longer fear to explore "Yea the
    deeper things of God".  We are no longer bound by man's conceptions
    (Let every man be a liar, but God be true), and are willing to
    entertain and fully explore realities that do not readily appear to the
    public...talking about personal relationship with God.
    
    A good book, and EXCELLENT book, for those who may want to do some self
    improvement in terms of acculturated influences, as well as self
    imposed limits, will enjoy reading "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg," and
    "Exploring the Crack in the Cosmic Egg", by Chilton Pierce.  I thought
    he exposed some very important characteristics/traits/operations of the
    human mind, fundamental to ALL humans.  
    
    Playtoe

    Re: Support for my previous comments...
    
    Matthew 8:11
    
    	"And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west,
    and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the Kingdom
    of heaven."
    
    John 10:16
    
    	"And OTHER SHEEP I have which are not of this fold..."
    
    The phrase "other sheep" references Isaiah 56:8, which reads:
    
    	"The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet
    will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him."
    
    Playtoe

        RE: .32  (me)
    
	
	A book that I've recently read defines karma in this way.  People 
    	have thought that karma is a means of making payments for past deeds.
	Karma *is* meant to bring us into balance, but not through
	payments for past deeds.  Karma attracts experiences so that
	we can learn what we do not know yet.  The questions is....how
	are these experiences drawn to us?

        This is where our Will comes in.  The Will is defined as that
	part of us that feels.  It is our feeling nature and is our 
	individual magnetic energy field.  Our Spirits are not magnetic,
	so without the Will, our Spirit has no means of selection.
	Our Will polarity draws our experiences to us.  If we are holding
	something within our Wills which we have not allowed to have
	free movement and expression (we have denied our feelings/
	responses), the reflection of these denials are drawn to us.
	Most times we are not even aware/conscious of what these denials are.

        By releasing our denials from our energy field, we no longer have
	to draw unpleasantness to us.  We are not given experiences as
	payment or punishment.  It is just that magnetically we are
	stuck with a repeating pattern until we allow it conscious free
	movement.
    
    	Here is a quote from the book....

	"The energy locked up in denial does not want to be held outside of
	the nourishment of the Light.  The denial wants to draw something
	to itself that will release it.  The intensity needed to trigger
	you will exactly equal the intensity of your denial.

	...When something comes from outside, and you do not know it is
	coming, it's just because you are disconnected from it.  By
	shifting the power from a state of externalized disconnection to
	internalized conscious acceptance, you can always know what is
	going to happen.  You might not have complete detail because you
	might have the kind of Will that likes surprises, but you will
	know it will be pleasant.  This can give great peace to everyone."
    
    
    
        Carole

    
    Re.41
    
    Carole,
    
    That's in line with what I have experienced (;^), and have read as
    well.
    
    Cindy

    RE: 41
    
    Yes, that's in line with what I understand as well.  The Egyptians say
    that in reincarnation, a person at the judgement seat after physical
    death, must express the will/desire to overcome/grow/improve their
    infirmities/faults/propensity to sin, and if sincere is granted that
    chance through reincarnation.  The wicked, or those who do evil and
    have no desire/will to improve do not reincarnate...the Egyptian
    masters teach "only new and becoming souls are born into the world."
    
    The Spirit is Electric.  The will is Magnetic.  Together they form the
    opposition of life within us.  When your WILL draws to your SPIRIT the
    PROPER things, you cultivate and grow your SPIRIT...otherwise you bring
    in that which destroys your Spirit.
    
    This is getting deep!
    
    Playtoe

    
    Re.43
    
    Playtoe,
    
    Perhaps not destroys the Spirit, but obscures it for a very long time.
    
    I don't believe that Spirit can ultimately be destroyed.
    
    Cindy

    Re 44
    
    I agree...as a matter of fact I intended to say that.  I was going to
    refer to the verse in Revelations which spoke of "worm in the ashes"
    which survives the fire.  I too believe in the immortality of spirit,
    of course we couldn't be speaking of reincarnation unless one believes
    in immortality of spirit, or the survival of the spirit after physical
    disolution.  
    
    Of course, destroy has two conotations.  I meant destruction/destroy in
    a "chaotic" sense, not an "anhilative" sense...but I won't play
    semantics about it...you are correct.
    
    Why didn't anyone respond to #40...is it because you agree or you feel
    I'm too far gone to respond to about it?  
    
    Playtoe

    
    Hi Roey,
    
    The information that I've been working with holds a very different
    view of the death process, but to go into a further discussion of
    that would really take this note in a totally different direction.
    Maybe there is another note we could discuss it in?
    
    Carole

    
    Re.40,44
    
    Guess nobody passed the test in the header, Playtoe!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    398.46 and 398.47 moved to 405.2 and 405.3 as requested in 405.0
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Comoderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

    RE: .49 Actually I have head and reas. Just not enough to
    create a well thought out reply. Some things take more study and
    thought then others.
    
    		Alfred

     re 49 & 50
    
    Thank you both...I appreciate the feedback and can relate to them both.
    And I hope that 50 is more the case than 49...God bless us all with a
    revelation of the understanding of his Word.
    
    Playtoe

    G'day,                                           
    
    I hope that you don't mind me opening this topic again but I feel that
    I need to clearify some points.
    
    I feel it's important to answer questions from the point of view of the
    Vedas or Hindu scriptures.

    What makes it harder to see the "Wood from the trees" is often our own 
    preconceived ideas and a lack of knowledge.  Please let me dispel the 
    various myths and hopefully give you a better understanding of my religion
    Sanatan Dharam (the word Hindu was given to us by the invaders because 
    they could not cross the Indus so we were called Hindus).
    
    Now what does the Sanatan Dharam mean (1) religious principles; (2) one's 
    eternal natural occupation (ie Devotional service to the Lord).

    Our constitutional position according to the Vedas (translation means 
    Eternal Knowledge came from Godhead) is that we are the servents of God 
    (Sri Krsna) and we can never become God.

    The meaning of Karama - meterial activities, for which one incurs 
    subsequent reactions.  Anything we do that does not include God or if you 
    like is not in accordance to religious (vedic) principles is classed as 
    being sinful.  Our original sin being that we did not want to be with God 
    BUT wanted to enjoy separately from him we wanted to become God.  Karama 
    has nothing to do with fate it's just a misunderstanding because you do 
    not understand our language nor our culture.  Indians use this term when 
    things go wrong to just to say it's out of my hands nothing more.  But in 
    the true meaning it means sinful activities.

    Because of Karama (sinful activities) we can not go back to Godhead hence 
    we have to stay in the material world.  That's where re-birth comes in.

    By the way if any one wants to know I am using the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is 
    (you could say it's like our Bible) as translated by His Divine Grace AC 
    Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada founder of the International Society for 
    Krsna consciousness.  There are two types of philosophies the Personalist 
    and the Impersonalist philosophy I am a Personalist BECAUSE I belive in a
    PERSONAL GOD (SRI KRSNA) with whome I can have a personal relationship.  
    This will be explained as we go along.

    I hope that we could discuss this topic in peace and love and reach a
    better understanding of one another.  Please ask any question and I'll
    do my best to answer them even the naughty ones !

    Sunil

    Sunil,
    
    Thanks for sharing that.
    
    -- Mike

    Sunil,
    
    I learned a lot from your note.  Thank you.
    
    Pat
    

    
    Hi Sunil,
    
    Good to see you here!
             
    Cindy

NOTE:  Hinduism is the religion of Vedanta.  Vedanta is an Eastern philosophy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Vedanta - Voice Of Freedom", by Swami Vivekananda. pp.27-28

In nondualistic Vedanta, Brahman is the Ultimate Reality, Existence-
Knowledge-Bliss Absolute.  The world is shown to be nothing but name and
form, all of which is apparent, not real, having only relative existence.
 But from the absolute standpoint, everything is Brahman - one without a
second.  The individual soul is nothing but Brahman. Name and form evolve
and dissolve, but the Self, the real nature of every being, is immortal
and unchanging.  After realizing one's identity with Brahman through
meditation, a person then sees Brahman, or God, in everything. 

In the beginning it was hard for Vivekananda to accept the nondualistic
view that 'everything is really Brahman', because he was a staunch
follower of Brahmo Samaj, which taught a theistic philosophy.  As he said
to Sri Ramakrishna:  "It is blasphemous, for there is no difference
between such philosophy and atheism.  There is no greater sin in the
world than to think of oneself as identical with the Creator.  I am God,
you are God, these created things are God - what can be more absurd! The
sages who wrote such things must have been insane."  Because Sri
Ramakrishna knew how to train a mind, the young man's outspokenness did
not deter him.  Smiling, he said, "You may not accept the views of these
seers.  But how can you abuse them or limit God's infinitude?  Go on
praying to the God of Truth and believe in any aspect of His that He
reveals to you." 

According to the Vedantic tradition, one must reach an understanding of
the philosophy with the help of 'shruti (the scriptures), 'yukti'
(reason), and 'anubhava' (experience).  Vivekananda's rebellious nature
did not surrender easily.  He was a votary of Truth.  Whatever did not
tally with reason and experience, he considered false, and it was his
nature to stand against falsehood. 

One day at Dakshineswar, while chatting with one of his friends,
Vivekananda sarcastically remarked concerning the Vedantic experience of
oneness: "How can this be?  This jug is God, this cup is God, and we too
are God!  Nothing can be more preposterous!"  Sri Ramakrishna heard
Vivekananda's laughter from his room.  He came out and inquired: "Hello! 
What are you talking about?"  He then touched Vivekananda and entered
into samadhi.  Preachers merely talk about religion, but Incarnations
like Buddha, Christ, and Ramakrishna, can transmit religion through a
glance or by a touch.  Vivekananda graphically described the effect of
that touch: 

    The magic touch of the Master that day immediately brought a wonderful 
    change over my mind.  I was stupefied to find that there was really 
    nothing in the universe but God!  I saw it quite clearly, but kept 
    silent, to see if the idea would last.  But the impression did not abate 
    in the course of a day.  I returned home, but there too, everything I 
    saw appeared to be Brahman.  I sat down to take my meal, but found that 
    everything  - the food, the plate, the person who served, and even 
    myself - was nothing but That.  I ate a morsel or two and sat still.  I 
    was startled by my mother's words: "Why do you sit still?  Finish your 
    meal," and began to eat again.  But all the while, whether eating, or 
    lying down, or going to college, I had the same experience and felt 
    myself always in a comatose state.  While walking in the streets, I 
    noticed the cabs plying, but did not feel inclined to move out of the 
    way.  I felt that the cabs and myself were of one stuff.  There was no 
    sensation in my limbs, which, I thought, were getting paralyzed.  I did 
    not relish eating, and felt as if somebody else were eating.  Sometimes 
    I lay down during a meal, and, after a few minutes, got up and again 
    began to eat.  The result would be that on some days I would take too 
    much, but it did no harm.  My mother became alarmed and said that there 
    must be something wrong with me.  She was afraid that I might not live 
    long.  When the above state altered a little, the world began to appear 
    to me as a dream.  While walking in Cornwallis Square, I would strike my 
    head against the iron railings to see if they were real or a dream.  
    This state of things continued for some days.  When I became normal 
    again, I realized that I must have had a glimpse of the Advaita state.  
    Then it struck me that the worlds of the scriptures were not false.  
    Thenceforth I could not deny the conclusions of the Advaita philosophy.

As time passed and Vivekananda went through various kinds of experiences,
his rebellious attitude, intellectual skepticism, and argumentative
nature were gradually transformed into self-surrender, faith and
devotion.  Brajendra Nath Seal, one of his friends who later became a
well-known professor, watched this change and remarked, "A born
iconoclast and free thinker like Vivekananda, a creative and dominating
intelligence, a tamer of souls, himself caught in the meshes of what
appeared to me an uncouth, supernatural mysticism, was a riddle that my
philosophy of Pure Reason could scarcely read at the time." 




From: "Vedanta - Voice of Freedom", by Swami Vivekananda, pp.70-71

The Absolute and Its Manifestation

The one question that is most difficult to grasp in understanding 
Advaita philosophy, and the one question which will be asked again and 
again and which will always remain unanswered, is: How has the Infinite, 
the Absolute, become the finite?  I will now take up this question, and 
in order to illustrate it I will use a figure.

	---------------------
	| (a) The Absolute  |
	---------------------
	|       (c)         |
	|      Time         |
	|      Space        |
	|    Causation      |
	---------------------
	| (b) The Universe  |
	---------------------

Here is the Absolute (a), and this is the universe (b).  The Absolute 
has become the universe.  By this is meant not only the material world, 
but the mental world, the spiritual world--heavens and earths, and in 
fact, everything that exists.  Mind is the name of a change, and body is 
the name of another change, and so on, and all these changes compose our 
universe.  This Absolute (a) has become the universe (b) by coming 
through time, space, and causation (c).  This is the central idea of 
Advaita.  Time, space, and causation are like the glass through which 
the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, it appears 
as the universe.

Now, we at once gather from this that in the Absolute there is neither 
time, space, nor causation.  The idea of time cannot be there, seeing 
that there is no mind, no thought.  The idea of space cannot be there, 
seeing that there is no external change.  What you call motion and 
causation cannot exist where there is only one.  We have to understand 
this and impress it upon our minds--that what we call causation begins 
after, if we may be phenomenal, and not before; that our will, our 
desire, and all these things always come after that.

Now the question is: What are time, space, and causation?  Advaita means 
nonduality--there are not two, but one.  Yet we see that here is a 
proposition that the Absolute is manifesting Itself as many, through the 
veil of time, space, and causation.  Therefore it seems that here are 
two: The Absolute and 'maya', the sum total of time, space, and 
causation.  It seems apparently very convincing that there are two.  To 
have two, we must have two absolute, independent existences which cannot 
be caused.  But time, space, and causation cannot be said to be independent 
existences.  In the first place, time is entirely a dependent existence; 
it changes with every change of our mind.  Sometimes in a dream one 
imagines that one has lived several years; at other times several months 
have passed as one second.  So time is entirely dependent upon our state 
of mind.  Secondly, the idea of time sometimes vanishes altogether.  So 
with space.  We cannot know what space is.  Yet it is there, 
undefinable, and cannot exist separate from anything else.  So with 
causation.

The whole of this universe, therefore, as it were, a peculiar form [of 
the Absolute].  The Absolute is that ocean, while you and I, and suns 
and stars, and everything else are various waves of that ocean.  And 
what makes the waves different?  Only the form--and that form is time, 
space, and causation, which are all entirely dependent on the wave.  As 
soon as the wave goes they vanish.  As soon as the individual gives up 
this maya, it vanishes for him and he becomes free.

    Among modern Vedantists are Christopher Isherwood and
    Aldous Huxley (Author of "Brave New World").
    
    When asked what, if anything, would prevent the coercive conformity
    predicted in his book, Huxley indicated only one antidote: religion.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

  
 	This article is published in News-India-Times. This is an un-cut
 version of that article......
 
  
 		HINDU FUNDAMENTALISM: DOES IT REALLY EXIST?
 		         BY Dr.David Frawley
 
       Fundamentalism is an easily discernible phenomenon in
 belief-oriented religions like Christianity and Islam which have a
 simple and exclusive pattern to their faith. They generally insist
 that there is only One God, who has only one Son or final Prophet, and
 only one true scripture. They hold that belief in this One God and his
 chief representative brings salvation in an eternal heaven, and
 disbelief causes condemnation to an eternal hell. Muslims daily chant
 "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. " Most
 Christians recognize belief in Christ as one's personal savior as the
 only true way to salvation.
    
       Fundamentalists are literalists in these traditions who hold
 rigidly to their beliefs and insist that since their religion alone is
 true that other religions should not be tolerated, particularly in the
 lands where members of their religion are in a majority.
 Fundamentalists also generally hold to their religion's older social
 customs, and refuse to integrate into the broader stream of modern
 society which recognizes the freedom of belief.
 
       Fundamentalism can usually be discriminated from orthodoxy.
 Orthodox Muslims and Christians generally tolerate those of other
 religious beliefs, though they may not agree with them. The orthodox
 are usually not involved in the militancy and social backwardness of
 fundamentalist groups. They usually have no trouble functioning in
 modern society. However the orthodox may keep to themselves in matters
 of religion and may still regard that their's is the only true
 religion.While the news media of the Western World, and even of India,
 speaks of Hindu fundamentalism, no one appears to have really defined
 what it is. Is there a Hindu fundamentalism comparable to Islamic and
 Christian fundamentalism? Using such a term merely assumes that there
 is, but what is the evidence for it? Are there Hindu beliefs of the
 same order as the absolute beliefs of fundamentalist Christianity and
 Islam? It is questionable whether fundamentalism, as it is usually
 defined relative to Christianity and Islam, can exist at all in the
 more open and diverse religious tradition of Hinduism which has many
 names and forms for God, many great teachers and incarnations, many
 sacred books, and a pursuit of Self-realization which does not
 recognize the existence of any eternal heaven or hell. There is no
 monolithic faith called Hinduism with a set system of beliefs which
 all Hindus must follow that can be turned into fundamentalism.
 
       Fundamentalist groups insist that their's is the only true God
 and that all other Gods or names of God are wrong. Islamic
 fundamentalists insist that the only God is Allah, and will not accept
 Hindu names for God like Brahman or Ishvara, even though these mean
 pretty much the same thing. Christian fundamentalists will not accept
 Allah or Brahman as names for God as they conceive Him to be. Hindus
 with their many names and forms for God don't mind accepting the
 Christian name God or even Islamic Allah as referring to the same
 reality. A belief in God is not even necessary to be a Hindu, as such
 non-theistic Hindu systems as Sankhya reveal. For those who are
 speaking of Hindu fundamentalism, we must ask the question: What One
 God do Hindu fundamentalist groups insist upon is the only true God
 and which Gods are they claiming are false except for Him?
 
       Islamic fundamentalists consider that Islam is the only true
 religion, that no true new faith can be established after Islam and
 that with the advent of Islam all previous faiths became outdated.
 Christian fundamentalists hold that Christianity alone is true, and
 that Islam and Hinduism are religions of the devil. Even orthodox
 people in these traditions may hold these views to some degree.
 
       Hindus are not of one faith only. They are divided up into
 Shaivites, Vaishnavas, Shaktas, Smartas and a number of other groups
 which are constantly being revised relative to modern gurus. Those
 called Hindu fundamentalists are also divided up into these different
 sects.  What common belief can be found in these Hindu groups which
 can be called Hindu fundamentalism? What common Hindu fundamentalist
 platform do the different sects of Hinduism share? Is it a Shaivite or
 Vaishnava fundamentalism, and how do such groups maintain their
 harmony and identity under the Hindu fundamentalist banner? While one
 can make a code of belief for Christian or Islamic fundamentalism,
 what code of belief applies to Hindu fundamentalism of all different
 sects?
 
       No Hindus - including so-called Hindu fundamentalists - insist
 that there is only one true faith called Hinduism and that all other
 faiths are false. Hinduism contains too much plurality to allow for
 that. Its tendency is to not to coalesce into a fanatic unity like the
 fundamentalists of other religions, but to disperse into its various
 diverse components and fail to arrive at any common action,
 historically even one of self-defense against foreign invaders.
 
       Fundamentalist groups insist upon belief in the literal truth of
 one book as the Word of God, which they base their behavior on. Muslim
 fundamentalists insist that the Koran is the Word of God and that all
 necessary knowledge is contained in it. Christian fundamentalists say
 the same thing of the Bible. Again even orthodox or ordinary Muslims
 and Christians, not only fundamentalists, may believe this to some
 degree. Hindus have many holy books like the Vedas, Agamas, Gita,
 Ramayana and so on, which contain a great variety of teachings and
 many different points of view and no one of these books is required
 reading for all Hindus. Hindus generally respect the holy books of
 other religions as well. What single holy book do Hindu
 fundamentalists hold literally to be the word of God, which they base
 their behavior upon?  Christian and Islamic fundamentalists flout
 their holy book and are ever quoting from it to justify their actions
 and their beliefs. What Hindu Bible are the Hindu fundamentalists all
 carrying, quoting and preaching from and find justification in?
 
       Fundamentalist groups are often involved in conversion activity
 wherein they are seeking to get other people to adopt their beliefs.
 They frequently promote missionary efforts throughout the world to
 bring the entire world to their views. This again is true of many
 ordinary or orthodox Muslims and Christians. Fundamentalists are
 merely more vehement in their practices.  What missionary activities
 are Hindu fundamentalists promoting throughout the world? What
 missions in other countries have Hindu fundamentalists set up to
 convert Christians, Muslims or those of other beliefs to the only true
 religion called Hinduism? What Hindus are motivated by a missionary
 spirit to discredit people of other religious beliefs in order to
 convert and save them?
 
       Fundamentalist groups not only condemn those of other beliefs to
 an eternal hell, they may even make death threats against those who
 criticize their beliefs. The fatwa of the Ayatollah Khomeni against
 Salmon Rushdie is one example of this. What Hindu has ever condemned
 non- Hindus to an eternal hell, or issued declarations asking for the
 death of anyone for merely criticizing Hindu beliefs? Where have
 Hindus ever stated that it is punishable by death to criticize
 Krishna, Rama or any other great Hindu leader? There are certainly
 plenty of books, including many by Christians and Muslims, which
 portray Hinduism in a negative light. How many of such books are Hindu
 fundamentalists trying to ban, and how many of their authors are they
 threatening?
 
       Fundamentalists are usually seeking to return to the social
 order and customs of some ideal religious era of a previous age.
 Fundamentalists often insist upon retuming to some traditional law
 code like the Islamic Shariat or Biblical law codes, which are often
 regressive by modern standards of justice and humanitarianism. What
 law code are Hindu fundamentalists seeking to reestablish? What Hindus
 are agitating for the return of the law code of the Manu Samhita, for
 example?
 
       Fundamentalists are usually opposed to modern science. Many
 Christian and Islamic fundamentalists reject the theory of evolution
 and insist that the world was created by God some 6000 years ago. What
 scientific theories are Hindu fundamentalists opposed to and trying to
 prevent being taught in schools today?
 
       Fundamentalism creates various political parties limited to
 members of that religion only, which aim at setting up religious
 dictatorships. What exclusively Hindu religious party exists in India
 or elsewhere in the world, and what is its common Hindu fundamentalist
 platform? Who is asking for a Hindu state which forbids the practice
 of other religions, which allows only Hindu religious centers to be
 built, which requires a Hindu religious figure as the head of the
 country, the return of medieval Hindu law codes, or the Hindu Bible as
 the basis of all education - which is what other fundamentalist groups
 are asking for in terms of their religions.
 
       Fundamentalism is often involved with militancy and sometimes
 with terrorism. What planes have Hindu fundamentalists hijacked, what
 hostages have they taken, what bombs have they planted anywhere? What
 terrorist activities are Hindu fundamentalists promoting throughout
 the world? What countries are stalking down Hindu fundamentalist
 terrorists who are plotting against them?
 
       The Ayatollah Khomeni is regarded in the Western world as a
 typical example of an Islamic fundamentalist and militant leader. Many
 Western people consider him to be a terrorist as well. What Hindu
 fundamentalist leader has a similar record? We should also note that
 the government and news media of India has not characterized Khomeni
 as a fundamentalist. The government proclaimed a period of mourning
 upon his death as if he were a true religious leader. Would they do
 the same for a Hindu recognized as a fundamentalist and terrorist in
 the Western world?
 
       Saudi Arabia is usually regarded as a pious or orthodox Islamic
 country, and is usually not called fundamentalist. No non-Islamic
 places of worship are allowed to be built there. No non-Islamic
 worship is allowed in public. Even American troops in the Gulf War had
 to hide their religious practices so as not to offend the Saudis.
 Traditional Islamic law, including mutilation for various offenses, is
 strictly enforced by a special religious police force. If we apply any
 standard definition of fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia is a
 super-fundamentalist country.  What Hindu community is insisting upon
 the same domination of one religious belief, law and social practices
 like that of Saudi Arabia? Which Hindus are more fundamentalist in
 their beliefs and practices than the Saudis, whom few are calling
 fundamentalists?  
 
       Hence we must ask: What are Hindus being accused as
 fundamentalists for doing? Belief in the unique superiority of their
 religion, the sole claim of their scripture as the word of God, their
 savior or prophet as ultimate for all humanity, that those who believe
 in their religion go to an eternal heaven and those who don't go to an
 eternal hell, the need to convert the world to their beliefs - these
 views are found not only in Christian and Islamic fundamentalism but
 even among the orthodox; for example, the Catholic church still
 projects these views. I was raised as a Catholic and this is what I
 was taught. There are no Hindu fundamentalist statements of such
 nature. Can we imagine any Hindu swearing that there is no God but Ram
 and Tulsidas is his only prophet, that the Ramayana is the only true
 scripture, that those who believe differently will be condemned by Ram
 to eternal damnation and those who criticize Tulsidas should be
 killed?
 
       Hindus are called fundamentalists for wanting to retake a few of
 their old holy places, like Ayodhya, of the many thousands destroyed
 during centuries of foreign domination. Several Hindu groups are
 united around this cause. This, however, is an issue oriented
 movement, not the manifestation of a monolithic fundamentalism. It is
 a unification of diverse groups to achieve a common end, not the
 product of one uniform belief system. Whether one considers it to be a
 right or wrong action, it is not the manifestation of fundamentalism.
 It may be the awakening of a number of Hindus politically but it is
 not the assertion of any single or exclusive religious ideology. If it
 is fundamentalism, what is the fundamentalist ideology, belief and
 practice behind it? Hindus, alone of all people, have failed to take
 back their holy sites after the end of the colonial era. If they are
 fundamentalists for seeking to do so, then what should we call
 Pakistan or Bangladesh, who have destroyed many Hindu holy sites and
 were not simply taking back Islamic sites that the Hindus had
 previously usurped?
 
       Hindus are called fundamentalists for organizing themselves
 politically. Yet members of all other religions have done this, while
 Hinduism is by all accounts the most disorganized of all religions.
 There are many Christian and Islamic parties throughout the world, and
 in all countries where these religions are in a majority they make
 sure to exert what political influence they can. Why shouldn't Hindus
 have a political voice even in India? The Muslims in India do and no
 one is calling them fundamentalists for organizing themselves
 politically. There are many Islamic states throughout the world. Are
 all Islamic states fundamentalist?
 
       There are those who are warning that Hindu rule would mean the
 creation of a Hindu theocratic state? Yet what standard Hindu theology
 is there, and what Hindu theocratic state has ever existed? Will it be
 a Shaivite, Vaishnava, or Vedantic theocracy? What Hindu theocratic
 model will it be based upon? Is there a model of Hindu kings like the
 Caliphs of early Islam to go back to, or like the Christian emperors
 of the Middle Ages? What famous Hindu king was a fundamentalist who
 tried to eliminate all other beliefs from the land or tried to spread
 Hinduism throughout the world by the sword? Does Rama or Krishna
 provide such a model?  Does Shivaji provide such a model? If no such
 model exists what is this fear of a militant Hindu theocratic rule
 based upon?
 
       Traditional Hindus do exist. There are also Hindus who are
 caught in conservative or regressive social customs, like
 untouchability or mistreatment of women, which should not be
 underestimated. There are serious problems in Hindu society that must
 be addressed, but these should be examined as per their nature and
 cause, which is not some uniform Hindu fundamentalism but wrong
 practices that are often contrary to real Hindu thought. To lump them
 together as problems of Hindu fundamentalism fails to examine them
 adequately but, rather, uses them as a scare tactic to discredit
 Hinduism as a whole.
 
       There is no monolithic fundamentalism possible among Hindus who
 have no uniform belief structure. A charge of social backwardness and
 discriminatory attitudes can be made against a number of Hindus but
 this is not the same as the blanket charge of fundamentalism, which
 misinterprets Hinduism as a religion of exclusivity which it nowhere
 is. The charge of fundamentalism is usually made against various Hindu
 groups like the V.H.P. (Vishwa Hindu Parishad), who do not support the
 caste system and other such backward customs anyway.
 
       What is called Hindu fundamentalism is in fact generally a
 reaction to Islamic, Christian and Communist fundamentalisms, which
 are all organized according to an exclusive belief system and a
 strategy to take over the world. These three fundamentalisms are
 attacking India from within, as well as threatening it from the
 outside. For example, what Islamic state politically supports India,
 particularly in its struggle with Pakistan sponsored terrorism against
 India? Christian and Islamic missionary activity continues very
 strongly in India. Do these missionary groups portray Hinduism as a
 valid religion in its own right? Are they even teaching respect for
 the government of India?
 
       Hinduism is a supertolerant religion. No other religion in the
 world accepts such a diversity of beliefs and practices or is so ready
 to acknowledge the validity of other religions.  The idea of the
 universality of all religions was practically invented by modern
 Hindus like Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Gandhi. As Hinduism is a
 supertolerant religion, even a little intolerance among Hindus is
 regarded as Hindu fundamentalism. And the charge of intolerance can be
 used to discredit Hindu groups, who are extremely sensitive to such a
 negative portrayal.
 
       Islam and Christianity, owing to the exclusive nature of their
 beliefs and their judgements of heaven and hell upon people, have been
 generally intolerant religions (we do note, however, that there have
 been a number of notable exceptions to this generality). They
 generally do not accept the validity of other religious beliefs and
 practices, and contain in themselves little diversity as compared to
 Hinduism. What Christian or Muslim leaders proclaim that all religions
 are one or that Hindus and Buddhists have as valid a religion as they
 do (and therefore do not need to be converted)? Can we imagine the
 Pope declaring this? As they are generally intolerant, members of
 these religions have to be superintolerant to be called
 fundamentalist.
 
       Hindus have a double standard in religion. They try to tolerate,
 accept or even appreciate exclusivism, intolerance and fundamentalism
 when practiced by those of other religious beliefs.  For example,
 which Hindus are criticizing the far more obvious fundamentalism and
 exclusivism among the Christians and Muslims? On the other hand, many
 Hindus, particularly of the modern socialist-communist variety, brand
 even pride in Hinduism as fundamentalism.
 
       Another related term that we meet with in the Indian press today
 is that of Hindu chauvinism. We do not see terms such as Christian or
 Islamic chauvinism in either the Indian or the Western press.
 Chauvinists believe in the special superiority of their particular
 group. We mainly find this term used relative to white chauvinists,
 who think that whites are genetically better than dark-skinned people,
 or in the case of male chauvinists or those who think that men are
 inherently better than women. Which Hindus think that Hindus are
 inherently better than non-Hindus, and on what grounds (race,
 religious belief)? Christian and Islamic religions routinely believe
 that only members of their religion go to an eternal heaven and
 everyone else, particularly idol worshipping people like Hindus, go to
 an eternal hell. Which Hindu chauvinists have similar ideas? 
 
       Are Hindus to be called chauvinists merely for believing in the
 unique superiority of their religion? Christians and Muslims commonly
 believe in the unique superiority of their religions.  The Vatican
 recently told its monks and nuns not to experiment with yoga and
 Eastern forms of religious practice, which it branded as false and
 misleading. Should we not therefore call the Pope a Christian
 chauvinist religious leader?
 
       It is clear therefore that such terms as "fundamentalist" and
 "chauvinist" have little applicability to Hinduism. It is also
 interesting to note that many of the people who are branding Hindus in
 this light are themselves members of more obviously exclusivist
 ideologies, which may have an agenda to gain world-domination and to
 eventually take over India.
 
       It is time for Hindus to stop accepting such wrong designations
 or negative stereotypes of their wonderful religion. Certainly aspects
 of Hinduism do need to be reformed in the modern world for various
 reasons, and Hindus are not all required to agree with each other or
 with any set religious dogma, but there is very little in this
 beautiful religion that warrants such debasing terms as fundamentalism
 and chauvinism. If we look at all the aspects which are commonly
 ascribed to religious fundamentalism we find very little of them among
 so-called Hindu fundamentalists, rendering the term a misnomer.
 
       And Hindus who accuse other Hindus of being fundamentalists
 should be ashamed of themselves for understanding so little of the
 real basis of their religion. If Hindus are being intolerant or
 prejudiced, naturally this should be pointed out, but to routinely
 raise such negative stereotypes as fundamentalist relative to Hindu
 groups, who may be no more than trying to preserve their traditions in
 a hostile world, is a gross abuse of language.
 
 -- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

    
    Apologies for not breaking up the article in .58 - I wanted to keep it
    intact should anyone wish to forward it.
    
    I know David - he spoke at the conference I worked at last August, and
    we had some good conversations.  He's the head of the Institute for 
    Vedic Studies in New Mexico.
    
    Cindy

    
    RE: .58   I'm a little behind..
    
    Actually Cindy that doesn't make sense.  One of the definitions of
    fundamentalism is holding rigidly to a set of beliefs or principles
    it wouldn't make sense that Fundamental Hindus held firm to their
    being one God as that is a Christian/Muslim belief and not a Hindu
    one.  It's been awhile since I studied Hinduism but perhaps something
    like praying to every tree or never squashing a bug or killing a rat
    because they adhere to their belief of jivas living on in those
    things.  If there are Hindu Fundamentalist there fundamental about
    their own beliefs, not Christian beliefs.  A modern American high-tech
    scenario might be pregnant women from these countries who have testing
    done and find out their baby is a girl and abort it because girls
    aren't valued in their society.  This is happening.  Maybe this is the
    fundamentalism non-hindus are seeing.  I hadn't heard this before, so I
    thought I'd take a stab.  I don't remember the group or the reason
    behind the assassination of India's president (or whatever) years ago
    but I did get the distinct impression from the news during that time
    that their are definite religious factions in India and some being
    militant.  I'd say your pretty fundamental in your beliefs if you're
    willing to murder someone.  Now maybe that was strictly political,
    I don't really remember.  No, fundamentalism isn't just holding to
    one God and only one way to salvation.  That's the gospel.  It's just
    that for years this country only knew Christianity so the world
    fundamentalism is over-related to that religion.  I believe that it
    exists in every religion.
    
    Jill

    
    Jill,
    
    I'm a little uncertain...are you asking a question (or two or so) in
    .60?  I wasn't quite sure where to begin to reply.
    
    The situation in India, I believe, is far more political than religious.  
    Also, things done in India - such as killing people or aborting female 
    unborn children - have as little to do with what Hinduism is all about, 
    as the KKK burning crosses, etc., has to do with what true Christianity 
    is about.
    
    Basically, true Hinduism has the idea that there is but one Truth, the 
    sages call it by many names.  So, it is possible for a child in a Hindu 
    home to choose the God of Christianity to worship, and still be an 
    accepted Hindu.  Not the norm, of course, but still possible.  Hindus 
    recognize Christ as an incarnation of God in human form...they just don't 
    recognize Christ as the *only* incarnation of God that has ever taken 
    human form, so that's why they wouldn't be considered a true Christian.
    
    If I missed anything from .60, please clarify.
    
    Cindy
    

               <<< VAXWRK::$1$DUS6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]INDIA.NOTE;3 >>>
                            -< The INDIA notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 5.514                     NEWS - Discussions                     514 of 514
NAPIER::VERMA "Virendra, MRO4-3/H10, DTN 297-5913"   75 lines  24-MAR-1994 08:34
                             -< Impressive!!!!!! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2  INDIA'S "JAIL GODDESS" CLEANS UP A PRISON

           NEW DELHI, India (AP) _ A year ago, Tihar Central Jail was
India's toughest prison, a cesspool of drugs and gang wars, of
corruption and extortion by both guards and powerful inmates.
           Then the ``jail goddess'' came along. These days, thousands of
inmates gather in clean, tree-shaded courtyards every morning for
prayer and meditation. After that, they go to school.
           She is Kiran Bedi, a former national tennis champion who has
spent 22 years as a police officer and came to national attention
in 1982 as chief of New Delhi's harried traffic police. Mrs. Bedi
had illegally parked cars hauled away without mercy or favor,
including the prime minister's limousine.
           Later, she served with the anti-narcotics wing, starting a
detoxification center, and in the insurrection-ridden northeast of
India.
           By last July, when she became warden of Tihar Central, the only
prison in New Delhi, newspapers were calling Mrs. Bedi the ``lady
supercop.'' Soon, she was the ``jail goddess'' to many of her
charges.
           ``I really feel like a mother'' to them, she said with a laugh
that softened her raspy voice. ``Sometimes I scold them, sometimes
I pat them, sometimes I push them.''
           Asish Nandy, a social psychologist, praised the warden's work in
reforming Tihar and said the whole grim Indian prison system needs
cleaning up, ``but I doubt we can find so many Kiran Bedis.''
           Most inmates volunteer for Mrs. Bedi's programs. ``Probably I
cannot solve all problems of the inmates, but at least we can do
something to make their lives better,'' she said.
           With its dozens of sparkling-clean barracks, the neat
courtyards, shining kitchens and now-disciplined inmates, Tihar
resembles an orderly commune.
           ``I have lived in jails that were like pig stys, but this is
first class,'' said Jagmohan Tandon, sitting on his bed in a
dormitory reminiscent of a student hostel. Photos of Hindu gods,
movie stars and art works covered the walls.
           Tandon, 45, a confessed habitual thief and con artist, said he
had served time in about a dozen Indian jails.
           ``Tihar is unrecognizable from a year ago,'' said S.N. Talwar, a
political science teacher who helped start an in-house magazine
edited by an inmate. ``I see no difference now in the atmosphere
between my college and the jail.''
           About overcrowding, a chronic condition in all Indian jails,
Mrs. Bedi can do little.
           When it was built in 1956, Tihar was intended for 2,500 inmates.
Today, 8,000 are crammed into it, including 300 women.
           Only about 1,000 are convicts. The rest await trial, and some
have spent years in the jail as their cases move sluggishly through
the overburdened courts.
           At the old Tihar, inmates say, the strong extorted money and
possessions from the weak with threats of violent death. Knife
fights were common, gambling was rampant and drugs were smuggled in
with the connivance of guards.
           Prisoners awaiting trial, who are not required to work, had
nothing to do but cause trouble.
           On her first day at the jail, Mrs. Bedi said, she felt as if
``the Himalayas had fallen on my head. My legs were buckling under
me.''
           Then, she recalled, ``I thought, `Am I going to be a part of
this rotten system or am I going to change it?''
           As a first step toward reform, she rounded up 400 men from one
of the barracks, sang them a prayer and told them to repeat it
after her. The prayer has become the jail's anthem and inmates
chant it daily.
           Next came classes in meditation and yoga, isolation of gang
leaders, suspension of corrupt prison officers. Inmates as well as
officials say drug use has declined dramatically.
           Voluntary groups were allowed into Tihar for the first time in
35 years to provide counseling, meditation classes, vocational
training, legal aid, even entertainment.
           Educated prisoners volunteer to teach classes. Music programs,
spiritual and religious lectures and sports contests are regular
events.
           ``We have stopped being lazy,'' Mrs. Bedi said.

"God sits in the man opposite me; therefore to injure him is to injure
God himself."
					- M. K. Gandhi


	How did this small, brown man from India grasp this truth so
essential to the Christian faith?

    Richard,
    
    IS that an essential truth of the Christian faith?!? I believe in that
    truth! I have rejected Christianity because I didn't find that truth in
    it.
    
    Obviously confused,
    
    John

    I'd agree its not the truth.  God is not in every man, for not every
    man has invited Him in.

    .64 & .65
    
    You're both caught up in a technicality.  The Jews recognize the
    "divine spark" at least in other Jews, if not all people.  John 1.9,
    cites Christ as the one true light that shines on all humankind, not
    just an elite few (and not just men).
    
    Central to Gandhi's statement is that human life is sacred and
    that injury to others is a sin against God.  Or do you argue that
    this is also not the truth?
    
    Since y'all like Bible references to back up these strange notions of
    mine, let me share this one:  Matthew 25.31 to the end of the chapter.
    There's more, but I'll trust you to locate the passages yourselves,
    if you're were interested.  Now, it's up to you to either dismiss
    what I've said, argue that once again I have misunderstood the
    Scriptures, or admit that there might be some small measure of truth
    in what I've said.
    
    Richard
    

    .66
    
    You didn't say it Richard... Ghandi did! :-) :-) :-)
    
    Imagine that I disagree with Ghandi... Whew!  That must really be
    tickle spot.

>    IS that an essential truth of the Christian faith?!? I believe in that
>    truth! I have rejected Christianity because I didn't find that truth in
>    it.

It's a part of who God made man to be.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in
the image of God has God made man."   Genesis 9:6

We'll avoid the issue of capital punishment for now...  the point is
that it's wrong to harm another person because that person is made in
the image of God.  Harming a person is striking at God himself.

>    Obviously confused,

Confused about why some profess to be Christians and harm others still?
Might sound like a cop-out, but please consider Jesus Christ first, and
remember that God loves even the most busted up of us, me included.  God
gives me a good 2x4 across the head now and again, but my failing does
not take away his love for me.  Nor for you.

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me!

-Steve

    If it is wrong to harm a person, is it also wrong to let an other
    person be harmed? How far can/should one go to prevent harm to an
    other person? Who about if the person who would be harmed is oneself?
    
    			Alfred

    >We'll avoid the issue of capital punishment for now...  the point is
    >that it's wrong to harm another person because that person is made in
    >the image of God.  Harming a person is striking at God himself.
    
    I disagree with this in part only.  God CREATED man in his image, and
    just as we can see God's handiwork in nature, the trees, flowers,
    plants, bugs...  so can we see God's *handiwork* in man.  
    
    However, God created man with a soul, an eternal essence.  The reason
    for not shedding the blood of another man is because then you have
    taken God's place in their life. Not because you are killing God.
    
    I kill bugs in my home... I guess we could say I killed God then
    too?????

    
    Nancy,
    
    Re: killing insects - killing God
    
    Actually, yes, you have.  But that's another topic for another
    discussion.
    
    Cindy

    .71
    
    I *knew* you'd respond that way. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
    
    

    .68  See there!  I *knew* you could find additional biblical support.
    
    Richard
    

    I, too, avoid killing insects unnescessarily.  In our house,
    we generally carry them outside and turn them loose.
    
    Richard
    

    Every watch nature programs???????
    
    God himself must be a murdered then, cause he made big fish to eat
    little fish, but he made little fish to 100 x the amount of babies, as
    big fish....
    
    No Biblical support just the evidence of creation.
    
    

    .75  They are God's creatures, not yours.
    
    Richard
    

    .76
    
    Whats yer point, Richard?  I am God's creature, NOT YOURS! :-)

RE:           <<< Note 398.76 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>

   > .75  They are God's creatures, not yours.
    
    

   God gave man (humanity) dominion over animal life.




 Jim    

    > I am God's creature, NOT YOURS! :-)
    
    Which is exactly the reason why I am against the death penalty.
    Well it's one of the reasons anyway...
    
    	Eric
     

    -1
    
    The death penalty was instituted by God.  If you believe in God, you
    must believe in the death penalty... right?  No, it's not that simpleis
    it.

    .78  Pretty lousy job we've done of being caretakers so far, I'd say.
    Or perhaps you equate dominion with irreverent, wholesale slaughter
    and destruction?
    
    Richard
    

    271 is the topic number to be discussing the death penalty under.
    
    Richard
    

    Re:.66

    Richard,
    
    I read the verses you referred to. Thank you. I found them very
    interesting. I now suppose you to mean that when we encounter another
    human being, were we to imagine that we were encountering God, we'd all
    treat each other a lot better. I think Gandhi would agree with you, and
    certainly if this is an "essential truth" of Christianity, it's one
    that I can easily embrace.

    I had thought that you were suggesting that the Hindu perception of God
    as part of the human spirit was an essential truth of Christianity. (I
    doubt Gandhi would have been able to reconcile the Hindu perception of
    God and his relationship to Man with the eternal punishment that occurs
    in the passages you referred me to. Then, again maybe I don't
    understand Hinduism all that well either.)

    If I tripped over "a technicality", you'll have to excuse me. Not being a
    Christian, I frequently experience a certain failure of context when I read
    things in here. You obviously intended to address your note to your fellow
    Christians who were likely to focus on the message of non-violence, not on
    what it says about the nature of God. I side-tracked the string. 

    Sorry.

    John
    

    398.83
    
    John,
    
    	I can certainly see how you might have arrived at your understanding
    concerning my use of Gandhi's affirmation.  And you're at least partially
    correct about what I was attempting to convey.
    
    	I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a Hindu in Heaven, if that's
    where I actually do end up.  I think it'll be my more exclusivist
    contemporaries who'll be blown away by it.
    
    Richard

RE:           <<< Note 398.81 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>

   > .78  Pretty lousy job we've done of being caretakers so far, I'd say.
   > Or perhaps you equate dominion with irreverent, wholesale slaughter
   > and destruction?
    
   

     Don't recall saying that we've done a good job of it..I happen to
    agree with you on that point, in fact.



   Jim    

    re Note 398.80 by JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
    Is this a serious or a sarcastic note?
    
    Eric
    

    Anybody want to take a crack at the questions in .69? Thanks.
    
    			Alfred

Alfred, I'll take a stab at it, re: .69

>    If it is wrong to harm a person, is it also wrong to let an other
>    person be harmed? How far can/should one go to prevent harm to an
>    other person? Who about if the person who would be harmed is oneself?
    
This reminds me of Isaac Asimov's 3 rules of Robotics.  (Though I can't recall 
their exact wording, can somescience fiction fan help me out there.)

If I saw another person being harmed, I would try my best to prevent that harm 
without harming the harmer, the harmee, or myself.  I'd probably allow more 
harm to myself than the others.

If I myself were being harmed, I'd try to prevent that with as little harm to 
the other as I can.

The Golden rule applies here too, I think.

Peace,

Jim

            
    Re.75
    
    Nancy,
    
    Re: nature programs...animals are not killing consciously in such
    circumstances since they are 'preprogrammed'.  Therefore, it is not 
    murder.  (It is God eating God, but that's yet a whole 'nother 
    discussion...)
    
    Most of the time, humans can choose whether to pick up a package of
    meat at the store or a package of pasta instead.  
    
    It is unfortunate that the killing part is so totally removed from the 
    majority of society because if it were closer - especially the views of 
    what really happens in slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants - I 
    guarantee that you and countless others would become far more conscious 
    of just what you put in your mouth when it comes to consuming meat over
    non-meat alternatives.  This removal from society also takes away the
    lack of respect for the animal for giving it's life to sustaining
    another.     
    
    Btw, Hush Puppie shoes are for the most part made of human-made
    materials, and I have been quite successful at finding purses at
    J.C.Penney's that are not made of leather.  I'm sure I have a long way
    to go at totally eliminating animal products from my home, however at
    least it's a start.
    
    Cindy

    .89
    
    Er, uh Cindy, I grew up on mini-farm, I've seen it all, chickens, pigs,
    cows, ducks, rabbits, etc.

    
    Re.90
    
    Did you ever personally kill any of them, Nancy?
    
    Cindy

    My father did the killing, which was always humane, the animals never
    suffered... not even the crabs we kilt suffered. I got to help cleaning
    them.  BTW, I did used to go hunting with my foster father and was a
    real good shot for the quail we ate.  I killed them.

From Note 1113.0 in the VAXWRK::INDIA notes conference:

In Goa, the Carnival Seems over and so is Tradition - clari.news.lifestyle #2276

In article <XRgoa-carnivalUR7de_4MR@clarinet.com>, clarinews@clarinet.com
(Reuter/Moses Manoharan) writes:

         GOA, India (Reuter) - As the dancers swayed to a sensuous
samba beat, Marina Sequeira wondered if her daughter would ever
see a carnival in Goa when she grows up.
         Her father was a leader of the colorful parade that swept
through Goa's capital Panjim on the first of three days of
revelry before Lent, evoking memories of 451 years of Portuguese
rule over Goa until India's takeover in 1961.
         ``I'm not sure if my daughter will see all this when she
grows up,'' said Sequeira wistfully, clutching her one-year-old
child and watching the carnival along the waterfront.
         Mother and daughter had defied Goa's dominant Roman Catholic
church to attend the carnival last month, which marked an
escalation in hostilities between clerics and state.
         State tourism authorities insist on holding and organising
the carnival which the church wants banned.
         The church, once a pillar of Portuguese colonial rule, and
Goa's elite converts to Roman Catholicism from Hinduism's
highest caste -- the Brahmins -- believe the traditions of the
Old World are being eroded by rapidly growing materialism.
         On the eve of the carnival Monsignor Alberto Luis, director
of the Diocesan Service Center, denounced it as commercial
revelry and a sellout of Goa's women.
         ``Women of dignity should leave the carnival alone to loose
women and wayside girls,'' Luis thundered to the dismay of the
faithful, who form a third of Goa's population of 1.3 million.
         The warnings had some effect. Most participating women
avoided revealing clothes, and couples danced chastely. But some
gave glimpses of the past, dancing provocatively to seductive
latin rhythms.
         ``The bishop doesn't want us to go to the carnival... but we
are here because it depends on us whether we want to be decent
or not... just watching a carnival is not a sin,'' said Analisa
Fernandes, a 19-year-old student watching the parade.
         The culture clash started in the 1960s when hippies from the
West flocked to Goa's idyllic beach lifestyle, based on the
concept of susegado, the Portuguese way of easy-does-it.
         Lazy days spent drinking feni, an alcoholic drink brewed
from cashewnuts, and endless siestas were mixed with the drugs
and free sexual habits of the hippies.
         In the 1970s lucrative jobs opened up in the Middle East and
earnings sent home to Goa spurred its economic transformation.
Then tourists spread Western ideas further.
         ``There is drug use, sex exploitation in the carnival, it is
behind the curtain,'' says Father Christovao Caldeira, rector of
the Rachol seminary built by the Jesuits in 1610.
         He said vulgarities creeping into the carnival reflected the
pressure on Goan society from tourism and foreign television
channels recently allowed into India.
         Crisologo Furtado, an oral historian of Goa, expresses
concern over the sharp increase in tourist arrivals, rising to
an annual 150,000 from 8,371 over the past 20 years.
         He believes the influx will finally break down the hold of
Christianity on its privileged Brahmin converts.
         The church's hold over Goan Catholics is strongest on the
issue of preserving traditions. In politics, much older impulses
from Hinduism come into play, such as caste.
         ``During Portuguese rule they (the Brahmins) controlled.
Under Indian rule they still do. Even in elections, Hindu and
(converted) Christian Brahmins vote together,'' says Furtado.
         In the huge bungalow of Dona Rosa Costa Dias, time stands
still. Portuguese is the preferred tongue in this high ceiling
house built in Rococo and Victorian style.
         Standing beside the altar, Dona Rosa spoke of the old days
when the carnival was celebrated by village communities, with
men serenading their beloved.
          ``People did it spontaneously then, now they do it for a
price,'' Dona Rosa says dismissively.
         The Old World has not given up the battle altogether.
         In one corner of Rachol Seminary, a museum its authorities
say is Asia's first for Christian art opened last month with a
glittering array of relics from the Portuguese past.
         The museum's main inspiration is well-known Goan artist
Mario Miranda, a chronicler of the territory's social life.
         ``Portuguese Catholic tradition is dying. We can only delay
it, not stop it. But we can preserve it in the museum.''

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 659.20                  Christianity and Islam                     20 of 20
TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon"                      10 lines  11-APR-1994 12:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Nancy,
    
    >Hindus...a path to eternal afterlife without Jehovah.
    
    Who said that, and how did you come to that conclusion?
    
    Are Jehovah and God two separate beings in your belief system?
    
    Cindy

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 659.22                  Christianity and Islam                     22 of 23
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"     3 lines  11-APR-1994 13:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My understanding [and please correct as I know you will if I'm
    wrong], is the God, Jehovah of the Bible [one and the same] is
    recognized, but not as *only* supreme God.

    659.22 (398.95) There are no other Gods.  You are certainly familiar
    with the shema.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    At the nondual level of consciousness, there is only One God.  Jehovah 
    is an aspect/a face of the *same* God/Reality, and not separate.  Allah 
    is yet another face.  
    
    It is much the same as you and I, Nancy.  You are born, and so am I. 
    We are separate - dual.  So Krishna and Christ are also dual.  There 
    are characteristics about you that are different from me, and if
    someone were to write our autobiographies, they would be completely
    different for the most part.  So it is with stories of Christ, Krishna
    (the Bible vs. the Gita.)
    
    Yet if you go beyond the differences, one perceives that we are made of 
    the very same materials.  Red blood flows through our veins, for example.  
    When we die, we will both go back to dust (our physical form).  And when 
    we are two dust piles, we can be mixed together and we will no longer be
    different - we will be the same.  Our underlying makeup, then, is 
    identical - non-dual.
    
    Cindy

               <<< VAXWRK::$1$DUS6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]INDIA.NOTE;3 >>>
                            -< The INDIA notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 126.46                       Aryan theory                          46 of 46
38191::VERMA "Virendra, HLO2-1/A7, DTN 225-6518"    201 lines  14-APR-1994 09:46
                        -< The Harappans  Civilisation >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From, The Hindustan Times
By N.S. Rajaram

Until quite recently, the famous Harappan civilization of the Indus valley has
been an enigma.  Many questions still remain about the identity of the people
who created this great ancient civilization.  Stretching over a million and a
half square kilometers, from the borders of Iran to east UP and with some sites
as far south as the Godavari valley, it was larger than ancient Egypt and
Mesopotamia combined.  What is perhaps most puzzling about it is the fact that
all major sites spread over this immense belt went into sudden decline and
disappeared more or less simultaneously.  The renowned archeologist, S.R. Rao,
probably the foremost authority on Harappan archeology recently wrote:
        "In circa 1900 B.C., most of the mature Harappan sites were wiped out
forcing the inhabitants to seek new lands for settlement.  They seem to have
left in a great hurry and in small groups, seeking shelter initially on the
eastern flank of the Ghaggar and gradually moving towards the Yamuna.  The
refugees from Mohen-jo-daro and southern sites in Sind fled to Saurashtra and
later occupied the interior of the peninsula."
        From this it is apparent that the Harappans, though inhabiting a vast
area, fell victim to a sudden calamity which forced them to seek shelter in
other parts of ancient India.  The usual explanation found in history books is
that the inhabitants of the Harappan cities were driven out by the invading
Aryans.  However it is now recignised by scholars that the Aryan invasion
theory of India is a myth that owes more to European politics than anything in
Indian records or archaeology.  (The politics of History, The Hindustan Times,
Nov. 28 1993).  The evidence against any such invasion is now far too strong to
be taken seriously.  To begin with, sites spread over such a vast stretch,
measuring well over a thousand miles across would not have been all abandoned
simultaneously due to the incursion of nomadic bands at one extremity.
Further, there is profuse archaeological evidence including the presence of
sacrificial altars that go to show that the Harappans were part of the Vedic
aryan fold.  As a result, it can safely by said that the Vedic age also ended
with the Harappan civilisation.
        From all this it is clear that the loss of these sites must have been
associated with some natural catastrophe.  A few scholars have pointed to
evidence of frequent floods to account for the abandonement.  But, floods are
invariably local in nature and do not cause the collapse of a civilisation over
a vast belt.  People adapt.  Floods bring death but they also sustain life.
Some of the most flood prone areas of the world - like the Nile valley, Bengal
and the Yangtse valley, in China,- area also among the most densely populated.
It is the loss of water or dessication that causes massive disruptions on the
scale witnessed at the end of the Harappan civilization.  Thanks to the latest
data from two major archaeological and satellite based studies, we now know
that this is exactly what happened.  It was ecological change that ended the
great civilization not only in India but over a vast belt that included
Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Aegean.
        On the basis of extensive explorations carried out in Northern
Mesopotamia, a joint French-American team led by H. Weiss of Yale University
has determined that most of the old world civilization were severely affected
by a prolonged drought that began about 2200 B.C. and persisted for about 300
years.  The most drastically hit region seems to have been the Akkadian
civilization neighbouring India.  The drought may have been triggered by
massive volcanic eruptions.  According to the findings of this historic study
concluded only recently:
        "At approximately 2200 B.C., occupations of Tell Leilan and Tell Brak
(in Northern Mesopotamia) were suddenly abandoned...a marked increase in
aridity and wind circulation, subsequent to a volcanic eruption, induced
considerable degradation in land use conditions.... this abrupt climatic change
caused abandonement of Tell Leilan, regional desertion, and collapse of the
Akkadian empire based in southern Mesopotamia.  Synchronous collapse in
adjacent regions suggests the impact of abrupt climatic change was excessive.
        An end uncannily like that of the Harappans.  The authors of this
momentous study note that the collapse of the Akkdians more or less coincided
with similar climate change, land degradation and collapse noted in the Aegean,
Palestine, Egypt, and India.  The date of 1900 BC given by S.R. Rao for the
collapse of the Harappans should be seen as approximate.  More accurate methods
are now available that show this date to have been sometime before 2000 BC, and
they are well within the calibration error of radiocation and other scientific
dating techniques.  The basic point is: as a result of several independent
explorations conducted over a vast belt from southern Europe to India, it is
now clear that civilizations over a large part of the ancient world were
brought to a calamitous end by an abrupt climate change on a global scale.  To
attribute a global calamity of such colossal magnitude to nomadic 'Aryan'
tribes is simplistic in the extreme.
        These discoveries should help put an end to all speculation regarding
the Aryan invasion as the cause of breakup of the Harappan civilisation.  On
the other hand we now know that the Vedic civilization far from coming into
existance after the Harappan, in fact ended with it; the mature Harappan
civilization was the last glow of the Vedic age.  This recognition has brought
about a fundamental change in perpective in the history and chronology of not
only ancient India, but also nearly all ancient civilizations.  It helps answer
several fundamental questions about the source of the Harappans - they should
now be called the Vedic Harappans - and the age of the Rig Veda.  Thanks to
recent discoveries about the mathematics and geography of Vedic India, we are
now in a position to answer both questions.

To be continued...

Continued:

        This shift in perspective,that the Harappan civilization came at the
end of the Vedic age also helps explain a major puzzle; the technological basis
for this great civilisation.  Even a superficial study of Harappan sites
suggests that its builders were extremely capable town planners and engineers.
And this requires a sophisticated knowledge of mathematics especially
geometry.  Elaborate structures like the Great Bath of Mohen-jo-daro, the
Lothal harbour or the citadel at Harappa are inconcievable without a detailed
knowldge of geometry.  The world had to wait 2000 years more, till the rise of
the Roman civilisation for sanitation and town planning to reach a comparable
level.  The question is: where did the Harappans get the necessary mathematical
and engineering knowledge?  History books tell us that Indians borrowed their
geometry from the Greeks.  This is absurd.  The Harappans must have had the
neccessary technical knowledge at least 2000 years before the Greeks.  Without
it the civilization would never have seen the light of day.  It is as simple as
that.
        But once we recognise that Harappan archaeology belongs to the closing
centuries of the Vedic age, the mystery vanishes.  The late Vedic literature
includes mathematical texts known as the Sulba-sutras which contain detailed
instruction for the building of sacrificial altars.  After a monumental study
spanning more than 20 years, the distinguished American mathematician and
historian of science, A. Seidenberg showed that the Sulba-sutras are the source
of both Egyptian and old Babylonian mathematics.  The Egyptian texts based on
the Sulba-sutras go back to before 2000 BC.  This provides independent
cofirmation that Indian mathematical knowledge existed long before that date,
ie, during the height of the Harappan era.
        The sulba-sutras are part of the vedic religious literature known as
the Kalpasutras.  They were created originally to serve as technical manuals
for the design and construction of Vedic altars.  As previously noted, Harappan
sites contain many such altars, a fact that supplies a link between Vedic
literature and Harappan archaeology.  It serves also to show that the vedic
literature could not have been brought in by any invaders - they were needed
for building the altars that are very much part of the Harappan archaeology!
The sulba-sutra are the oldest mathematical texts known.  A careful comparison
of the sulba-sutras with the mathematics of Egypt and old Babylonia led
Seidenberg to conclude:
        "... the elements of ancient geometry found in Egypt and old Babylonia
stem from a ritual system of the kind found in the Sulba-sutras."
        What is interesting is that the origins of ancient mathematics are to
be found in religion and ritual.  So the great engineering feats of the
Harappans can be seen as secular off-shoots of the religious mathemtics found
in vedic literature.  This can in a way be compared to the history of books and
publishing,  The first books printed were Bibles, like the Gutenberg bible; but
the technique of printing soon transcended its original niche adn led to an
explosion of knowledge that made possible the European renaissance. similarly,
the 'ritual mathematics' in the sulba-sutras led eventually to the purely
secular achievements of the Harappans like city planning and the design of
harbours.
        So the vedic civilisaion ended well before 2000 BC, with the ending of
the Harappans following the Great Drought.  The next question is, when did it
actually begin.  Here we cannot be certain although some experts on Vedic
astronomy claim to be able to find statements in the Rig Veda that point to
dates like 6500 BC and beyond.  I feel it safer at this time to be consevative
and stick to reliable archaeological evidence.  Although some sites dating to
almost 7000 BC have been found, I believe that a lot more supporting data must
be found before such dates can be accepted. But thanks to new data made
available by the French SPOT satellite and the Indo-French field study, we can
definitely conclude that the Rig-Veda describes the geography of North India as
it was long before 3000 BC.  The clinching evidence is provided by the fate of
the Saraswati river.
        It is well known that in the Rig Veda, the greatest and the holiest of
rivers was not the Ganga, but the now dry Saraswati.  The Ganga is mentioned
only once while the Saraswati is mentioned some 50 tomes.  There is a whole
hymn devoted to her.  Extensive research by the late Dr. Wakankar has shown
that the Saraswati changed her course several times, going completely dry
around 1900 BC.  This date may now have to be moved back by a few centuries in
light of what we now know about the disappearence of the neighbouring
Akkadians.  In any event we know now ehich Dr. Wakankar did not, that the
Saraswati described in the Rig Veda belongs to a date long before 3000 BC.  The
Rig Veda calls the Saraswati the greatest of rivers (Naditame) that flowed from
"the mountain to the sea".  The latest satellite data combined with field
archaeological studies have shown that the Rig Vedic Saraswati had stopped
being a perrenial river long before 3000 BC.
        As Paul-Henri Francfort of CNRS, Paris recently observed, "...we now
know, thanks to the field work of the Indo-French expedition that when the
protohistoric people settled in this area, no large river had flowed there for a
long time."
        The protohistoric people he refers to are the early Harappans of 3000
BC.  But satellite 'photos show that a great prehistoric river that was over 7
kilometers wide did indeed flow through the area at one time. This was the
Saraswati described in the Rig Veda.  Numerous archaeological sites have also
been located along the course of this great prehistoric river thereby
confirming Vedic accounts.  The great Saraswati that flowed "from the mountain
to the sea" is now seen to belong to a date long anterior to 3000 BC.  This
means that the Rig Veda describes the geography of North India long before 3000
BC.  This is further supported by the fact that the Drishadvati river, also
described in the Rig Veda, had itself gone dry long before 3000 BC.  All this
shows that the Rig Veda must have been in existece no later than 3500 BC.
There is other evidence from metallurgy and astronomy that lend further support
for this date.
        What does this all mean?  In our book, Vedic Aryans and the Origins of
Civilisation, David Frawley and I have shown that the Rig Veda belongs to an
earlier layer of civilisation before the rise of the civilisation of Egypt,
Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley (Harappa).  This calls for a fundamental
change in our idea of Mesopotamia as the cradle of civilisation.  In the same
book, on the basis of ecology and ancient literature, it is also suggested that
the Rig Vedic aryans were the beneficiary of an age of abundance in north
India, brought about by the melting of the ice caps at the end of the last Ice
Age.  The last Ice age ended in about 8000 BC.  For the next several thousand
years, many areas that are now arid, like Rajasthan, Sind, Baluchistan - were
fertile and supported agriculture.  This of course was due to the discharge of
waters in the form of numerous streams from  melting ice caps.  This is
apparent from the French satellite study.  In the course of time, the ice caps
accumulated during the long ice age came to be depleted and aridity began to
dpread across the sub continent.  This ofcourse culminated in the great drought
of 2200 BC that wrought havoc with the civilisations of the ancient world.
        In summary, all this new evidence, when examined in the light of
science, gives a totally different picture of the ancient world.  The rise and
fall of the Vedic civilisation of which the Harappan was a part can be seen to
have resulted from the vagaries of nature, inseparably bound to the boom and
bust ecological cycle that followed the last ice age.  The vedic age and more
specifically the Rig Veda were the beneficiaries of nature's bounties - a
unique age in water abundance in the wake of the last ice age.  Its end was
also brought about by nature in the form of a killing drought.  The Harappan
civilisation was its twilight.  And this is the verdict of science - what
nature giveth, nature also taketh away.

    
From: Yoga Journal, May/June 1994, p.46, 

World Of Yoga - compiled by Anne Cushman

Yoga and Christianity

Forty years ago, Fr. Cesar Davila - a Catholic priest in Ecuador - was
introduced to yoga practice by a visiting disciple of Mahatma Gandhi.
Davila was so impressed by the power of meditation, pranayama, and hatha
yoga techniques that he founded a fellowship to help propagate them - the
Center for Yoga and Christianity, which now has hundreds of members,
several Ecuadoran ashrams, and satellite groups in Panama, Colombia, and
Costa Rica.  

At the main ashram in the foothills of the snowcapped Andes mountains, 
visitors come to study yoga, meditation, and Eastern philosophy, hike,
relax, soak in the thermal waters - and celebrate mass with Fr. Davila, 
who is still a practicing priest.  "Most of the Ecuadoran population is
Catholic," explains Monica Reynoso, Fr. Davila's assistant and translator.
"We don't ask anyone to convert to Hinduism.  Yoga is a science."

Indeed, the Center's honorary president is Archbishop of Quito, who 
Reynoso claims "regards our movement as one of the most important movements
within the Catholic Church."

Reynoso says that yoga practices can lead people back to early Christianity's
meditative foundations.  "In early Christianity, meditation was practiced
in the yogic way by people like the desert fathers.  But many people in South
America have the misconception that yoga is a heathen thing.  We teach that
we are only going back to our roots - after all, Christianity started in the
East."

Foreign visitors are welcome to the Center's ashrams, and Reynoso hopes to
begin organizing exchange programs for people interested in living with
yoga-oriented families in Ecuador.  For further information, contact Monica
Reynoso, P.Ol. Box 2615, Monterey, CA, 93940; or Fr. Cesar Davila, P.O. Box 
17-01-3190, Quito, Ecuador.

    
    For an excellent overview of historical Hinduism, see SHARDS::INDIA,
    note 1187.1.  It's quite lengthy, but well worth the read.
    
    Cindy

       <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
===============================================================================
Note 91.5158                 Christianity and Gays                 5158 of 5159
THOLIN::TBAKER "The Spirit of Apathy"                 12 lines  04-Apr-96 10:33
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .5152 Jack

>    Which particular sect of Eastern Religion did you take part in?  Just
>    curious.

Siddha Yoga - a branch of yoga.  It had many Hindi overtones.

It taught me that 1. it's the *same* God, 2, Hindus won't worship
"idols" any more than catholics worship crosses and 3. all those
"gods" are simply different aspects of the same God.

Tom Baker

       <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
===============================================================================
Note 91.5159                 Christianity and Gays                 5159 of 5159
MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs."             22 lines  04-Apr-96 11:08
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hello Tom:
    
    I understand that Hinduism encompasses a whole realm of beliefs...just
    as Christianity encompasses different doctrinal beliefs.  Since you
    have shared this, I pose these questions to you...
    
    -What is your concept of Christianity?  Jesus made claims stating the
    No Man Cometh unto the Father but by Him.  The Old Testament, not only
    in its doctrinal statements, i.e. The First Commandment, but even in
    its history adequately shows that there is a definite distinction
    between God the Father, and the other gods.  Therefore, if you TRULY
    believe the Bible to be a source for good learning and sound wisdom, 
    then I am somewhat puzzled by this statement...
    
ZZ    3. all those "gods" are simply different aspects of the same God.
    
    -Do you reject the words of the First Commandment based on your belief
    above?  
    
    Regards,
    
    -Jack

>    -What is your concept of Christianity?  Jesus made claims stating the
>    No Man Cometh unto the Father but by Him.  

    Christianity is one of a number of ways seek communion with God.
    It is my chosen path.

    No one can achieve communion with God except by following the same
    teachings that Jesus taught.  Most importantly: Love God, Love your
    neighbor.  Jesus is not the only one to have taught and lived these
    teachings.  With work and surrender these goals are attainable.  It
    is not a cruel joke played on us by our Creator.  Once the goals 
    are attained one becomes supremely great and supremely humble.  To
    be immersed in Love and realize it is a humbling experience.  Your
    life can never be the same.


>ZZ    3. all those "gods" are simply different aspects of the same God.
>    
>    -Do you reject the words of the First Commandment based on your belief
>    above?  

    
    The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are different aspects of the
    same God, are they not?

    My statement does not reject the First Commandment.  If I kneel in
    a cathedral, bow in a mosque or prostrate myself in front of a statue
    of Shiva, dance in the woods...

		*I HONOR THE --> SAME <-- GOD*  

    The God of Abraham.  The Father of Jesus.  Allah.  Shiva. Vishnu. Bramha.

    If you make up petty differences between them then you try to divide men 
    and that is an evil deed.

    God, our God, EVERYBODY'S GOD, permeates the universe.  God's essence
    is Love and this Love permeates the universe.  It's all around you.
    It's closer to you than your breath.  It's beyond pettiness.  It's
    beyond names.  It is glorious and prophets and messiahs have pointed
    to it throughout the ages.  It's real.

    I'm wasting my breath.  Someone's going to turn this around and say
    how this isn't "sound teaching" or whatever and how it goes against
    Christianity and the Bible and what have you.  
    
    It is the essence of Jesus' teaching:  Love God, Love your neighbor.
    If you're not doing that you're screwing up.  YOU ARE SINNING.  If
    you're painting distinctions between what this god looks like and 
    what that god looks like, you're missing the whole point.  You're
    missing the LOVE that surrounds us all.  You are turning away from
    God and refusing to be with Him.  That is sin.  Anything that gets
    you closer to God is not sin, even if that means going to bed with
    another man.  If that brings you closer to God, then so be it.  It's
    not up to me to say.
    
    You start out loving those whom you like and are close to you.  Then
    we are challanged to love our enemies and in accepting them and 
    forgiving them we can forgive and accept ourselves.  (A pretty tall
    order so far)  Then we can be in love all the time - "And they'll
    know we are Christians by our Love."  Then how can we help but
    be in love with God?  Isn't that what Jesus ultimately taught?
    
    tom

    Tom:
    
    No, you aren't wasting your breath.  I'm just trying to understand.
    
    Let me invert the question though.  What gods was God referring to in
    the 1st Commandment?  What distinguishes the gods of Canaan from the 
    gods of today?
    
    -Jack

    Incidently, if you study the Psalms and the Proverbs, you will note
    that Love is an attribute of God; however, he has other attributes as
    well.
    
    -Jack

>    that Love is an attribute of God; however, he has other attributes as
>    well.

Maybe so, but that's the aspect I'm supposed to work on in this
life.  Why?  I dunno.  Go ask Him.

Tom

    RE: .105

>    Let me invert the question though.  What gods was God referring to in
>    the 1st Commandment?  What distinguishes the gods of Canaan from the 
>    gods of today?

    Men put lots of things before God.  Money, power, sex, acceptance.
    
    I've been thinking about the golden calf.  This was while they
    were out in the wilderness?  Where did they get enough gold to
    mold such a thing?  Unless, of course, they were talking in
    metaphor.
    
    Perhaps it means that you shouldn't worship a god that you 
    created and manipulate.  After a while it will become clear
    that it simply doesn't work.

    Tom

    Well, it wasn't a metaphor since Aaron actually molded the calf.  If
    you remember the account, God was deeply angered at Aaron and would
    have destroyed him had not Moses advocated for him.  
    
    I agree with you that idols come in many forms...sex, money,
    girlfriends, boyfriends...many different ways.  While you are
    absolutely right that God was telling them that bowing to an idol would
    be useless, we simply cannot ignore the fact that our God is a jealous
    God.  The 2nd commandment actually interweaves with the first...God is
    very clear on this matter.  This is why many of the nations like
    Ninevah, Philistia, Tyre, Ammon and others were completely
    destroyed...no remnant of them left.  They were destroyed for
    worshiping the baals and partook in all the practices of idolatry.  I
    don't claim to have a full grasp on Gods sovereignty but I do believe
    in the historical facts regarding Canaan and the following historic
    periods of Israel.
    
    There ARE other gods...God made that clear to the nation of Israel. 
    Who am I to disbelieve this?
    
    -Jack

>    There ARE other gods...God made that clear to the nation of Israel. 

    Well, when you bump into one, lemme know :-)

    Tom

    :-)))))

Re .104, .108

    
    Re .104, .108
    
>   Christianity is one of a number of ways seek communion with God.
>   It is my chosen path.
>
>		*I HONOR THE --> SAME <-- GOD*  
>
>    The God of Abraham.  The Father of Jesus.  Allah.  Shiva. Vishnu. Bramha.

  The Bible makes it clear that this is not so.  In it, God tells us who He is
  and what His is like.  There may be some teachings in the religions you
  mentioned that are in agreement with God's self revealed nature, but, MANY
  teachings are not.  It is impossible to reconcile these with Christianity.


>  No one can achieve communion with God except by following the same
>  teachings that Jesus taught.  Most importantly: Love God, Love your
>  neighbor. Jesus is not the only one to have taught and lived these
>  teachings.

  
  No one can know God except by the sacrifice Jesus made for us all.
  Jesus is the only one who died and rose again.  Again this is playing
  "pick and choose" with Jesus' teachings.  Not all His teachings agree
  with Islam or Hinduism.

  How about John 14:6-7

  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to
  the Father except through me.  If you really knew me, you would know my
  Father as well."
  
  
>  With work and surrender these goals are attainable.

  Eph 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this
  not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- NOT BY WORKS, so that no one
  can boast."


>   The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are different aspects of the
>   same God, are they not?
>
>   If you make up petty differences between them then you try to divide men 
>   and that is an evil deed.

  
  Jesus said: "If you've seen me you've seen the Father."  There is no
  inconsistency between their natures.  The same cannot be said of other gods.
  The differences are not petty but fundamental.  It is sinful to say they
  aren't.


>   Anything that gets
>   you closer to God is not sin, even if that means going to bed with
>   another man.  If that brings you closer to God, then so be it.


  This is a prime example of a concept contrary to the REVEALED nature of God,
  of who God says He is and the nature of His creation.  It cannot bring one
  closer to the God of Christianity.

  "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
  were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with
  other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
  Rom 1:27


>   I'm wasting my breath.  Someone's going to turn this around and say
>   how this isn't "sound teaching" or whatever and how it goes against
>   Christianity and the Bible and what have you.  

  
    Your not wasting your breath if in any way this discussion will bring you
  back to the true God who loves you and not the false gods which Satan
  delights in deceiving you with.  I pray that He will bring you back to
  Himself.

  However you are on very dangerous ground here! As the Apostle Paul writes in
  Gal 1:6-9

  "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by
  the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- which is really
  no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and
  are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.  But even if we or an angel from
  heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him
  be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If
  anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him
  be eternally condemned!"


>   You start out loving those whom you like and are close to you.  Then
>   we are challanged to love our enemies and in accepting them and 
>   forgiving them we can forgive and accept ourselves.  (A pretty tall
>   order so far)  Then we can be in love all the time - "And they'll
>   know we are Christians by our Love."  Then how can we help but
>   be in love with God?  Isn't that what Jesus ultimately taught?

  This is backwards.  We are taught to love God first with all our heart, soul,
  and mind.  The rest will follow.
  

>    I've been thinking about the golden calf.  This was while they
>    were out in the wilderness?  Where did they get enough gold to
>    mold such a thing?

  The Israelites got the gold from the Egyptians.  Read Ex 3:22 and Ex 11:2.
  Statements like this futher indicate you don't regard the Word of God as
  revealed propositional, historical truth.  Your first inclination is to
  doubt and assume a metaphor.

  
  Michael  

    RE: .113

>  mentioned that are in agreement with God's self revealed nature, but, MANY
>  teachings are not.  It is impossible to reconcile these with Christianity.

    Can you give examples?

>>  With work and surrender these goals are attainable.
>
>  Eph 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this
>  not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- NOT BY WORKS, so that no one
>  can boast."

    Ok.  You got me there.  I forgot to mention grace.  But work is
    also necessary.  With grace assured, if you put forth the effort
    something good must come of it.

    And, no.  Boasting has no place in love.

>  Jesus said: "If you've seen me you've seen the Father."  There is no
>  inconsistency between their natures.  

    I don't think I said otherwise.  They are, in essence, the same.
    But they can look different.

>  The same cannot be said of other gods.
>  The differences are not petty but fundamental.  It is sinful to say they
>  aren't.

    For example?

>  This is a prime example of a concept contrary to the REVEALED nature of God,
>  of who God says He is and the nature of His creation.  It cannot bring one
>  closer to the God of Christianity.
>
>  "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
>  were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with
>  other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
>  Rom 1:27

    I dunno.  God calls us to love.  God's essence is Love.  The message
    I get it to love.  Everything else just leads up to it.  "And they'll
    know we are Christians by our love."

>    Your not wasting your breath if in any way this discussion will bring you
>  back to the true God who loves you and not the false gods which Satan
>  delights in deceiving you with.  I pray that He will bring you back to
>  Himself.

    Thank you.  But God may pull me towards Himself in ways you are
    not familiar with.  I am steadily feeling closer on path I now
    trod.  When God sees me screwing up I'm sure He'll let me know.
    He always has :-)

>>   You start out loving those whom you like and are close to you.  Then
>>   we are challanged to love our enemies and in accepting them and 
>>   forgiving them we can forgive and accept ourselves.  (A pretty tall
>>   order so far)  Then we can be in love all the time - "And they'll
>>   know we are Christians by our Love."  Then how can we help but
>>   be in love with God?  Isn't that what Jesus ultimately taught?
>
>  This is backwards.  We are taught to love God first with all our heart, soul,
>  and mind.  The rest will follow.

    Well, it might work for you, but didn't Jesus say "How can you love
    God Whom you haven't seen if you don't love your neighbor whom you
    have seen?"  I think He's suggesting loving those around us is the
    first step in loving God.  Oh well.  Either path will get you there.
    It works for me.
    
    Tom

    Tom:
    
    I think what was being said is that no other spiritual leader of any
    eastern religion or any faith for that matter other than Jesus Christ
    has the ability to reconcile somebody before a Holy God.  If Jesus is
    the only begotten son of God, how than can one's sin be purged through
    another sinner, i.e. Buddah, Mohammed?
    
    I don't believe love can be defined as an entity of inclusion or
    acceptance.  For example, Proverbs tells us that he who spareth the rod
    hateth his child.  By definition, most against corporal punishment see
    spanking as an act of violence or hate.  Scripture teaches us
    otherwise.  Again, Agape love as Jesus taught us does not preclude
    chiding, admonishment, or rejection of a particular lifestyle.  
    
    -Jack

>    I think what was being said is that no other spiritual leader of any
>    eastern religion or any faith for that matter other than Jesus Christ
>    has the ability to reconcile somebody before a Holy God.  If Jesus is
>    the only begotten son of God, how than can one's sin be purged through
>    another sinner, i.e. Buddah, Mohammed?

    I believe there have been others who have found God and not
    only through Jesus.  When one surrenders completely to God
    there is no sin.  We may disagree on this.

>    I don't believe love can be defined as an entity of inclusion or
>    acceptance.  For example, Proverbs tells us that he who spareth the rod
>    hateth his child.  By definition, most against corporal punishment see
>    spanking as an act of violence or hate.  Scripture teaches us
>    otherwise.  Again, Agape love as Jesus taught us does not preclude
>    chiding, admonishment, or rejection of a particular lifestyle.  

    Children need to be corrected.  How is a matter for debate.  But
    the child must always be loved and corrected out of love.  I
    believe we agree on that.  Love takes many forms.

    Acceptance of others is necessary not for them but for us.
    We can change some things (a child's behavior sometimes)
    but not others.  Accepting those things you cannot change
    gives you time for other things, like love :-)

    Tom

    RE: .115
    
>> mentioned that are in agreement with God's self revealed nature, but, MANY
>> teachings are not.  It is impossible to reconcile these with Christianity.

>   Can you give examples?

   Here are a few for starters.  I realize these need more detail so I'll
   address them as time permits.
   
   karma -- salvation by works not faith alone.

   impersonal god -- the God of Christianity consciously and purposefully
                    intervenes in our lives and loves us as individuals.

   god is the universe -- the God of Christianity created the universe and is
                         apart from it.

   reincarnation -- "Just as man is destined to DIE ONCE, and after that to
                    face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once..." Heb 9:27

   deity of Christ -- Christ is the ONLY man with a divine nature.  In
                      Hinduism we are all part of "god" and therefore divine.


>> Eph 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this
>> not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- NOT BY WORKS, so that no one
>> can boast."

>   Ok.  You got me there.  I forgot to mention grace.  But work is
>   also necessary.  With grace assured, if you put forth the effort
>   something good must come of it.

   
   Work is not necessary for salvation.  It is rather our response to grace.


>>> Anything that gets you closer to God is not sin, even if that means going
>>> to bed with another man

>> This is a prime example of a concept contrary to the REVEALED nature of God,
>> of who God says He is and the nature of His creation.  It cannot bring one
>> closer to the God of Christianity.
>>
>> "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
>> were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with
>> other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
>> Rom 1:27

>   I dunno.  God calls us to love.  God's essence is Love.  The message
>   I get it to love.  Everything else just leads up to it.  "And they'll
>   know we are Christians by our love."

   We should love the sinner but not the sin.  We all sin and are all guilty,
   but, sin will never bring you closer to God.

   God defines and is the source of love.  But this is only one aspect of His
   nature.  He is also just.

   I should also have included the preceding verse:
   "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women
   exchanged NATURAL relations for UNNATURAL ones." Rom 1:26

   This is rebellion against the natural order which God established.

   
>   Well, it might work for you, but didn't Jesus say "How can you love
>   God Whom you haven't seen if you don't love your neighbor whom you
>   have seen?"  I think He's suggesting loving those around us is the
>   first step in loving God.

   It was the apostle John who made this statement and when taken in context
   it is clear that we are to love god first.

   "We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates
   his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom
   he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.  And he has given us
   this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother."
   1 John 4:19-21

   The context is in the summarizing statement: "Whoever loves God must also
   love his brother."  So in context we have: "It is evident you don't love
   God since you don't love your neighbor."

   Consider also Mat 22:36

   "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 
   Jesus replied: "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
   your soul and with all your mind.' This is the FIRST AND GREATEST
   commandment. And the SECOND is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

   This is not a matter of what works for us it is a matter of the way God
   says things are.  If we do not limit our understanding of God to what HE
   defines in His word we end up creating our own religion.  This also applies
   if we selectively choose parts of God's word and not the whole.

Michael

    Correction:  Reply 117 is in response to 114.

     >  karma -- salvation by works not faith alone.
    
        Karma is a reflection of one's attachment to the world.  "Good"
        karma as well as "Bad" karma are both attachments.  The point is
        to not have any karma - good or bad.  This is done by surrendering
        to God and proceeding through life with the knowledge that it is
        not actually you who is doing anything but God.  It is the ultimate
        "Not my will but Thine."  It is complete surrender to God.  And,
        BTW, it takes a lot of faith.  This is what made Jesus great and
        what made Buddha great as well as Krishna.  They "left" and let
        God take over. 
    
        I have no problem reconciling this with Christianity.
    
    >   impersonal god -- the God of Christianity consciously and
    purposefully
    >                    intervenes in our lives and loves us as
    individuals.
    
        I see no difference between Hinduism and Christianity on this
        issue.
    
    >   god is the universe -- the God of Christianity created the universe
    and is
    >                         apart from it.
    
        That's not my perception.  Whatever happened to the idea that God
        is everywhere?  It must be terribly lonely to be separated from
    God.
    
    >   reincarnation -- "Just as man is destined to DIE ONCE, and after
    that to
    >                    face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once..."
    Heb 9:27
    
        This is only a perception and should have not effect on how one
        approaches God.  The whole point it "This life is difficult and 
        you'll be a lot better off if you surrender to God."
        
        I see a different perception but not a conflict here.  If you want
        to make it a conflict I guess there's nothing I can do about it.
        
    >   deity of Christ -- Christ is the ONLY man with a divine nature.  In
    >                      Hinduism we are all part of "god" and therefore
    divine.
    
        I'm starting to see what you mean.  If you insist on focusing on
        the differences then there's no way you're willing to find a common
        ground.  This discussion cannot come to agreement.
    
        Christian mystics have been saying much the same thing for
    centuries.
        Have you reconciled the differences between your brand of faith
    with
        Christian mystics?
    
    >   Work is not necessary for salvation.  It is rather our response to
    grace.
    
        On general principles, I disagree.  In practice, God won't do it
    all
        for you.  You have to at least try to meet Him half way.  On
    another 
        level, it's really just God expending effort to get closer to God.
    
    
    >   We should love the sinner but not the sin.  We all sin and are all
    guilty,
    >   but, sin will never bring you closer to God.
    
        Once you have surrendered to God it is no long you who is working,
        or doing.  It is God.
    
    >   God defines and is the source of love.  But this is only one aspect
    of His
    >   nature.  He is also just.
    
        Just what?  :-)  Is being just outside the realm of love?
    
    >   It was the apostle John who made this statement and when taken in
    context
    >   it is clear that we are to love god first.
    
        So if I love my neighbor before I learn to love God then when I
        finally learn to love God have I done it wrong?  Is it no longer
        worth anything if I didn't love God first?  Should I stop loving
        my fellow human if I haven't perfected my love of God first?
    
    >   "We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God,"
    yet hates
    >   his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his
    brother, whom
    >   he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.  And he has
    given us
    >   this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother."
    >   1 John 4:19-21
    
        So, as you say, you can't love God without loving your brother.
    
    >   Consider also Mat 22:36
    >
    >   "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 
    >   Jesus replied: "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
    with all
    >   your soul and with all your mind.' This is the FIRST AND GREATEST
    >   commandment. And the SECOND is like it: `Love your neighbor as
    yourself.'"
    
        Yes.  If you love your neighbor it is on your way to loving God.
        That's the goal, to be in love, to surrender to God and love.  Then
        it permeates your life.  To do this is to discover the divinity
        within yourself.  When that happens, I guarentee, you will never
        stop praising God, not even in your sleep.  You will be supremely 
        humble for you will forever be with God.
    
    >   This is not a matter of what works for us it is a matter of the way
    God
    >   says things are.  If we do not limit our understanding of God to
    what HE
    >   defines in His word we end up creating our own religion.  This also
    applies
    >   if we selectively choose parts of God's word and not the whole.
    
        For whatever good the Bible is it doesn't encompass all knowledge.
        If it did then we wouldn't have to do anything or find anything out
        for ourselves or come to an understanding about who God is.  It'd
        all be there in the book.  The book is a pointer.  It will help you
        find your own path.  You must now go look.
    
        Tom
    

    RE: .119
    
>>   impersonal god -- the God of Christianity consciously and purposefully
>>                    intervenes in our lives and loves us as individuals.
    
>       I see no difference between Hinduism and Christianity on this
>       issue.

There is an Impersonalist philosophy within Hinduism which is not compatible
with Christianity.

>> god is the universe -- the God of Christianity created the universe and is
>>                        apart from it.

>       That's not my perception.  Whatever happened to the idea that God
>       is everywhere?  It must be terribly lonely to be separated from God.

More properly God is DISTICT from the universe.  He is still omnipresent to
any degree He desires.  He is not wholly contained within the universe as
according to Hindu philosophies.

It IS terribly lonely to be separated from God.  All of mankind was
separated from God through Adam's fall.  We all sin.  ONLY the atonement
made by Christ can bridge this gap and ONLY those who accept this atonement
can have fellowship, and thus love, with the Father.  When we accept what
Christ did we receive a new nature.  Only then does the Holy Spirit indwell
us and empower us to see, understand, and do His will.

Again John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me." 

This is the Christian position.  Do all Hindus accept this?  No!  Followers
of Islam certainly don't.  Do Hindus accept the fact that Jesus HAD to die
for them to know God?  Are Hindus able to achieve acceptance before God
without Christ's sacrifice?  If you believe this then did He die for
nothing?  

  
>> reincarnation -- "Just as man is destined to DIE ONCE, and after that to
>>                  face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once..." Heb 9:27
    
>       I see a different perception but not a conflict here.  If you want
>       to make it a conflict I guess there's nothing I can do about it.

What perception?  It is in conflict, which is my point.  You are unwilling
to accept scripture as your authority.  Jesus always used scripture as His
authority when confronting the Pharisees.  We cannot choose which scriptures
we want to believe and leave out what we don't.


>>   deity of Christ -- Christ is the ONLY man with a divine nature.  In
>>                    Hinduism we are all part of "god" and therefore divine.
    
>      I'm starting to see what you mean.  If you insist on focusing on
>      the differences then there's no way you're willing to find a common
>      ground.  This discussion cannot come to agreement.

The uniqueness of the deity of Christ is crucial to Christianity.  I cannot
do other than focus on this.  If the premise is still that Christianity and
Huduism are not compatible then this is leading toward agreement.

    
>       Christian mystics have been saying much the same thing for centuries.
>       Have you reconciled the differences between your brand of faith with
>       Christian mystics?

What mystics?  Mysticism is forbidden by the scriptures.  Why should I
accept their authority on anything?  If they contradict God's word they do
not speak for Him.  

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the
fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in
witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults
the dead.  Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD"
Deut 18:10

"But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning,
your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to
Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the
Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you
received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with
it easily enough ... For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen,
masquerading as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for Satan himself
masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his
servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what
their actions deserve." 2 Cor 11:3-15

    
> So, as you say, you can't love God without loving your brother.

No, the scripture says you can't help but love your brother if you truly
love God.


>> This is not a matter of what works for us it is a matter of the way God
>> says things are.  If we do not limit our understanding of God to what HE
>> defines in His word we end up creating our own religion. This also applies
>> if we selectively choose parts of God's word and not the whole.
    
>   For whatever good the Bible is it doesn't encompass all knowledge.
>   If it did then we wouldn't have to do anything or find anything out
>   for ourselves or come to an understanding about who God is.  It'd
>   all be there in the book.

It IS all there in the scriptures.  On what do you base your belief that
more is needed?

Michael
    

>There is an Impersonalist philosophy within Hinduism which is not compatible
>with Christianity.

Where?

>More properly God is DISTICT from the universe.

No.  He's in and around and beyond.  Bigger than Big.

>  If you believe this then did He die for nothing?  

Well, He certainly had to die for this society.  Perhaps the 
Hindus were not in such dire need.
  
>You are unwilling to accept scripture as your authority.

God is my authority, not words on a paper.  I seek God, not scripture.

>The uniqueness of the deity of Christ is crucial to Christianity.  I cannot
>do other than focus on this.  If the premise is still that Christianity and
>Huduism are not compatible then this is leading toward agreement.

What is with you people and exclusivity?
    
>>       Christian mystics have been saying much the same thing for centuries.
>>       Have you reconciled the differences between your brand of faith with
>>       Christian mystics?

>"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the
>fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in
>witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults
>the dead.  Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD"
>Deut 18:10

That's not mysticism - that's occult.  Mysticism is experiencing
God without the use of intermediaries.  All those other powers
just get in the way.

>No, the scripture says you can't help but love your brother if you truly
>love God.

Can't argue with that.  But until you learn to love God completely
loving your brother is a good start.

>>   For whatever good the Bible is it doesn't encompass all knowledge.
>>   If it did then we wouldn't have to do anything or find anything out
>>   for ourselves or come to an understanding about who God is.  It'd
>>   all be there in the book.
>
>It IS all there in the scriptures.  On what do you base your belief that
>more is needed?

There is more to the universe than is laid out in the Bible.
Galileo bumped into this a while ago.  It seems the Church
decided to recount its ways in 1983.


Tom

    RE: .121
    
> There is more to the universe than is laid out in the Bible.
> Galileo bumped into this a while ago.  It seems the Church
> decided to recount its ways in 1983.

Galileo did not bump into any contradiction with the Scriptures but
rather the man made misconceptions of the Roman Catholic church.

>>There is an Impersonalist philosophy within Hinduism which is not compatible
>>with Christianity.

> Where?

For starters check 398.52 second to last paragraph. 

To the point...

>>  If you believe this then did He die for nothing?  

> Well, He certainly had to die for this society.  Perhaps the 
> Hindus were not in such dire need.
  
So your saying there is way to reach God on our own, that the Hindus
found it?  That Christ died needlessly because there was another way!? 

Jesus clearly states, "No one comes to the Father except through me." 

The Apostle John said, "... Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.  He is the
atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the
sins of the WHOLE WORLD." 1 John 2:1-2 

"We know that we are children of God, and that the WHOLE WORLD is under
the control of the evil one. We know also that the Son of God has come
and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And
we are in him who is true -- even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the
true God and eternal life." 1 John 5:19

Where do you get your authority to say otherwise?  From God?  OK, how?
How do you know it is God speaking?  Am I to understand that you believe
that it is OK for God to contradict Himself in his word to us vs. some
special revelation to you?


>> You are unwilling to accept scripture as your authority.

> God is my authority, not words on a paper.  I seek God, not scripture.

Jesus says, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote
about me. But since you do not believe WHAT HE WROTE, how are you
going to believe what I say?" John 5:46

John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all
things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John
1:14  "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have
seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father,
full of grace and truth."

Why was the term "Word" use to refer to Jesus?  It is because the
Scriptures reflect the very character of God!  He is known by his Word.

2 Tim 3:15-16 "...you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to
make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All
Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness"

1 Thes 2:13 "And we also thank God continually because, when you
received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not
as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at
work in you who believe."

Isa 5:24 "Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass
sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers
blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of the LORD Almighty
and spurned the WORD of the Holy One of Israel."

Jer 8:9 "The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and
trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of
wisdom do they have?"

2 Tim 4:3 "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound
doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around
them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to
hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to
myths."

The Scriptures testify to their own authenticity and importance.


> What is with you people and exclusivity?

The Scriptures clearly define what it means to be a Christian.  If you
want to believe in some synthesis between Christianity and Hinduism
that's fine for you.  But don't expect Christian's to recognize or
acknowledge you as a brother when you are unwilling to accept God's word
on its own terms.

You can't come to Jesus and say "Yes I know you" while at the same time
rejecting ANY of his teachings.  The Jesus you claim to know would
reject you if you reject His word.

You've idolized a characteristic of God, love, and made it your god.

Michael

>For starters check 398.52 second to last paragraph. 

He says he's a "Personalist", because he believes in a personal
relationship with God.  Does this go against what you believe?

>So your saying there is way to reach God on our own, that the Hindus
>found it?  

No.  It requires love, faith and devotion.  But mostly love.

>That Christ died needlessly because there was another way!? 

I don't understand all the ways of God.  Did He die needlessly?
Probably not.

>You've idolized a characteristic of God, love, and made it your god.

That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me in a *long* time.

1 John 4:8  He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Tom

Note 398.120

>>       Christian mystics have been saying much the same thing for centuries.
>>       Have you reconciled the differences between your brand of faith with
>>       Christian mystics?

>What mystics?  Mysticism is forbidden by the scriptures.  Why should I
>accept their authority on anything?  If they contradict God's word they do
>not speak for Him.  

I concur with Tom on this.  Numerous mystical experiences are recorded in
the Bible.  The prophets were mystics, though not all mystics were or are
prophets.

Shalom,
Richard

Richard,

I guess that would depend on how you define mystic and mysticism.  
There are several dictionary definitions, and I think people tend
to develop their own ideas on what it means as well.

Mysticism often refers to the practice of people achieving communion
with God through certain disciplines and practices of their own such
as meditation or inducing a trance or trance-like state.  I suppose, 
one could then consider prayer a form of mysticism, but I think of it 
as more a conversation, with God playing as important or more important 
part in the conversation.  Generally Christianity sees God as providing 
the bridge between God and humanity, rather than as something people do
on their own. In this regard, I would not label the Biblical prophets 
mystics.

Leslie

    Hi Leslie,


    In your reply to "where is God" I think you summed up the
    experience of a mystic:  God is all around.

    I have never known God to be experienced by an act of will
    but only through surrender.  God's here - surrender and 
    accept it.  Kinda the ultimate "not my will but Thine."

    Love, forgiveness and grace help too.

    Tom

Um, I think that's sort of the opposite of a mystic?

Leslie

    re: .125 Leslie

>the bridge between God and humanity, rather than as something people do
>on their own. In this regard, I would not label the Biblical prophets 
>mystics.

    Do you think that mystics achieve communion with God through
    an act of self will?  Please don't confuse mysticism and magic.
    To a mystic, the magic is already here.

    Please give me a better idea as to what you think a mystic is.

    Thank you,

    Tom Baker

Not through self will, but through some _activity_ that brings them to 
a different dimension of experience.  This dictionary definition best 
fits what I think of when someone says mysticism: "a spiritual discipline 
aiming at direct union or communion with God or with ultimate reality through
trancelike contemplation or deep meditation." Except that I think other
spiritual disciplines besides "trancelike contemplation or deep meditation"
could be included in mysticism.  For example, fasting could be a part of
mysticism if its aim is an altered state of conciousness to bring one into
union with God. Drugs might be another.  

I don't necessarily view all mysticism as negative, but I think one can easily
go too far in the direction of mysticism. There is Christian mysticism and
Jewish mysticism (kabbala) as well others.  

I am confused as to why you even bring up magic.  I don't think the
two have direct correlation, although one could be mystical and practice
magic as well.  But one could be a mystic and never practice magic, and one
could practice magic and not be a mystic.  If you mean magic in the sense of
a mysterious quality of charm and delight, then I find a lot of the world
has a magical quality.  But if you mean causing things to happen through
supernatural means, by engaging or manipulating the spirit-world, then I 
choose to stay far away from that!

What is your definition of mystic or mysticism?

Leslie

    Leslie,
    
    	A mystical experience in one in which the living God is directly
    and immediately encountered.  I don't believe such an experience is
    entirely dependent on a discipline.
    
    	A prophet, as I understand it, is one who speaks God's living
    word as God's instrument -- a task difficult to accomplish, as I see
    it, without having encountered the Holy Presence somewhere along the
    line.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

 Z   A mystical experience in one in which the living God is directly
 Z   and immediately encountered.
    
    Mystical experiences don't always encounter the living God.  They may
    however encounter a god of some sort!
    
    -Jack

Re: 125 
Leslie,

    Thanks for your reply!  I WAS using the term to apply to a human
    attempt to reach God (or spirits) on our own through some kind of
    gimmick in contrast to God contacting us.

Richard and Tom,

    It is the former that is forbidden.  I have no problem with the latter.  

    However, all this is secondary to the point that was being made - that
    if these "Christian" mystics contradict the word of God then they do
    not speak for Him.

Michael
    

    RE: Leslie

>fits what I think of when someone says mysticism: "a spiritual discipline 
>aiming at direct union or communion with God or with ultimate reality through
>trancelike contemplation or deep meditation." 

    I don't see anything wrong with trying to approach God.  Otherwise
    I would object to people going to church :-)

>Except that I think other
>spiritual disciplines besides "trancelike contemplation or deep meditation"
>could be included in mysticism.  For example, fasting could be a part of
>mysticism if its aim is an altered state of conciousness to bring one into
>union with God. 

    Different strokes for different folks.  If that's what you think
    you need to do to get closer to God, try it.  But don't hurt 
    yourself.  It might work for some but not for others.

>Drugs might be another.  

    Don't count on it.

>I don't necessarily view all mysticism as negative, but I think one can easily
>go too far in the direction of mysticism. 

    Go too far?  If you get caught up in the process instead of the
    goal, I can see that happening.  This is where many Hindu yogis
    get stuck.  They can achieve such self control that they can be
    burried for days and come out unharmed.  It seems like a bloody
    waste of time and serves no real purpose.

>I am confused as to why you even bring up magic.  

    I thought you might be refering to manipulating the spirit world.
    Not only does it distract you from your goal (union with God) it
    can also be dangerous.  I think we agree to leave well enough alone.

>What is your definition of mystic or mysticism?

    Seeking and living with the understanding that God is always
    very near and in some ways tangible.   Pretty much what Richard
    said:
>>    	A mystical experience in one in which the living God is directly
>>    and immediately encountered.  I don't believe such an experience is
>>    entirely dependent on a discipline.

    To live with God forever present, to feel His love in everything,
    to me, is a goal worth pursuing.

>    Mystical experiences don't always encounter the living God.  They may
>    however encounter a god of some sort!
>    
>    -Jack

    Have a little faith.  Through prayer and love and proper living,
    surrender to the *Holy* Spirit and by accepting grace, good 
    things will come.  Conjuring will often get you into trouble.  
    Call out for God.  *He* hears you.  If you want to try it, if
    you haven't already, you might want to go into a church where
    people have sincerely worshipped God.  Have you ever asked God
    to make Himself or His will known?

    The funny thing is, His will for you may not be His will for me.

    God is Love.  God is good.  Is that so hard to accept?

>    However, all this is secondary to the point that was being made - that
>    if these "Christian" mystics contradict the word of God then they do
>    not speak for Him.
>
>Michael

    If I believe that something is right and my experience bears it
    out then I will speak it.  If it contradicts the way that some
    people interpret the Bible, there's not much I can do about it.
    
    Tom

    Re .133
    
    >  If I believe that something is right and my experience bears it
    >  out then I will speak it.  If it contradicts the way that some
    >  people interpret the Bible, there's not much I can do about it.

    Tom,
    
    There are 4.5 billion opinions in this world - all subjective. MY
    beliefs and experience  conflict with yours.  Who is right?  The God of
    Christianity claims to BE objective, absolute  truth and the Scriptures
    are His, self proclaimed, chosen means of tangible communication.   If
    I seem to quote Scripture a lot it is because it is the only authority
    by which I can  speak (or type :-)) about spiritual matters.  Notice
    even Jesus used scripture as His authority when confronting the
    Pharisees and Satan.

    The truth and meaning of the Scriptures are not interpreted by men they
    are interpreted by and consistent  with other Scripture.  Furthermore,
    without the Holy Spirit the Scriptures cannot be understood. 

    "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke
    from God as they were carried along  by the Holy Spirit."  2 Pet 1:21

    The prophets didn't speak for themselves but from God.  Everything they
    wrote was consistent with what  was written  by the other true prophets
    of God.

    Previously you have denied the authority of the Bible in favor of your
    personal revelations. Do you now accept the authority of the Bible
    since you claim that it is being misinterpreted  (implying it is
    correct but misunderstood)?  This is inconsistent.  Again I ask, do you
    believe that it is OK for God to contradict Himself in his word to us
    vs. some special revelation to you?  What exactly is your view of the
    role of the Bible?

    Explain to me how I am misinterpreting ANY of the passages in reply
    .122 (none of which you  responded to BTW).

Michael
    

>    There are 4.5 billion opinions in this world - all subjective. MY

    If there's one thing I've learned in this lifetime it is that
    people are different.  What is right for me, what is true for
    me may not necessarily ring true for you.  Although we have
    much in common there are some differences that we will never
    "resolve" so that we'll think the same way.  In actuality, 
    this is a good thing.  It keeps us fresh.

    4.5 billion (I thought there were over 5) people all approaching
    God in their own way.  I like it!

    I find my way of approaching God works for me.  I recognize that
    my way may not be appropriate for you.  I can live with that.

    You use the Bible as your rule book.  I use it as a guide.  I
    think you're missing things by being so ridged in its use.  You
    may think I'm putting my soul in peril.  Nonetheless, we probably
    have more in common than not.

>    without the Holy Spirit the Scriptures cannot be understood. 

    And the scriptures help to point us toward the Holy Spirit.  If
    they don't they are just noise.  The Bagavad Gita points us to
    the Holy Spirit too.  But you find that path  uncomfortable and
    so you avoid it.  That's OK.  I think your path will probably
    work for you.

>    The prophets didn't speak for themselves but from God. 

    I don't believe things because I want to believe them.  I believe
    them because that is the way I think things are.  I don't have
    a lot of choice in the matter.

>    Previously you have denied the authority of the Bible in favor of your
>    personal revelations. Do you now accept the authority of the Bible
>    since you claim that it is being misinterpreted  (implying it is
>    correct but misunderstood)?  This is inconsistent.

    If I read something in the Gospels that conflicts with what I 
    believe I ponder it and somehow work it through.  I don't always
    succeed.  I don't claim to have all the answers.... yet :-)

    There has been a lot of doubt cast on the Bible.  I don't think
    I *can* swallow it whole.  I think it's a begining, not an end.

>    Again I ask, do you
>    believe that it is OK for God to contradict Himself in his word to us
>    vs. some special revelation to you?

    God can do whatever She wants.  I don't see a conflict.

    Just remember, please, that God is big enough for everyone.

    Tom 

    OK.  I'll answer .122

>> There is more to the universe than is laid out in the Bible.
>> Galileo bumped into this a while ago.  It seems the Church
>> decided to recount its ways in 1983.
>
>Galileo did not bump into any contradiction with the Scriptures but
>rather the man made misconceptions of the Roman Catholic church.

    And do you believe that misconceptions no longer exist?

>>>  If you believe this then did He die for nothing?  
>
>> Well, He certainly had to die for this society.  Perhaps the 
>> Hindus were not in such dire need.
>  
>So your saying there is way to reach God on our own, that the Hindus
>found it?  That Christ died needlessly because there was another way!? 

    I'm saying there are many, *many* paths to God and that we, you,
    me, whomever, cannot DEFINE the INFINITE.  A Book does not define
    God.  A religion does not define God.  God IS.  You see one path.
    I see many.

    The Hindus have a rich history of saints and enlightened people
    to help them find the way.  There is also a rich tradition  of
    Gurus.  Some admittedly fake but  others genuine.  God has not
    forgotten the Hindus nor have the Hindus forgotten God.

    Did Christ die needlessly?  I DON'T KNOW.  Apparently it's *very*
    important to many people that He did die, so I guess it wasn't 
    needless.  Does it make a difference in my love for God or for my
    fellow human being on a day to day basis?  No.  I think not.
    
    It showed that Jesus was ultimately surrendered to God.  This is
    a good place to be, a good role to follow.
    
    But many in the world don't need that particular drama to help
    them believe, worship and love God.  If the act brought more
    people to God than before then I guess it was necessary.  Does
    that act have to be the cornerstone of *everyone's* journey to 
    God?  I don't believe so.
    
>Why was the term "Word" use to refer to Jesus?  It is because the
>Scriptures reflect the very character of God!  He is known by his Word.

    That's an interesting leap of logic.

    God is often perceived first through His word and then through
    the Holy Spirit.  Don't restrict  yourself to just the Word.

>The Scriptures testify to their own authenticity and importance.

    They may be authentic (real).  They *are* important.  Although
    I don't believe their importance is paramount.

>that's fine for you.  But don't expect Christian's to recognize or
>acknowledge you as a brother when you are unwilling to accept God's word
>on its own terms.

    If your love is so dependent on whether or not someone agrees 
    with you then you have missed the entire point of Christianity.

    Take a tax collector to lunch and see if you can't find some
    good in him.

>You can't come to Jesus and say "Yes I know you" while at the same time
>rejecting ANY of his teachings.  The Jesus you claim to know would
>reject you if you reject His word.

    I believe you are wrong.

>You've idolized a characteristic of God, love, and made it your god.

    As Richard pointed out: God is Love.

    Namaste'

    Tom Baker

    
    
    
    
    Tom,
    
   Sorry.  I didn't mean for you to go back through all of .122.  You did
   respond some the first time.  I was pointing out how you never responded to
   Jesus' words and other Scripture passages I quoted in .122 (but rather to my
   words) and I was (*AM*) asking how they are being misinterpreted by me. 
   Never the less, I'm glad you responded again.

   
>  I find my way of approaching God works for me.  I recognize that
>  my way may not be appropriate for you.  I can live with that.

   Jesus says: "There is only one way."

>  You use the Bible as your rule book.
   
   No I don't.  See 18.829

>  The Bagavad Gita points us to the Holy Spirit too.

   Jesus says otherwise.  Paul writes otherwise.  Peter writes otherwise.
   The prophets write otherwise, etc.

   
>   If I read something in the Gospels that conflicts with what I 
>   believe I ponder it and somehow work it through.  I don't always
>   succeed.

   I dare say your beliefs conflict with the vast majority of what God says. Do
   you ever consider that what is plainly written may be correct over and above
   your personal opinion?
   

>  There has been a lot of doubt cast on the Bible.

   Critics have attempted to do so for millennia with only temporary success.
   The truth of the Bible has always prevailed and the critics proven wrong.

>  I don't think I *can* swallow it whole.

   Only one who has accepted the sacrifice of Christ could.  He bridged the
   gulf that separates us from God and gives us His Holy Spirit so that we may
   understand.
   
>  I'm saying there are many, *many* paths to God and that we, you,
>  me, whomever, cannot DEFINE the INFINITE.

   Jesus (the INFINITE) says:  "There is only one path."

   
>  Did Christ die needlessly?  I DON'T KNOW.  Apparently it's *very*
>  important to many people that He did die, so I guess it wasn't 
>  needless.  Does it make a difference in my love for God or for my
>  fellow human being on a day to day basis?  No.  I think not.

   The greatest expression EVER of God's love for us doesn't matter to you?
   This is a core belief of Christians.  It grieves me say it but you are not
   a Christian based on what you've presented as your views.

>  Does that act have to be the cornerstone of *everyone's* journey to 
>  God?  I don't believe so.

   "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: ...It is by the name
   of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the
   dead, that this man stands before you healed.  He is 'the stone you builders
   rejected, WHICH HAS BECOME THE CORNERSTONE.' Salvation is found in NO ONE
   ELSE, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must
   be saved." Acts 4:8-12
   
   How is *THIS* misinterpreted?

   
>> that's fine for you.  But don't expect Christian's to recognize or
>> acknowledge you as a brother when you are unwilling to accept God's word
>> on its own terms.

>  If your love is so dependent on whether or not someone agrees 
>  with you then you have missed the entire point of Christianity.

   You've misunderstood my position.  The word brother was used in the context
   of a fellow Brother or Sister in Christ.  My love for my neighbor is not
   dependent on whether or not he/she agrees with me.  However if I tell
   someone "The bridge is washed out ahead! Turn back!" and they ignore me or
   disagree, have I not still expressed love and concern for them?

   
>   Take a tax collector to lunch and see if you can't find some
>   good in him.

    Jesus did this.  But what did he tell Matthew?  "Follow ME."

   
   Let's back up a minute.  I want to be sure where your coming from.
      Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
      Do you consider the views you are presenting to be Christian?

   If the answer to either of these is yes, then why?  The viewpoint you
   present doesn't require that you name yourself a Christian.

   I have been debating with you from a Christian viewpoint.  The views your
   presenting are *NOT AT ALL* consistent with core Christian beliefs.  You can
   believe what you want but if call it Christian I'm going to take issue with
   it. So would anyone else who calls on the name of Christ for salvation.
   
   You've complained about exclusivity but you fail to recognize the right of a
   group to define its own beliefs.  The Scriptures do this for Christianity.
   You don't go down to the local club or organization and say "I'd like to
   join up and by the way I have my own by-laws. I do not accept yours."

   Do you truly wish to know God on His terms whatever they may be?  If yes,
   are you willing to honestly investigate what God says in the Scriptures.
   Have you honestly ever considered that the view that is plainly presented
   is the truth?  Have you ever even read them through?

   Finally, who is Jesus to Tom Baker;  A good teacher/guru or the one and
   only begotten Son of God who gave His life for ours?

   Michael

    Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the light."  He
    also told a number of people that "No one approaches the
    Father but through me."  He was talking to a bunch of 
    people then and there.  I have 2 interpretations of this:

	1. To the people there He was the only way they
	could get to the Father
	2. The path of love is the only way to approach
	God.

    Others interpret this differently.

>   I dare say your beliefs conflict with the vast majority of what God says.

    I disagree with a narrow, literal, interpretation of the Bible.

>   He bridged the
>   gulf that separates us from God and gives us His Holy Spirit so that we may
>   understand.

    Yes, he did.  He is not the first or the last to do so, however.
    This does not belittle the magnitude of what He's done.
    
>   The greatest expression EVER of God's love for us doesn't matter to you?

    God's expression of love for us goes on and on and on.  My love for
    God is based more on our (Our?) relationship than anything else.
    Jesus's teachings, His work, to me, is what is significant.  More
    significant than His death.

>   Let's back up a minute.  I want to be sure where your coming from.
>      Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
>      Do you consider the views you are presenting to be Christian?

    I am a mystic who is following Christ.  The essence of God is Love.
    The essence of Jesus is also Love (imagine that).  Love is also
    the essence of what Jesus taught.  My path is to God.  Jesus
    helps.  I try to accept help from all who will aid me.  Christ
    and His Church are helping me now.

    I believe that the most important thing anyone can do is love
    God and love his/her neigbor.  The form of the message may be 
    different coming from different sources, gurus, saints, prophets
    or Messiah, and the appearance of many paths may be perceived.
    But growing the love inside yourself and directing it towards
    God is, ultimately, the only way to get to God.  Everything
    else is just "stuff".

    Whatever increases one's love for God is good.  Whatever separates
    one from God is sin.

    I have found  no higher bliss than to worship God, to celebrate
    my association with God.

    I don't believe this conflicts with Christianity, Hinduism,
    Buddhism or any other religion I've encountered.

    If you want to count me out of Christiandom I can't stop you.
    Maybe I'll start my own church just like the Lutherins, 
    Methodists, Unitarians, Quakers, Congregationalists, Baptists,
    Episcopalians did.  (Just kidding :-)  Didn't most of those
    start with someone saying "you're not doing it right"?

    In the end only God will determine who did enough with what
    they were given.

    I'm doing the best I can.  God calls the shots and I try
    not to screw up too much in between.

    Tom

   Tom,
   
   >   Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the light."  He
   >   also told a number of people that "No one approaches the
   >   Father but through me."  He was talking to a bunch of 
   >   people then and there.  I have 2 interpretations of this:

   >	   1. To the people there He was the only way they
   >	   could get to the Father
   >	   2. The path of love is the only way to approach God.

   >  Others interpret this differently.
   
   Jesus made this statement to His disciples during the Last Supper, right
   after Judas had slipped out.  This was not made to a crowd. Further, the two
   sentences were made together.  Here is the passage again:

   Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we
   know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No
   one comes to the Father except through me.  If you really knew me, you would
   know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
   John 14:5-7

   He was telling His disciples a profound truth that applies to all men not
   just them.  His response is personal.  *HE* is the way to the Father.  This
   is not speaking of a formula that can be taught. We are to have a
   relationship with Him.  HE is objective truth.  HE is life everlasting.
   There is no ambiguity here when translating this from the Greek. Throughout
   the Gospels Jesus says *HE* is the way.

   "If you really knew me" could better be rendered "If you have attained a
   realization of who I am, you will know my Father also"

   This is a reference to Christ's deity.

   
   >> He bridged the gulf that separates us from God and gives us His Holy
   >> Spirit so that we may understand.

   >  Yes, he did.  He is not the first or the last to do so, however.

   He is the ONLY one to do so.  I realize you disagree.  I'm just stating the
   Scriptural position

   
   > If you want to count me out of Christiandom I can't stop you.
   > Maybe I'll start my own church just like the Lutherins, 
   > Methodists, Unitarians, Quakers, Congregationalists, Baptists,
   > Episcopalians did.  (Just kidding :-)  Didn't most of those
   > start with someone saying "you're not doing it right"?

   I don't WANT to count you out of Christendom your words do it for you :-(.
   I pray that the real Jesus reveals Himself to you and that you come to
   understand the Gospel.

   Even though you're kidding there is something to be said here.  The founders
   of all of these churches would agree on the core principles of Christianity:
   the [unique] deity of Christ, the virgin birth, salvation by grace through
   faith [in Christ alone], the atonement (necessity of the crucifixion), the
   bodily resurrection.  They disagreed over peripheral issues such as baptism,
   predestination, speaking in tongues, form of worship, etc.  NONE of them
   would accept a church, as Christian, founded on your principles.

   Jesus did not come to found a religion but to call EVERYONE to a personal
   relationship with Himself.

   
   > In the end only God will determine who did enough with what
   > they were given.

   > I'm doing the best I can.  God calls the shots and I try
   > not to screw up too much in between.

   Acceptance by God is not a matter of doing enough, or doing your best, or
   not screwing up.  Our best is not good enough.  *NOTHING* we can do is good
   enough.  This is the very reason Jesus came.  He *knows* we can never live
   the perfect life yet loves us too much to allow us to perish.  He lived the
   perfect life and took the punishment for every sin we've ever committed (or
   ever will commit).  Only God can do this.  This is why there is only "one
   way" to God, His way.

   Christianity is not a religeous system, it's not going to church on Sunday,
   it's not doing good works, it is not a set of rules.  It is a personal
   relationship with Jesus Christ.  Acceptance of the real Jesus is all you
   need.  The rest will follow in due course.

   Michael

   
   P.S.  Have you considered that, within God's providence, the message found
   in this exchange is possibly God "calling the shots".

>   I don't WANT to count you out of Christendom your words do it for you :-(.
>   I pray that the real Jesus reveals Himself to you and that you come to
>   understand the Gospel.

    This is amazing.  The most important thing about Christianity
    is love.  From what I've read in this conference I've seen words
    that I believe go against Christainity over and over.  Total
    lack of compassion, rules before love.  Someone even went so
    far as to call the love of two people an abomination!

    And you say I am not a part of Christianity?  No one in this 
    conference talks about love more than I do.  I'm not proud of
    it, nor did I ever *dream* I'd have to use it as a defence.
    Something is very screwed up here.  I may not be tops in quoting
    scripture but there *is* something in there about specks and
    logs obstructing one's vision.

    Christianity is not about having all the answers and doing everything
    perfectly.  We *all* can stand improvement.  Because my area
    of necessary improvement is not the same as someone else's does
    not exclude me from being a christian.  If I'm wrong about this
    then I'd better stay the **** out of church.

>   relationship with Jesus Christ.  Acceptance of the real Jesus is all you
>   need.  The rest will follow in due course.

    His main message: Love God, Love your neighbor, I accept.  He
    wasn't the first or the last to say it.  It has been taught by
    saints in many part of the world for a long long time.  Even
    the American Indians knew it.  That doesn't make it any less
    important.

    Yes, my beliefs  have to be deepened and shaped.  But who's
    beliefs don't?

    Tom Baker

    Would it be possible to move the ongoing exchange to a more appropriate
    topic or to create a new one for it?
    
    Richard
    

    >   Would it be possible to move the ongoing exchange to a more appropriate
    >   topic or to create a new one for it?

    While its true the current exchange does not often directly refer to
    Hinduism, it is still debating the merits/problems of a Hindu-Christian
    hybrid theology.  Hinduism was mentioned in 136-138.  Admittedly there were
    none in 139 and 140 but the 'love is all you need' philosophy that stems
    from it was.  I'm open to suggestions.

    Michael

>    none in 139 and 140 but the 'love is all you need' philosophy that stems
>    from it was.

    Errr...  I believe the "love is all you need" standpoint is more
    Christian than Hindu.

    I believe most of the thrust of Hinduism is duty without attachment
    and surrender/devotion to God as outlined in the Bagavad Gita.

    I've always thought that the emphasis on love was a Christian thing.
    Am I wrong about that, too?

    Tom

  Z   I've always thought that the emphasis on love was a Christian thing.
  Z   Am I wrong about that, too?
    
    In the sense that you are presenting an incomplete portrait of what
    Christ taught.
    
    Jesus displayed love through righteous indignation.  Jesus used to
    make statements such as, "He who does not hate his mother, his father,
    his sister or brother, yea even his own life is worthy of the kingdom
    of God."  Now obviously I am taking this out of context, but simply to
    make the point that loving our brother as ourself is the second
    greatest commandment...and this love pales compared to the need of
    loving God with our whole heart, soul, and mind.
    
    In order to love God in this way, it is important that we understand
    the nature of God as best we can.  Otherwise, we act out of ignorance.
    Paul the apostle in his quest to love God killed Christians...mainly
    because he didn't understand the nature of God.
    
    -Jack

re: .143
    
>   Errr...  I believe the "love is all you need" standpoint is more
>   Christian than Hindu.

>   I've always thought that the emphasis on love was a Christian thing.
>   Am I wrong about that, too?

    It is not from Christianity, at least not the *all* part.  I assumed this
    stems from trying to reconcile Hinduism and Christianity.  Where do you
    get it from then?  The Beatles?  They also tried to mix these two.
    
re: .140

>   This is amazing.  The most important thing about Christianity
>   is love.

    The most important thing in Christianity is Christ.  Love is only *ONE*
    aspect of the person of Jesus.  What aspect was He displaying when He
    drove the money changers from the temple?   Not love but righteous anger.

>   From what I've read in this conference I've seen words
>   that I believe go against Christainity over and over.  Total
>   lack of compassion, rules before love.

    Was not Jesus showing love when He told Jews they would die in their sins
    if they did not believe He was God?  They sure didn't think so, but He
    was.

    In Matthew 23:13-39 Jesus calls the Pharisees: Hypocrites, sons of hell,
    blind guides, blind fools, whitewashed tombs, snakes and vipers. This was
    for their false understanding and portrayal of God.  The Christians in
    this conference show remarkable restraint sometimes when others portray
    God falsely *AND CALL IT CHRISTIAN*.  False doctrine is not taken lightly
    by God in scripture, neither should Christians!

    Is it not compassionate to warn someone that what they are doing is
    harmful?  Is it loving to allow your children to play in the street
    because we must love them enough to let them do their own thing? 
    Benevolent rules are good and it is not unloving or uncompassionate to
    point them out.  Part of the nature of this conference, or debating forums
    in general, leads to apparent friction between individuals.

    It is a difficult line to walk to correct someone in a loving way, in a
    way that does not give undue offense.  The Christian message *is*
    offensive to those who wish to do their own thing or hear what they want
    to hear.

    Jesus said (John 7:7): "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because
    I testify that what it does is evil." 
 
    Paul writes (Col 1:28): "We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone
    with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ."
   
>   Someone even went so
>   far as to call the love of two people an abomination!

    That 'someone' is God in His word.  Further, the condemnation is of
    certain actions, not love.

    
>   And you say I am not a part of Christianity?  No one in this 
>   conference talks about love more than I do.

    Its is easy to say love, love, but true love corrects error that has
    eternal consequences.

    
>   Christianity is not about having all the answers and doing everything
>   perfectly.

    Where have you heard otherwise?  Have I not said Jesus is *the* answer.
    He's the only one that matters for salvation.  I stated the following in
    398.139:

>>  Christianity is not a religious system, it's not going to church on
>>  Sunday, it's not doing good works, it is not a set of rules.  It is a
>>  personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  Acceptance of the real Jesus is
>>  all you need.
    

>   We *all* can stand improvement.  Because my area
>   of necessary improvement is not the same as someone else's does
>   not exclude me from being a christian.

    You seem to believe that God works to improve what we start out with. 
    This is not what Scripture tells us.  God does not take what have and "fix
    it".  When we become Christian, God gives us a new nature.  Our old nature
    is "put to death".  God does not improve it.  He replaces our old nature
    with His in an ongoing process.

    
>   His main message: Love God, Love your neighbor, I accept.

    Once again, this is not His main message, at least not in the sense of
    your understanding of "Love God".  Encompassed in loving God is the
    acceptance of what Jesus did for us.  Without this one cannot truly love
    God.  This why Hinduism and other religions cannot truly know God.  They
    reject who Jesus claimed to be and what He did for them (as only *He*
    could).  This is crucial to understanding and loving the *true* God.
    Someone in whom God has placed a real desire to know Him will understand
    and accept Jesus when they hear about Him.
    

>   Yes, my beliefs  have to be deepened and shaped.  But who's
>   beliefs don't?

    It is important to note that there is a difference between beliefs that
    save and beliefs that give greater understanding afterward.  I was
    explaining that belief in Jesus is what you need to be right with God.
    "The rest", including deeper understanding, follows later.  It *CAN NOT*
    come first!

    Michael

    This discussion continues in 1077.9

    The following series of replies are excerpts from the book "Death of a
    Guru" by Rabi Maharaj.  Rabi is descended from a long line of Brahmin
    priests (the highest Hindu caste) and whose father was believed to have
    acheived nirvana.  He was well on his way to becoming a Yogi and
    Guru himself when he became a Christian.  He offers personal insight into
    Hinduism and its contrast to true Christianity.

    Michael

    Excepts from "Death of a Guru" by Rabi Maharaj


    I believed in karma.  Whatever you sow you reap, and no one can change
    that.  I didn't believe in forgiveness at all.

    As Hindus we had no concept of forgiveness, because there is no
    forgiveness in karma...

    
    Never in all my years as a Hindu had I heard of a God of love!

    
    ... the conviction had gripped me that this true God must be holy and
    pure.

    
    How wonderfully different from reincarnation was resurrection!  The slate
    was wiped clean, and I eagerly looked forward to the new life I had begun
    in Jesus, my Lord.

    We knew there was no compromise, no possibility blending of Hinduism and
    true Christianity.  They were diametrically opposed,  One was darkness the
    other light.  One represented the many roads that all lead to the same
    destruction; the other was, as Jesus had said, the narrow road to eternal
    life.

    The very people who had bragged about how broadminded Hindus were and who
    had claimed that Hinduism accepts all religions were the most bitter in
    denouncing us for becoming the followers of Christ. And the more we
    listened to those who tried to persuade us to return to he religion of our
    fathers, the more clearly we saw that loyalty to one's religion is seldom
    based upon a desire for truth be is usually an emotional attachment to
    cultural traditions. Philosophically it seems right to many people to
    claim that Hinduism accepts all religions and that everyone is going to
    the same place but by different roads.  Those who plead for mutual
    tolerance and the syncretism of all religions fail to realize that there
    are grave differences which affect one's life.  Such basic realities
    cannot be dismissed be ecumenical agreements.  Mother was committed to the
    Hindu philosophy that there is only one reality - Brahman - and that the
    law of karma demands future payment for past sins.  The rest of us were
    convinced that good and evil are different, and that the Creator is NOT
    the same as his creation.  We had come to know the forgiveness that Jesus
    brings, and we no longer believed in reincarnation.  Between these
    opposite beliefs there was no possible meeting ground, no compromise
    without denying all meaning to language and ideas.

    The self-denial practiced in  Eastern mysticism of all kinds was based on
    the fallacious belief that man's only problem was wrong thinking and that
    he need only "realize" that he was God.  But if I was really Brahman ,
    then I must have known it in the beginning.  What good would it do to
    "realize" once more what I had already known and forgotten?  I would
    surely forget it again.  This was no solution but a lie of Satan
    calculated to blind men to the fact that their sins have separated them
    from God.

    My heart ached as I viewed India's suffering masses.  I marveled that
    Westerners were looking to India for spiritual insight.  From experience I
    knew that Hinduism, with its fatalistic belief in karma, reincarnation,
    and false gods, was the root of India's problems.  What blindness for
    Westerners to turn to Eastern mysticism for enlightenment!  It held
    nothing but darkness, and India's plight bore eloquent testimony as to
    how deep that darkness really was.

    ... new life out of death - a whole new creation through Christ's death
    and resurrection - was the theme of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation,
    the great plan toward which God had been working ever since the fall of
    Adam and Eve.  Christ had not died just to restore Eden's lost Paradise. 
    The human race would only fall again. But Christ had risen from the dead
    in order to live in us, making a new race of twice born men whose hearts
    had become his throne, bringing his kingdom within us.

    It startled me most of all to discover that the philosophy of behind the
    whole counterculture of drugs, rebellion, and rock music was basically
    Hinduism: the same deception about the unity of all life, vegetarianism,
    evolving upward to union with the Universe, and doing one's own thing.

    Slowly, and with a growing sense of alarm, I became convinced that Satan
    was masterminding an invasion of the West with Eastern mysticism.

    
    At the end of one of my lectures at Harvard University's Science Center, a
    dissatisfied student stood up to challenge me with the final question of
    the evening.  "Mr. Maharaj," be began with a critical, sarcastic tone,
    "you have turned from Hinduism to Christianity.  How would you react to
    someone in your present position who turns to your former position?" 
    Pausing a moment and looking to God for the right answer to this important
    question, I replied:
      "I would NEVER be able to understand how anyone in my present position
      could ever turn back to my former position if he were REALLY in my
      present position.  From my observation, the Westerners who are turning
      to the East simply never knew Christ personally."

    After giving a lecture at a teacher's training college in Switzerland, I
    was challenged by the head of the religious department, who was also a
    State Church pastor.  Expressing his disapproval of my lecture on
    comparative religions, he said: "I was a missionary in India for 20 years,
    and I saw the Indian worshipping his stone god.  I believe that when the
    Indian worships his idols he is worshipping the God of the Bible.  You are
    not helping the understanding we need between religions by making out that
    there are these drastic differences!"

    "Reverend," I replied, "I WAS that Indian worshipping stone gods.  Today I
    worship the God of the Bible, and I think that I am qualified to tell you
    that they are NOT the same - they are worlds apart!"
    

    Excepts from "Death of a Guru" by Rabi Maharaj

As a Hindu:

    Through Yoga I experienced increasingly the presence of spirit beings who
    were guiding me and giving me psychic powers.  The gods were real!

    In Yogic trance I felt oneness with the whole universe; I was no different
    than a bug or a cow or a distant star. We all took part of the same
    Essence.  Everything was Brahman and Brahman was everything.  "And that
    thou art!" said the Vedas, telling me that Brahman was my true Self, the
    god within that I worshipped sitting in front of a mirror.


As the Holy Spirit convicted him:

    I now feared the astral travel and the spirit visitations I had once
    exulted in, but I knew no other way to search for God than through Yoga.
    My religion, my training, my experience in meditation - all had taught me
    that only by looking within myself could I find truth...The search within
    proved futile.  Instead of finding God, I only stirred up a nest of
    evil...

    I had discovered that each step closer to the Hindu gods was a step
    farther from the true God I sought.

    I had struggled for Self-realization, looking within, trying to realize
    that I was God.  I had only realized that I was hopelessly lost.


As a Christian:

    Yogic visions and  higher states of consciousness in deep meditation - all
    these things, once so thrilling and self-exalting, had become dust and
    ashes.  What I was experiencing now was not just another psychic trip...
    He [Jesus] had come to live in me.  I knew he had taken my sins away.  I
    knew he had made me a new person on the inside.  Never had I been so
    genuinely happy.  I was in communion with God and I knew it.  I was one of
    God's children now.  I had been born again.

    We understood at last that the cause of all of these things had ... [been]
    spirit beings the Bible called "demons" - angels who had rebelled with
    Satan against God and were trying to confuse and to deceive men into
    joining their rebellion.  They were the real power behind the idols and
    every philosophy that denied the true God his rightful place as Creator
    and Lord.  I now understood that these were the beings I had met in Yogic
    trance and deep meditation...

    ... body control and Eastern meditation - which we now knew opened one's
    mind to the domination of evil spirits.

    I listened in amazement as they described the "beautiful and peaceful
    world" they often entered through LSD, a world whose psychedelic sights
    and sounds were all too familiar to me. "I didn't need drugs to have
    visions of other worlds and weird beings, and to see psychedelic colors
    and to sense a oneness with the universe and the feeling that I was God,"
    I would tell them.  "I got it all by transcendental meditation.  But it
    was a lie, a trick of evil spirits who took over my mind when I relaxed
    control of it.  You're being deceived.  The only way to find the peace and
    fulfillment you seek is through Christ."

----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute.  It may not be altered or edited in any way.  It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge.  All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
Research Institute").  This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold.  This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.

If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit:  Copyright 1994 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Death of a Guru: The Personal Testimony of Rabi Maharaj" (an
article from the Christian Research Newsletter, Volume 3: Number 3,
1990) by Rabi Maharaj.
    The editor of the Christian Research Newsletter is Ron
Rhodes.

-------------

    No matter how fulfilling life becomes, there are always certain
regrets when one looks back. My deepest sense of loss involves my
father. So much has happened since his death. I often wonder what
it would be like to share it all with him, and what his reaction
would be.

    We never shared anything in our lives. Because of vows he had
taken before I was born, not once did he ever speak to me or pay me
the slightest heed. Just two words from him would have made me
unspeakably happy. How I wanted to hear him say, "Rabi. Son." Just
once. But he never did.

    For eight long years he uttered not a word. The trancelike
condition he had achieved is called in the East a state of higher
consciousness and can be attained only through deep meditation.

    "Why is Father that way?" I would ask my mother, still too
young to understand. "He is someone very special -- the greatest
man you could have for a father," she would reply. "He is seeking
the true Self that lies within us all, the One Being, of which
there is no other. And that's what you are too, Rabi."

    Father had set an example, achieved wide acclaim, and earned
the worship of many, and it was inevitable that upon his death his
mantle would fall upon me. I had never imagined, however, that I
would still be so young when this fateful day arrived.

    When father died I felt I had lost everything. Though I had
scarcely known him as my father, he had been my inspiration -- _a
god_ -- and now he was dead.

    At his funeral, my father's stiff body was placed on a great
npile of firewood. The thought of his body being sacrificed to
Agni, the god of fire, added a new dimension of mystery to the
bewilderment and deep sense of loss that already overwhelmed me.

    As the flames engulfed him, it was impossible to suppress the
anguish I felt. "Mommy!" I screamed. "Mommy!" If she heard me above
the roar of sparks and fire, she made no indication. A true Hindu,
she found strength to follow the teaching of Krishna: she would
mourn neither the living nor the dead. Not once did she cry as the
flames consumed my father.

    After my father's funeral, I became a favorite subject for the
palm-readers and astrologers who frequented our house. Our family
would hardly make an important decision without consulting an
astrologer, so it was vital that my future be confirmed in the same
way. It was encouraging to learn that the lines on my palms and the
planets and stars, according to those who interpreted them, all
agreed I would become a great Hindu leader. I was obviously a
chosen vessel, destined for early success in the search for union
with Brahman (the One). The forces that had guided my father were
now guiding me.

    I was only eleven and already many people were bowing before
me, laying gifts of money, cotton cloth, and other treasures at my
feet and hanging garlands of flowers around my neck at religious
ceremonies.

    How I loved religious ceremonies -- especially private ones in
our own home or those of others, where friends and relatives would
crowd in. There I would be the center of attention, admired by all.
I loved to move through the audience, sprinkling holy water on
worshipers or marking foreheads with the sacred white sandalwood
paste. I also loved how the worshipers, after the ceremony, bowed
low before me to leave their offerings at my feet.

    While vacationing at an Aunt's ranch, I had my first real
encounter with Jesus. I was walking along enjoying nature one day
and was startled by a rustling sound in the underbrush behind me.
I turned quickly and, to my horror, saw a large snake coming
directly toward me -- its beady eyes staring intently into mine. I
felt paralyzed, wanting desperately to run but unable to move.

    In that moment of frozen terror, out of the past came my
mother's voice, repeating words I had long forgotten: "Rabi, if
ever you're in real danger and nothing else seems to work, there's
another god you can pray to. His name is Jesus."

    "Jesus! Help me!" I tried to yell, but the desperate cry was
choked and hardly audible.

    To my astonishment, the snake turned around and quickly
wriggled off into the underbrush. Breathless and still trembling,
I was filled with wondering gratitude to this amazing god, Jesus.
Why had my mother not taught me more about him?

    During my third year in high school I experienced an
increasingly deep inner conflict. My growing awareness of God as
the Creator, separate and distinct from the universe He had made,
contradicted the Hindu concept that god was everything, that the
Creator and the Creation were one and the same. If there was only
One Reality, then Brahman was evil as well as good, death as well
as life, hatred as well as love. That made everything meaningless,
life an absurdity. It was not easy to maintain both one's sanity
and the view that good and evil, love and hate, life and death were
One Reality.

    One day a friend of my cousin Shanti, whose name was Molli,
came by to visit. She asked me about whether I found Hinduism
fulfilling. Trying to hide my emptiness, I lied and told her I was
very happy and that my religion was the Truth. She listened
patiently to my pompous and sometimes arrogant pronouncements.
Without arguing, she exposed my emptiness gently with politely
phrased questions.

    She told me that Jesus had brought her close to God. She also
said that God is a God of love and that He desires us to be close
to Him. As appealing as this sounded to me, I stubbornly resisted,
not willing to surrender my Hindu roots.

    Still, I found myself asking, "What makes you so happy? You
must have been doing a lot of meditation."

    "I used to," Molli responded, "but not any more. Jesus has
given me a peace and joy that I never knew before." Then she said,
"Rabi, you don't seem very happy. Are you?"

    I lowered my voice: "I'm not happy. I wish I had your joy." Was
I saying this?

    "My joy is because my sins are forgiven," said Molli. "Peace
and joy come from Christ, through really knowing Him."

    We continued talking for half a day, unaware of how the time
had passed. I wanted her peace and joy, but I was _absolutely
resolved_ that I wasn't going to give up any part of my religion.

    As she was leaving, she said: "Before you go to bed tonight,
Rabi, please get on your knees and ask God to show you the Truth --
and I'll be praying for you." With a wave of her hand she was gone.

    Pride demanded that I reject everything Molli had said, but I
was too desperate to save face any longer. I fell to my knees,
conscious that I was giving in to her request.

    "God, the true God and Creator, please show me the truth!"
Something inside me snapped. For the first time in my life, I felt
I had really prayed and gotten through -- not to some impersonal
Force, but to the true God who loves and cares. Too tired to think
any longer, I crawled into bed and fell asleep almost instantly.

    Soon after, my cousin Krishna invited me to a Christian
meeting. I again surprised myself by responding: "Why not?"

    On our way there, Krishna and I were joined by Ramkair, a new
acquaintance of his. "Do you know anything about this meeting?" I
asked him, anxious to get some advance information.

    "A little," he replied. "I became a Christian recently."

    "Tell me," I said eagerly. "Did Jesus really change your life?"
    Ramkair smiled broadly. "He sure did! Everything is different."

    "It's really true, Rab!" added Krishna enthusiastically. "I've
become a Christian too -- just a few days ago."

    The preacher's sermon was based on Psalm 23, and the words,
"The Lord is my shepherd," made my heart leap. After expounding the
Psalm, the preacher said: "Jesus wants to be your Shepherd. Have
you heard His voice speaking to your heart? Why not open your heart
to Him now? Don't wait until tomorrow -- that may be too late!" The
preacher seemed to be speaking directly to me. I could delay no
longer.

    I quickly knelt in front of him. He smiled and asked if anyone
else wanted to receive Jesus. No one stirred. Then he asked the
Christians to come forward and pray with me. Several did, kneeling
beside me. For years Hindus had bowed before me -- and now I was
kneeling before a Christian.

    Aloud I repeated after him a prayer inviting Jesus into my
heart. When the preacher said, "Amen," he suggested I pray in my
own words. Quietly, choking with emotion, I began: "Lord Jesus,
I've never studied the Bible, but I've heard that you died for my
sins at Calvary so I could be forgiven and reconciled to God.
Please forgive me all my sins. Come into my heart!"

    Before I finished, I knew that Jesus wasn't just another one of
several million gods. He was the God for whom I had hungered. He
Himself was the Creator. Yet, He loved me enough to become a man
and die for my sins. With that realization, tons of darkness seemed
to lift and a brilliant light flooded my soul.

    After arriving home, Krishna and I found the entire family
waiting up for us, apparently having heard what had happened. "I
asked Jesus into my life tonight!" I exclaimed happily, as I looked
from one to another of those startled faces. "It's glorious. I
can't tell you how much he means to me already."

    Some in my family seemed wounded and bewildered; others seemed
happy for me. But before it was all over with, thirteen of us had
ended up giving our hearts to Jesus! It was incredible.

    The following day I walked resolutely into the prayer room with
Krishna. Together we carried everything out into the yard: idols,
Hindu scriptures, and religious paraphernalia. We wanted to rid
ourselves of every tie with the past and with the powers of
darkness that had blinded and enslaved us for so long.

    When everything had been piled on the rubbish heap, we set it
on fire and watched the flames consume our past. The tiny figures
we once feared as gods were turning to ashes. We hugged one another
and offered thanks to the Son of God who had died to set us free.

    I found my thoughts going back to my father's cremation nearly
eight years before. In contrast to our new found joy, that scene
had aroused inconsolable grief. My father's body had been offered
to the very same false gods who now lay in smoldering fragments
before me. It seemed unbelievable that I should be participating
with great joy in the utter destruction of that which represented
all I had once believed in so fanatically.

    In a sense this was my cremation ceremony -- the end of the
person I had once been...the death of a guru. The old Rabi Maharaj
had died in Christ. And out of that grave a new Rabi had risen in
whom Christ was now living.


(_Editor's Note:_ If you would be interested in a detailed account
of Rabi's conversion, read his book _Death of a Guru._ Rabi is
presently based in Southern California and is involved in
evangelism all over the world. He invites you to write: East/West
Gospel Ministries, P.O. Box 2191, La Habra, CA 90632.)

-------------

End of document, CRN0025A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"Death of a Guru: The Personal Testimony of Rabi Maharaj"
release A, June 30, 1994
R. Poll, CRI

(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

YOURS FOR THE ASKING

The Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the
late Dr. Walter R. Martin -- is a clearing house for current, in-
depth information on new religious movements and aberrant
Christian teachings.  We provide well-reasoned,
carefully-researched answers to concepts and ideas that challenge
orthodox Christianity.

Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking?  We offer a wide variety of
articles and fact sheets free of charge.  Our informative
newsletter is freely available upon request as well.  Write or
call us today for information on topics of interest to you.  Our
first-rate staff will do everything possible to help you.

Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA  92693

(714) 855-9926

---------------
End of file.

    Each religion has many adherents.  Some understand what it is
    about and others babble on about what they think is important.
    Unfortunately, the latter usually ends up being what the culture
    starts to mirror and is taken for truth.
    
    God, Hindu or Christian, is not, as Rabi says, an impersonal force.
    It is ultimately intelligent, compassionate and wise.  God is not 
    to be manipulated, despite what either some Christians or Hindus believe.
    
    Christianity is right for some people and not right for others.  If
    anyone thinks Christianity is for them, they're probably right.
    
    For as many Hindus who persue Christianity, there are probably at
    least as many Christians who persue Hinduism.  As an aside, studying
    other religions will frequently deepen your own.  It certainly helped
    Gandhi.
    
    It is not surprising that a boy of about 17 would reject a philosophy,
    however misunderstood, that he perceived kept his father away from
    him, and take an "opposite" path.
    
    There is much misunderstood about Hinduism and about Christianity.
    Both have been used over the centuries to enslave and control people.
    "Stone gods" are not for worshipping.  They should be no more worshiped
    that two boards nailed together.  It is what it represents that counts.
    It is a symbol.  Also, the proper understanding of Hindu "gods" is
    that they are all different aspects of the same ONE God.

    I don't know.  I might not understand how Hinduism is practiced.  But
    what I've been taught about Hinduism pointed at what Rabi believed 
    and said it is not the right way to proceed.  Simply because many
    people misunderstand a religion doesn't mean it's not valid.
    
    Tom

    Frequently converts are the harshest critics of their former ways.
    This tendency occurs even among ex-smokers and formerly carnivorous
    vegetarians.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Re  .151

>   Some understand what it is
>   about and others babble on about what they think is important.

    And others make up their own.  I say this not as a jibe.  Really, you have
    never given any basis to your brand of religion other than your
    experience.

>   Unfortunately, the latter usually ends up being what the culture
>   starts to mirror and is taken for truth.

    That's why Christians trust in God and His Word which never changes.  This
    is exactly what many who claim the name of Christ but do not belong to Him
    do.  They judge the Scripture by the culture not the other way around.

>   God, Hindu or Christian, is not, as Rabi says, an impersonal force.

    Rabi never claimed the God of Christianity is an impersonal force (though
    I'm not sure you really meant to imply this).  But He does claim that true
    Hinduism contains this picture of God.

>   God is not to be manipulated...
 
    God CANNOT be manipulated (not saying you disagree).

>   Christianity is right for some people and not right for others. 

    A true follower of Jesus could never make this statement.

>   For as many Hindus who persue Christianity, there are probably at
>   least as many Christians who persue Hinduism.

    But they are NOT Christians.  They have not encountered the true God that
    is Jesus Christ.  Anyone can say they are "Christian" but not everyone has
    a personal relationship with God though the work of Christ on the cross. 
    No TRUE Christian could ever do this.  As Rabi said "I would NEVER be able
    to understand how anyone in my present position could ever turn back to my
    former position if he were REALLY in my present position.  From my
    observation, the Westerners who are turning to the East simply never knew
    Christ personally."

>   As an aside, studying other religions will frequently deepen your own.

    Agreed in the sense of knowing your enemies (that being religious systems
    not individuals).  Only God actually deepens the Christian's faith in Him. 
    What have I been doing but this?  I bought "Death of a Guru" for the
    purpose of understanding Hinduism (and you) better.

>   It certainly helped Gandhi.

    Helped him how?

>   It is not surprising that a boy of about 17 would reject a philosophy,
>   however misunderstood, that he perceived kept his father away from
>   him, and take an "opposite" path.

    This is a clear trivialization of Rabi's testimony.  His whole household
    came to know Christ many more older he.  He's now in his fifties and has
    spent his life studying and debating the differences.  This is a typical
    attempt to attack the witness and avoid the issues.

>   There is much misunderstood about Hinduism and about Christianity.
>   Both have been used over the centuries to enslave and control people.

    Not the least of which is that TRUE Christianity has NEVER been used to
    enslave anybody.  It is true freedom.

>   "Stone gods" are not for worshipping.  They should be no more worshiped
>   that two boards nailed together.  It is what it represents that counts.
>   It is a symbol.  Also, the proper understanding of Hindu "gods" is
>   that they are all different aspects of the same ONE God.

    The understanding of Hinduism that comes across in his book is no
    different.  But they do have stone images of the "gods" all over the
    place.  The statement was from an "outsider" and the point was that Rabi
    was much more qualified to say that the God of Christianity and the God of
    Hinduism are not the same than he was (or you are).

>   I don't know.  I might not understand how Hinduism is practiced.  But
>   what I've been taught about Hinduism pointed at what Rabi believed
>   and said it is not the right way to proceed.

    Having not read his book I can understand (a little) why you might say
    this.  But his understanding is far deeper that you give him credit. 
    Rabi grew up with Hinduism.  He studied under highly respected gurus. 
    His mother holds the title of a swami.  He was highly respected in his
    community (practically worshipped).  To sit here from our culture and
    accuse him of not knowing what Hinduism is really about is almost
    unbelievable.

    Michael

    Christianity, like all things human is a creation of mere mortals.
    What is important is not Christianity itself, but that which truly
    inspires Christianity and every other religion.  
    
    One Truth!, One Divine, One Ultimate Reality!

>    And others make up their own.  I say this not as a jibe.  Really, you have
>    never given any basis to your brand of religion other than your
>    experience.

    At some point some feel that one needs to sit down and decide
    what it is they believe.  I know you don't agree with this, but
    as part of Congregational beliefs each generation has to find
    or perceive God for themselves.

    One starts out with scripture and then, through their experience,
    interprets it.  I believe to take scripture at face value and 
    believe the most obvious interpretation as the truth many times
    misses the mark.  Jesus had to explain His parables more than
    once.  Personal interpretation I find is necessary.

>    But He does claim that true
>    Hinduism contains this picture of (an impersonal) God.

    Judging from the Hindus I've know and learned from, this is not
    the case.  I'm not saying that some Hindus wouldn't like to keep
    it that way, to keep God at arm's length.  Others might view the
    Old Testement God as being impersonal.  If you can't have God
    with you all the time, what's the point?

>>   Christianity is right for some people and not right for others. 
>
>    A true follower of Jesus could never make this statement.

    I disagree.

>    No TRUE Christian could ever do this.  As Rabi said "I would NEVER be able
>    to understand how anyone in my present position could ever turn back to my
>    former position if he were REALLY in my present position.  From my
>    observation, the Westerners who are turning to the East simply never knew
>    Christ personally."

    Millions are happy with their Hinduism.  Millions of Christians are
    happy with their Christianity.  Hinduism just wasn't for Rabi.  It's
    good he changed.  For those to whom Christianity doesn't speak it
    is good that they seek God some other way.  Who knows?  Maybe some
    will be moved to come back to Christianity :-)
    
>>   As an aside, studying other religions will frequently deepen your own.
>
>    Agreed in the sense of knowing your enemies (that being religious systems
>    not individuals).  

    That's the scariest thing I've ever seen you write.  I believe you
    to be a peaceful and fair man, but such arguements have been used 
    to justify attrocities, such as the genocide of the native peoples
    of North America.

>    What have I been doing but this?  I bought "Death of a Guru" for the
>    purpose of understanding Hinduism (and you) better.
    
    That's one of the nicest things I've seen you write.  But the book
    that pretty much sums up my belief, beliefs I had before I read it,
    if you can find it try _WORSHIP_ by Evelyn Underhill.  If you do 
    find and read it (not an easy read) I believe it will deepen and
    strengthen your faith and your joy.  Evelyn was a Christian mystic
    who lived into the 1940s.  She was also British.
    
>>   It certainly helped Gandhi.
>
>    Helped him how?

    I understand that Gandhi was disillusioned by the hypocracy and
    corruption of contemporary Hindu society.  At some point he read
    Thoreau and (Tolstoy's?) _The Kingdom of Heaven Is Within_ and
    then framed his plan for Indian independence.

    Many have been disillusioned by the hypocracy and corruption of 
    contemporary Christian society.  Many have found spiritual sustanance
    through reading Eastern philosophy.  Not everyone fits into their
    culture of origin.

>    This is a clear trivialization of Rabi's testimony.  His whole household
>    came to know Christ many more older he.  He's now in his fifties and has
>    spent his life studying and debating the differences.  This is a typical
>    attempt to attack the witness and avoid the issues.

    You're asking me not to question the motives of the author.
    He has an agenda just like the rest of us.  It is a valid point
    and should be made.
    
>>   There is much misunderstood about Hinduism and about Christianity.
>>   Both have been used over the centuries to enslave and control people.
>
>    Not the least of which is that TRUE Christianity has NEVER been used to
>    enslave anybody.  It is true freedom.

    Agreed.  And the same goes for Hinduism and Islam.  But societies
    bend religion to their own culture and people bend it to their
    own ends.  For example: the veil in Islam, the caste system in
    India and the Spanish Inquisition.  All deadly but in different
    ways.

    I just don't want one group's interpretation of God to determine
    the tollerence of dissenting thought.

>    place.  The statement was from an "outsider" and the point was that Rabi
>    was much more qualified to say that the God of Christianity and the God of
>    Hinduism are not the same than he was (or you are).

    Apparently, Rabi doesn't have the same fondness or respect for Hinduism
    that I do.  As I pointed out, Rabi has his agenda too.  That doesn't,
    in and of itself, make him wrong.  But like anything else, it has to
    be taken into acount.

>    His mother holds the title of a swami.  

    Swami simply means she's taken the vows of sanyas: celebacy, poverty
    and obedience to God.  The person "dies" and receives a new name.

>    He was highly respected in his
>    community (practically worshipped).  To sit here from our culture and
>    accuse him of not knowing what Hinduism is really about is almost
>    unbelievable.

    It's not unlike someone from this tradition going over there and
    saying the Christianity is all about hellfire and brimstone and
    hypocracy.  That there is rule after rule that must be followed
    and if you slip even a little bit, God will drop you into the
    flaming pit.  And everyone's running around scared to death
    that the devil is after him.

    It's comparing one religion's good points with another's bad
    points.  Everybody's guilty of it.

    Dr. Richard Alpert, PhD was dissatisfied with Western religion and
    society.  He later went to India and changed his name to Ram Das.
    Before he started seeking he also was highly respected.

    Right now I'm following the path of Christianity.  I don't know
    all there is to know about it.  If/when God wants me to change,
    I will.  I'd be silly to think it was my decision.

    Tom 

    Z    Christianity, like all things human is a creation of mere mortals.
    Z    What is important is not Christianity itself, but that which truly
    Z    inspires Christianity and every other religion.  
     
    Interesting.  Curiosity question.  In your mind, what gives
    Christianity credence to you?  In other words, what was it that drew
    you toward a church that leans toward Jesus Christ as opposed to
    say....Judaism or Islam?
       
    Z    One Truth!, One Divine, One Ultimate Reality!
    
    Yes, just as Jesus proclaimed many times!
    
    -Jack

>    Christianity, like all things human is a creation of mere mortals.

Sez you.

What about the person of Jesus?  Did mere mortals create him?  Man-made God?

If so, then I would renounce Christianity.

Yet I do not, because I believe that Jesus is God made Man.

/john

>    Christianity, like all things human is a creation of mere mortals.



     So, man (humans) came up with a "novel" in which he descibes himself
     as a hopeless, deceitful sinner who can not possibly save himself, and
     then created the solution for his hopelessness and sinfulness in the person
     of Jesus Christ, God in human form, who would one day ultimatly rule
     the world?  In other words, man, with his "superior intellegence cannot
     save himself, he must depend on the God who created him for his salvation?

     Man is far to arrogant and selfish to create such a concept.



 Jim

    John, Jim,
    
    Be assured that nowhere did I say that God or Jesus are creations of
    mortal.  There is a Divine reality.  There is only one Divine reality.
    
    Christianity is an imperfect attempt by mortals to comprehend,
    communicate, and teach about that Divine reality which is only
    partially revealed to humans.  We as humans get in serious trouble when
    we substitute and mistake the institution created for Worship for the
    Divine force itself which is the only thing worthy of our Worship.
    
    The natural state of humans is imperfection not depravity. 
    Imperfection by its very  usage implies a striving toward that which is
    perfect, yet a striving that can and will never be satisfied.  Our
    institutions (business, religious, educational, political) are no
    better than the collective of humans that create them.  Since all
    humans are imperfect, then all institutions are imperfect.
    
    Grace allows us to live life fully in open acknowledgement of the
    imperfection of ourselves and of our institutions.
    
    
    
			
                                         

    I'm currently taking an Asian Civilizations class to learn more about
    the cultures.  The first part of the class covers India.  I've read
    quite a bit about Hinduism and Hindus in here, but don't recall anyone
    ever mentioning a couple things that I've already been exposed to:
    
    1. Hinduism is actually Brahmanism, which was never intended to be a
       universal religion.  This religion was only for Aryan Brahman
       priests.  Anyone other than a Brahman priest hearing the words of
       the Rig Veda would have molten lead poured in their ears.  I know
       how it evolved, but just don't see how followers can be justified 
       outside of India.  A PBS video shown in class even mentioned how
       Westerners in India seeking enlightenment aren't really accepted as
       Hindus either.  Anyone care to comment on this?
    
    2. We've been told in here that Hinduism's 3,000,000+ gods are
       manifestations of 1 god.  However, here's a quote that sheds some
       interesting light on this:
    
       "The evolution of a monistic principle of creation, however, came
       only at the *VERY END* of the Rig Veda (Book X, hymn 129), when we find
       a neuter pronoun and numeral, Tad Ekam, "That One," cited as the source
       of all creation, anticipating differentiation of any sort and all
       deities, self-existent, self-gathering, unique." 
    
    {"A New History of India." Stanley Wolpert, Professor of History, UCLA}
    
    It is interesting to contrast this to the Bible and know that God made
    His triune nature known right up front in the first chapter of Genesis.
    No attempt at reconciliation was needed to end the Bible with as in the
    Rig Veda.  
    
    The concept of "Tad Ekam" makes one wonder if ideas were "borrowed"
    from Middle Eastern cultures.  It is well known that India was a heavy
    exporter of cotton (and some other goods) so maybe it is possible ideas
    were picked up by travelers and merchants.  Other "borrowed" ideas show
    up in Mahayana Buddhism too (btw - Buddhism has experienced major
    overhauls too, but that is another topic for another time).  The Rig
    Veda was oral tradition until ~300 years after the New Testament
    was written.  In stark contrast, the Old Testament was documented for
    the first time ~500 B.C.  
    
    Mike

>    It is interesting to contrast this to the Bible and know that God made
>    His triune nature known right up front in the first chapter of Genesis.

    Um, not trying to be difficult, but I just re-read the first chapter of
    Genesis to try to follow your assertion and can't figure out how He made
    His triune nature known. Could you explain? The first chapter is everything
    after the big number 1, but before the big number 2, right? It contains 31
    verses? I'm using a "New American Standard Bible". I bought it just so I
    could follow some of these conversations, but I still get confused a lot.
    Sorry to bother. I just get really curious sometimes about what the Bible
    actually says. Haven't read the whole thing, of course. 

    John
    

    RE: .160

    Is that supposed to mean something?

    Has the heart of a religion and the way it was practiced
    ever been different?

    No offence to John Covert or the Roman Catholic church, but
    that's like saying that the Roman Catholic church is the
    final word on what Christianity is.

    Pick a religion, find some adherents and sooner or later
    you'll find something to argue about, to point at and claim
    that you now have proof that these people don't know what's
    really going on.

    Tom

    No problem, John.  Some are the clues are subtle and require inspection
    of the pronouns and original Hebrew.  btw - nice choice on the NAS, my
    personal favorite.
    
| 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    
    Right off the bat, the word used for God in chapter 1 is "Elohim."  The
    singular form of God is "El."  Quite a few Hebrew plural nouns end in
    "-im."  Other examples: cherubim, seraphim, etc.  Elohim is a compound
    unity form - 1 God, yet a plural nature.

| 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
| them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
| over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
| creepeth upon the earth.

    Look at the personal pronouns in the first line of this verse.  Elohim
    says let *US* make man in *OUR* image.  Elohim is 1 God, yet you have
    plural personal pronouns.
    
    Mike

    Tom, you didn't attempt to address the reconciliation, but thanks
    anyway.  Your analogy doesn't apply.  Christianity has always been
    universal.  Hinduism has not and was never intended to be.  I can
    understand if there are Aryan Brahman priests living in America.  That
    way you can have legitimate Hindus here.
    
    Mike